Cheeki Rafiki loss report

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

John from Morgan's Cloud has just posted a great article with his analysis of the report. He feels pretty strongly that the report was excellent but that the recommendations didn't go nearly far enough. I don't disagree.

"I don't disagree," either. If the author's recommendations were accepted, we could all feel better about the long term survival of the owners of boats with the new/old construction.

I support John's recommendations.

Ann

[estarzinger]

^^The difficulty is that:

(1) to get the boat builders to change you (probably) have to change the ISO standard, which is near impossible to do. I tried for about 5 years to get a couple rudder improvements into ISO and found it to be an impossible process.

and

(2) the builders will say this keel particular failure has only happened once, on a boat that was "rode hard and put away wet" - a pleasure boat that was really inappropriately put to commercial use. And Bendy (at least) do not believe they are making a 'forever' boat - just for instance they have speced their thru-hulls/sea cocks for a 7-10 year life and they believe their customers are fine with that. So, they will say, the report is actually correct as written and John is wrong.

I personally think there is a place for both a 'forever' boat in the market, and for a '10 year possibly disposable' boat. . . .and it's a case of Caveat emptor for the buyer to know which is which.

I do think John is wrong when he says it is relatively easy and relatively inexpensive (using today's typical boat building quality standards) to make an e-glass laminate structure for a thin fin keel that can withstand multiple 8 kt groundings without damage. I happen to know its hard to accomplish even with an aluminum structure.

You can certainly make a 'better' structure than this glued in grid (just doubling the amount of e-glass and making the bolts bigger would of course help), but an 8kt impact on the bottom of the keel on a granite ledge (just for example) is a serious shock load for any structure. In fact the greatest reduction damage could come from elasticity/deformation measures added in the potential impact zone (eg crush boxes) . . . . more leverage there than in changing the keel attachment structure. Structurally, putting the keel in a socket is the 'best' structural solution but that is not extremely inexpensive, nor that easy to engineer and will impose on interior space (in a shallow bilge boat like these are) . . . boat designers certainly know of that solution and there is a reason the boat builders do not do it.

Regarding his aircraft analogy, I get his point, but airplane wings are not expected to survive impacts with tree trunks! And thin keel boats probably need extensive inspection after a hard grounding no matter the structure.

[transmitterdan]

My opinion is the existence of an ISO standard is one root problem. Unless the ISO standard mandates adequate margins of safety these things will keep happening. Because Bene met the standard at the date of manufacture they are absolved of any wrong. If there were no ISO standard and all other facts were the same would a similarly situated builder/architect be so easily absolved in this case. I doubt it.

[MarkJ]

Evans writes very well about the real ability for manufactures to go backwards, or as John from Morgas Cloud says 'return'. Forward is better. Make modern design better, not modern design older.

More interesting to me is surviving a situation.

From the report page 23

At 0940 on 18 May 2014, the search effort was terminated.
RCC Boston calculated the estimated survivability of the crew members based on their average descriptions, assuming that they were dressed in full foul weather sailing gear, immersed to the neck in water and wearing a personal flotation device (PFD). Using these criteria, the estimated functional survivability and survival times were 12.3 hours and 15.5 hours respectively.

Using similar parameters but assuming that the crew members had been submerged to the waist in water, sitting in a liferaft in heavy weather, produced estimated functional survivability and survival times of 14 hours and 21 hours respectively.

RCC Boston also calculated the probability of success (POS) of finding the following objects based on the probability of containment (POC) for the areas searched, and the probability of detection (POD) from searching those areas:

POS for a person in the water with a PFD: 6%
• POS for a swamped/capsized boat: 95%
• POS for an upright liferaft: 82%
• POS for a capsized liferaft: 92%

Note the last 3 items are objects, not people!

Basically it means even if you do get in a liferaft in those conditions you have only 14 hours survival time, maybe up to 21 hours. Thats not much when outside aircraft range.

[scuba0_1]

Manslaughter charges to be brought.

http://www.yachtingworld.com/news/ch...-brought-95523



Sent from my SM-N910V using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Travis McGee]

I have never had a reason to regret building a steel boat. Especially after hard groundings and slamming into various hard objects over the past 20+ years.

Rafiki would beat me into port by days, but I have always slept well offshore in rough stuff.

1992, under construction.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by scuba0_1

Manslaughter charges to be brought.

Cheeki Rafiki deaths: gross negligence manslaughter charges to be brought - Yachting World
..

It is significant that is not Beneteau that is charged but the boat operator and It can only be for inadequate maintenance and inadequate repairs to groundings (negligence).

I would like to read the reason for the charges. Anyone has find them?

[Tetra]

I'm surprised that this is a criminal case and not a civil case. Someone somewhere must have been pushing this case to the forefront.

[zeehag]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...aughter-deaths


negligence caused the deaths. yes criminal and yes manslaughter.
be wary of what condition the boat is in which you send folks to sea

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Polux

It is significant that is not Beneteau that is charged but the boat operator and It can only be for inadequate maintenance and inadequate repairs to groundings (negligence).

I would like to read the reason for the charges. Anyone has find them?

Polux,

Who gets sued in a case like this has more to do with legal issues such as jurisdiction and time limitations than with technical design matters. And the first parties to be sued will have an opportunity to argue someone else is at fault. It is an insignificant detail that Beneteau are not yet being sued.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Polux,

Who gets sued in a case like this has more to do with legal issues such as jurisdiction and time limitations than with technical design matters. And the first parties to be sued will have an opportunity to argue someone else is at fault. It is an insignificant detail that Beneteau are not yet being sued.

These new charges are not a civil suit, it's a criminal prosecution. The prosecutors must feel they have enough evidence to prove the negligence that caused the deaths. Seems pretty hard to make that argument with the limited evidence.

[SV DestinyAscen]

I'm almost certain the crown's prosecutors must have taken the management company's internal communications and records into account before proceeding with a case.

Regardless of what one thinks is best design practices and whether Beneteau's cost design errs to far in one direction, fact is most Beneteau's don't lose their keels, and the management company responsible probably provided some level of indifference or negligence in how it approached grounding repair/inspection.

In a civil case they may argue there's design or manufacturing liability, and designing to ISO standards doesn't protect you from liability if you've had notice that the design is flawed for intended purpose or expected conditions. But I Don't think repeated groundings is one of them.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Polux,

Who gets sued in a case like this has more to do with legal issues such as jurisdiction and time limitations than with technical design matters. And the first parties to be sued will have an opportunity to argue someone else is at fault. It is an insignificant detail that Beneteau are not yet being sued.

I don't understand how you find that insignificant or a detail.

The ones that are bringing the charges is the crown prosecution service based and in close cooperation with the marine coastguard agency, the ones that investigated for two years and made the report that has examined closely on this thread. The announcement was made simultaneously by the two agencies:

"Now the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Crown Prosecution Service have announced that Douglas Innes, director of Stormforce Coaching, has been charged with four counts of manslaughter by gross negligence....

A spokesman for the agency said: “The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has carried out an investigation lasting more than two years into the circumstances surrounding the loss of the Cheeki Rafiki in May 2014.

“Following that extensive investigation, a decision has been made by the Crown Prosecution Service to bring charges against Douglas Innes and Stormforce Coaching Limited.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...aughter-deaths

It is pretty clear that, as I had been saying, (as a well known American surveyor had said and posted on sailanarchy), that the experts that made that extensive investigation put the essential blame not on the boat design or building but on gross negligent maintenance, otherwise it would be Beneteau that would be charged and not the one responsible for the operation e maintenance of that particular boat.

The first to talk about gross negligence and accountability was that Surveyor, E.S. Geary that said long ago:

"The tragic death of the four crew and loss of the yacht was a result of third party incompetence and negligence and was preventable. Those who were responsible and negligent in the proper care and maintenance of the vessel should be indentified and held accountable to ensure something like this doesn’t happen again. Having recently dealt with a number of claims on behalf London underwriters with similar deficiencies I believe the cause of this tragedy is obvious....

The skipper’s first message reported the yacht was taking on water and requested the owners permission to divert to the Azores; he didn’t report striking anything. It’s apparent that the ingress of water reported by the skipper was experienced and began as the keel bolts lost integrity. The keel bolts were loose and leaking water as evidenced by the rust stains on the apertures which could have resulted from corrosion or metal fatigue; their ultimate failure allowed the keel to separate from the hull. Tightened keel bolts don’t fail, loose ones do. ...

During the 640 nm voyage north the approximately 3500 kg keel was only partially held against the flat hull surface by the defective keel bolts which initially allowed to keel to move with a limited ingress of water. Unknown to the crew because of the sea state and parametric rolling which would have aggravated and accelerated ultimate failure, the keel would have experienced a slow swinging motion before it eventually dropped from the hull....

The inverted hull of the Cheeki Rafiki was found and the photo silently speaks volumes confirming the keel bolt failure that led to the loss of the keel and the rise of the VCG that resulted in the immediate capsizing of the vessel.

This tragedy should not have happened. Through no fault of the crew the Cheeki Rafiki was sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition and those responsible should be held accountable. The families of the victim’s have a right to know of the unseaworthiness and that their loved ones paid a terrible price and died because of the gross negligence of others."

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Paul L

These new charges are not a civil suit, it's a criminal prosecution. The prosecutors must feel they have enough evidence to prove the negligence that caused the deaths. Seems pretty hard to make that argument with the limited evidence.

I agree with you. But if the prosecutors feel that someone was paid (enticed) to go to sea in a boat known not to be fit for purpose (whether ill maintained, poorly designed, etc.) then died as a direct result there may be a criminal liability question. The MAIB report said it was easy to find several examples of keel problems on these boats. Presumably the owner(s) could have done the same.

A bad example might be that if someone paid a crew of mentally deficient sailors to sail a cast iron bathtub from UK to New York the bathtub manufacturer would not be at fault. But the person paying the crew could probably be criminally charged.

[boatman61]

Further.. remember, all we have seen is what the Yachting mag's reported the owners saying re; e-mails sent and received.. based on that there's a flimsy case but if the authorities seized the companies computers etc.. its likely a lot more was uncovered than we.. the public could ever be aware off.