Cheeki Rafiki loss report

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Paolo,

The report says it will not assign blame therefore it cannot call out any responsible party. It can only make recommendations which it does.

But if after reading the report one cannot see any possibility of a design defect in the recommendations then I'm not sure what will convince. Any design that has a deadly failure mode with no adequate means of inspection and repair is defective by definition.

Yes, but face to a design defect the report, without attributing blame would say that this or that part of the boat is inadequately designed to warrant safety in what the boat was designed to perform (Class A) and should be modified this or that way.

Instead the report only talks about inadequate maintenance and the need of a proper protocol for repairs. Pretty clear all this.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

[COLOR="Navy"]I thought this is what I said. The first surveyor you cited blamed poor maintenance after all the groundings, but cited that exclusively. The final MAIB & RYA reports acknowledged this record, but concluded that the underlying problem was the poor design & construction of the joint itself, exacerbated by the use of the liner/matrix. ....

Again, this particular side-issue is not about debating the reports' conclusions, but rather agreeing on what the various reports actually said

I don't think this is a side issue and I only know a serious investigation, the MAIB one. What other reports regarding other investigations are you talking about?

Again I ask you to show me where on the report is concluded that "the underlying problem was the poor design & construction of the joint itself, exacerbated by the use of the liner/matrix."

Certainly if the conclude that it is on the conclusions but I cannot find anything about that, only the references about poor maintenance and the need of a protocol for repairing the matrix bond when needed. Please quote the relevant part, it could have missed it.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

I suspected that. I will be doing the same in about 10 days or so...for the next 5 months. I will not be around anymore for a while

No topic is as interesting as real sailing. Have fun, fair winds

Thanks! Hope you have a wonderful summer sailing the Med..and enjoy that great food and wonderful wine!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

You that defend a non regulated market think that it is not to the buyers to know what they are buying? Do you think that customers will not be able to distinguish between a Ferrari and a Ford Focus or between a Main market boat and a cruiser-racer?

Don't think I've ever weighed in on whether the yacht market should be more or less regulated. All I ever recall opining on is a need for increased accountability & responsibility on the part of mfgs. and buyers as necessary given how unregulated the boat market actually is. At the same time, I don't think it's too much to ask of a leading mfg. like Beneteau to publish their protocols for keel inspection intervals before one of their keels fall off and four people die. Who knows, maybe one day they'll even get around to advising their customers on exactly how to inspect this critical component of their boats and, lo & behold, maybe even how to go about repairing them!

If that is the case it will be a very misinformed sailor. I would say that someone before buying a boat should inform himself about boats and sailing, about what he wants from a sailing boat, the advantages and disadvantages of each type of sailboat for the given type of sailing he wants to do.

Does this include the intricacies of matrix a/k/a hull liner construction around the keel joint, the inaccessibility of the keel-hull joint for inspection, the consequences of groundings one will inevitably experience on their "racer-cruisers," and the fact that failure to overcome these issues could result in the keel falling off and the boat overturning w/o warning? How many Bene 40.7's do you think would have been sold if prospective buyers were so informed?

Regarding Sweden yachts it is odd you never heard about them. The Sweden yacht 42 was for many years my dream boat (the one that lost the keel), off course only a dream since it was one of the more expensive 42fts around.

Call me nostalgic, but my interest has always been focused more on the more traditional American-built boats. Not racers, racer-cruisers, cruiser-racers, performance-cruisers, or whatever label is being used these days by marketing depts. Just well-built, medium to medium-heavy displacement boats from reputable mfgs. that have respectable speed, are unquestionably seaworthy, definitely seakindly, and with beautiful overhangs and aesthetics that leave me with wobbly knees. Not your personal choice I know, but what the hey. That Sweden 54 in the vid is stunning, however, no doubt about it, and thanks for the marketing snippet from the mfg.'s brochure.

"History of Sweden Yachts
It all started in 1976 with a yacht (Sverige) that was built for America’s Cup. Since then, Sweden Yachts has developed into being one of the world’s leading producers of luxurious, high quality sailing yachts, helping customers to find and participate in buying the boat of their dreams. Sweden Yachts is represented by people with ambitions to construct, produce and sell the best yachts, and they never compromise about quality.
The yard is located in Stenungsund Sweden, where they produce 25-30 yachts/year.."

Buy & Sell Used Boats - Boat Information - Boatmatch.com (Sweden)

As in all boats, **** can happen. Here you have a Sweden Yacht 45 going down with a rudder problem:

The caption underneath says the "rudder was all but knocked off in an impact with the submerged object (possibly a whale?)." Now I'd have to say that comes closer to your "**** happens" category. But keels are bad enough, I don't wanna start yet another debate about rudders!

and here you have a 54 sailing, a beautiful boat:

Polux, whether to put failures like this in the "**** happens" or "design defect" box comes down to whether there is a pattern of failures, whether that pattern is consistent with the build issues the yard guys are seeing every day, and is one in which the mfgs. are failing to address. Unlike wings falling off airplanes, loss of life from these types of basic structural/safety system failures on boats will not be eliminated unless there is some sort of outcry, or maybe a lawsuit, sorry to say. There's an awful lot of positive things to say about Bene's and other modern boats as I've learned from you & others on these threads, but as an obviously enthusiastic sailor yourself, I'm frankly surprised how you seem to consistently rush to the defense of the mfgs. and are so eager to defend the status quo. Thus far, nobody's talking about any punitive measures against the mfg. or indicting every Beneteau or similarly built brand!

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes, but face to a design defect the report, without attributing blame would say that this or that part of the boat is inadequately designed to warrant safety in what the boat was designed to perform (Class A) and should be modified this or that way.

Instead the report only talks about inadequate maintenance and the need of a proper protocol for repairs. Pretty clear all this.

The report does say that boat should not have been making that trip because it was not current with its regulatory rating. They used an ambiguous loophole to get around the rules to save some money. The report says this will be corrected in the future and in fact that recommendation has already been acted on. Today the regulatory body in the UK will not permit that passage under those specific circumstances.

[Robin3]

[QUOTE=transmitterdan;1821194]The report does say that boat should not have been making that trip because it was not current with its regulatory rating. They used an ambiguous loophole to get around the rules to save some money. The report says this will be corrected in the future and in fact that recommendation has already been acted on. Today the regulatory body in the UK will not permit that passage under those specific circumstances.[/QUOTE

]I may be wrong but I don't think the UK coding for charter use regulatory procedure system can actuall prevent an owner taking his own boat anywhere anytime, although maybe they can prevent it's use on such a trip as a COMMERCIAL voyage with paying crew, something entirely different, and I for one would not want it to be any other way. This is fuel for the ambulance chaser lawyers out there to have a lottery win.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't think this is a side issue and I only know a serious investigation, the MAIB one. What other reports regarding other investigations are you talking about?

Again I ask you to show me where on the report is concluded that "the underlying problem was the poor design & construction of the joint itself, exacerbated by the use of the liner/matrix."

Certainly if the conclude that it is on the conclusions but I cannot find anything about that, only the references about poor maintenance and the need of a protocol for repairing the matrix bond when needed. Please quote the relevant part, it could have missed it.

I thought that both transmitterdam and myself had already responded to this, but I know how much you like to argue. Here are some pertinent quotes from the MAIB report, cited in the Yachting World article linked above:

In the specific case of CR, the report stated the obvious, namely that

"[i]n the absence of survivors and material evidence, the causes of the accident remain a matter of some speculation."

But then, as you & the surveyor you quoted point out (albeit more confidently than the MAIB findings), the report also states that

"a combined effect of previous groundings and subsequent repairs to its keel and matrix had possibly weakened the vessel’s structure where the keel was attached to the hull. It is also possible that one or more keel bolts had deteriorated. A consequential loss of strength may have allowed movement of the keel, which would have been exacerbated by increased transverse loading through sailing in worsening sea conditions." [italics added]

What you apparently choose not to consider, however, is that

"[d]uring the course of the investigation, the MAIB received much anecdotal evidence regarding matrix detachments on Beneteau First 40.7 yachts. Areas notable for detachment were in the forward sections of the matrix, commonly attributed to the vessel slamming, and the area around and aft of where the keel is attached to the hull, commonly attributed to the vessel grounding.

MAIB inspectors visited four Beneteau First 40.7 yachts that had all suffered detachments of their matrix in bays around the aft end of the keel as a result of grounding. Additionally, two of these vessels had suffered, or were showing signs of, matrix detachment in the forward section.

One further Beneteau First 40.7 yacht was visited, which showed signs of matrix detachment in the forward and aft sections."


So unlike your insistence earlier that actual 40.7's which had suffered failures solely as a result of slamming waves vs. grounding had not been physically inspected, 3 out of the 5 that actually were inspected also showed signs of failure in the forward sections, i.e. consistent with mere slamming. This was in addition to "many" ["much"] anecdotal cases of boats that were not inspected but the investigators nevertheless learned about, and had failures due to grounding and slamming.

So back to your previously asked (and answered) question. Did the MAIB report formally & definitively conclude there was a design defect or poorly designed keel-hull joint whose inspection & repair was exacerbated by use of the liner/matrix? No. But is design defect, poorly designed safety structure, inability to discover/inspect/repair a critical system a fair way to characterize the report's findings? Absolutely. Forget about "soft" vs. "hard" groundings for a moment. How would YOU describe a keel structure that can separate and potentially fail from hard sailing alone??

We're not litigating the issue before a court of law, or a regulatory or legislative body, Polux. How about just applying some common sense to try and make the sport we love a bit safer by raising awareness of the issue? And who knows, maybe keep things happily unregulated too!

[DeepFrz]

I thought that both transmitterdam and myself had already responded to this, but I know how much you like to argue.

I can't make up my mind if he is just arguing for the sake of argument or if he is arguing for undisclosed reasons. My suspicious mind maybe but I am leaning towards undisclosed reasons. Anyway, that is my parting shot as this thread goes on ignore.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

Polux, whether to put failures like this in the "**** happens" or "design defect" box comes down to whether there is a pattern of failures, whether that pattern is consistent with the build issues the yard guys are seeing every day, and is one in which the mfgs. are failing to address. Unlike wings falling off airplanes, loss of life from these types of basic structural/safety system failures on boats will not be eliminated unless there is some sort of outcry, or maybe a lawsuit, sorry to say. There's an awful lot of positive things to say about Bene's and other modern boats as I've learned from you & others on these threads, but as an obviously enthusiastic sailor yourself, I'm frankly surprised how you seem to consistently rush to the defense of the mfgs. and are so eager to defend the status quo. Thus far, nobody's talking about any punitive measures against the mfg. or indicting every Beneteau or similarly built brand!

The reason wings don't fall on 30 year old commercial airplanes is because proper maintenance have been made along the years.

You talk about a pattern of failures regarding keels and the way Beneteau fix them to the boat but the same system used on the First 40.7 is used on tens of thousands of other Beneteaus so of what pattern are you talking about? The cases of the two boats that lost the keels, as other boats of expensive brands that lost them too, happened on boats that have been grounded, this one particularly 5 times, without being properly repaired.

The truth is that boats are better (better sailing performance, more space, nicer interior, more stability) and cost less then in the past. Unless more expensive boats from the past they are not built to last 30 or 40 years and they need (after the first 7 or 8 years) more maintenance.

Modern boats, mass produced or not, use a structural grid, made of carbon, composite or an integral matrix to distribute the loads of the keel to the hull.

All those structures are bonded to the hull, trough a bonding agent or laminated. It is obviously one of the more stressed points on a sailboat and more then the structure itself the bond to the hull should be inspected regularly, thoroughly inspected in a case of grounding and repaired in case some lost is detected on the bond.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The report does say that boat should not have been making that trip because it was not current with its regulatory rating. They used an ambiguous loophole to get around the rules to save some money. The report says this will be corrected in the future and in fact that recommendation has already been acted on. Today the regulatory body in the UK will not permit that passage under those specific circumstances.

Meaning that you cannot fin anything on the report regarding a design defect on the boat

I don't know if you are just trying to foul everybody or if you really don't know but what you point out is just a legal point and has nothing to do with the boat itself but with the boat inspections that would have been mandatory and made by experts every year if the boat was coded rightly.

That has nothing to do with particular boats that have not any regulation on UK but with the boat being a commercial one, used for commercial charter and the loophole refereed has to do with the boat being used commercially offshore without being coded for that (Code 0).

On the report it says that the boat has the conditions to be rated code 0 (unlimited) with minor alterations (like for instance the position of the liferaft, nothing structural), the main difference would be the need of proper inspections every year and that would surely have avoided that incident.

The Matrix detachement was found and reported on the only inspection the boat made on the Code system, was not properly repaired and was not inspected after by the regulatory system because the way the boat was coded did not demanded that. That is what they are talking about regarding the loophole:

They are talking about proper inspections and proper maintenance that is the same I am talking about.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Robin3

...

I may be wrong but I don't think the UK coding for charter use regulatory procedure system can actuall prevent an owner taking his own boat anywhere anytime, although maybe they can prevent it's use on such a trip as a COMMERCIAL voyage with paying crew, something entirely different....

Yes you are right about that, no regulation for boats on UK. You can sail away to cross oceans in your bath tube with a mast and a sail.

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding Sweden yachts it is odd you never heard about them. The Sweden yacht 42 was for many years my dream boat (the one that lost the keel), off course only a dream since it was one of the more expensive 42fts around.

and here you have a 54 sailing, a beautiful boat:

It appears to me that this 54 has too lost her keel, or, perhaps, is just horrifically tender. Maybe they forgot to drop the centerboard. Either way, clearly an unsafe boat. That can't be more than 10 or 12 knots she's in, and with a blade jib!

Good thing you didn't buy that 45'!!!

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Polux

You mean that the below bold phrase does not mean that if it was not a steel boat but "the sort of craft being critiqued on this thread" the boat would not have survived intact and therefore it is impossible for a light cruiser racer to have survived intact on those conditions?

If not you are a hard man to understand

Of course as usual with your cherry picking, equivocation and eliding style of argumentativeness you carefully choose to fail to notice again, despite my repeatedly calling your attention to it, my two posts immediately succeeding this one you refer to which makes it clear that I did NOT mean that no such boats at all could survive a severe pounding. THIS was my reply to your reply to the one you now choose to cherrypick for reasons of point scoring:

"And before you or anyone else starts saying that I am cherry picking as this is a steel yacht etc etc. understand that there are PLENTY of yacht designs out there made of other than steel which would at least keep the crew alive in an intact yacht in these circumstances, as well as be able to take severe rock groundings and continue. ." And in my immediately subsequent post: "I acknowledge that fiberglass boats, race boats with canting keels, aluminum boats, boats with bolt on keels, and perhaps even certain wooden boats can be built to take at least several hours of pounding without breaking up, and may be sailed away from such an event, if they can get off."

My critique was particularly to the boat design in question, which is the Beneteau First 40.7. Your appeal to whole classes of other craft in an attempt to equivocate and put words in my mouth is really wasted. And in any case, the original line you highlight was something of a throwaway hyperbole. Perhaps I was not clear enough, and perhaps it was hyperbolic. However your focussing on it is a pure distraction from the import of the most important point I have been making right along and in a very detailed fashion which you have never addressed. Which is that the First 40.7 cannot be reasonably considered to be an unrestricted ocean service boat, when its stuctural integrity appears clearly in doubt after any grounding whatsoever, or even prolonged period of heavy service under sail. As a commercial skipper I would be in dereliction of my duty of care if I did not refuse when asked to step aboard such a vessel lying in Canada or Scotland or wherever and without a major structural survey immediately prior to departure take it and my clients to Iceland. I would not do it and the reason for this should be blindingly obvious. Such a vessel cannot reasonably be considered to be an ocean boat suitable for unrestricted service. As a matter of fact, given the report's finding that merely heavy sailing can cause separation of the liner bonding, I wouldn't take it even if it passed such a survey. I would rather advise the clients of this finding, and wish them good day.

Instead of just being argumentative, perhaps it would be better if you could just admit that there is a problem and consider how it may be dealt with, as mstrebe has done in his superbly useful post above concerning inbuilt fiberoptic diagnostics.

Why on earth must you be so pointlessly argumentative and point scoring? You even chose to ignore my above attempt at collegiality in favour of, well, more point scoring. I really get the feeling that you are only half interested in this discussion for the actual important matters (in which real people have died) which have been discussed, and whose most important points you consistently simply ignore when I or others make them, but rather seem keen on some kind of schoolyard one upmanship. A long way up in this discussion I indicated that I would not engage further with you on this. I should have stuck with that decision.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Brob2

It appears to me that this 54 has too lost her keel, or, perhaps, is just horrifically tender. Maybe they forgot to drop the centerboard. Either way, clearly an unsafe boat. That can't be more than 10 or 12 knots she's in, and with a blade jib!

Good thing you didn't buy that 45'!!!

I don't know what is your sailing boat or if you have one but the anybody that knows something about boats know that Sweden yachts are very good boats, fast and stiff. A 45ft is too big for me. The one I loved was the 42, this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYL9iRIuHzU

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Of course as usual with your cherry picking, equivocation and eliding style of argumentativeness you carefully choose to fail to notice again, despite my repeatedly calling your attention to it, my two posts immediately succeeding this one you refer to which makes it clear that I did NOT mean that no such boats at all could survive a severe pounding. THIS was my reply to your reply to the one you now choose to cherrypick for reasons of point scoring:

"And before you or anyone else starts saying that I am cherry picking as this is a steel yacht etc etc. understand that there are PLENTY of yacht designs out there made of other than steel which would at least keep the crew alive in an intact yacht in these circumstances, as well as be able to take severe rock groundings and continue. ." And in my immediately subsequent post: "I acknowledge that fiberglass boats, race boats with canting keels, aluminum boats, boats with bolt on keels, and perhaps even certain wooden boats can be built to take at least several hours of pounding without breaking up, and may be sailed away from such an event, if they can get off."

My critique was particularly to the boat design in question, which is the Beneteau First 40.7. Your appeal to whole classes of other craft in an attempt to equivocate and put words in my mouth is really wasted. And in any case, the original line you highlight was something of a throwaway hyperbole.

No what you said was not regarding a First 40.7 but all the boats of that type: "Had this been the sort of craft being critiqued on this thread, the boat's disappearance would still be a mystery. Some wreckage may have been found some time later, but probably not."

The Sydney whose photo I posted is not a fiberglass boat with a canting keel but a deep keeled cruiser-racer, an even lighter and more raced oriented than the First 40.7, the same sort of craft without any doubt.

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

..However your focussing on it is a pure distraction from the import of the most important point I have been making right along and in a very detailed fashion which you have never addressed. Which is that the First 40.7 cannot be reasonably considered to be an unrestricted ocean service boat, when its stuctural integrity appears clearly in doubt after any grounding whatsoever, or even prolonged period of heavy service under sail. ... I would not do it and the reason for this should be blindingly obvious. Such a vessel cannot reasonably be considered to be an ocean boat suitable for unrestricted service.....

There are no small boats that can be suitable for unrestricted service. All small boats have limitations in what regards the weather they can face.

If you talk of unrestricted service as to be able to sail offshore on the conditions specified for a class A boat or being coded as a Code 0 on the British system of coding for commercial crafts it is obvious that it can. The boat has the conditions to be coded has Code 0 (with some small modifications like the position of the life raft) and he is far from the limit in what consist the requirements for a Class A boat.

It is ridiculous to claim that a boat that had made all big top offshore international races including several Sydney Hobart with flying colors is not an offshore boat.

Boast after groundings have to be inspected and repaired if needed. Lighter cruiser-racers will need more attention in what regards the possibility of damage after a grounding. Any modern boat after several years of hard use, specially racing, can need repairs in what regards the fixation of the boat keel structure to the hull, being it fixed with a bonding agent or laminated.

Lighter cruiser racers and race boats that are used hard, due to their lighter built and repetitively use on more demanding conditions, will need more care in what regards inspections and have more chances of with time need a repair on that area.

Your idea that a First 40.7 if on a normal maintenance condition can lose suddenly the bond between the matrix and the hull and have a catastrophic failure is pure non sense. A debonding process is a gradual one that will take many years to happen, if it will happen at all. The only exception is a grounding and in that case the boat should be inspected immediately.