Missing Vessel (Northern California), 4 souls

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by downunder

Reading his book I can't agree.

I think although they were in a race it ended up more as a battle for survival and in that context the larger vessels fared better.

A larger number of crews of smaller boats which were inherently more vunerable to high accelerations (had more knockdowns) hastily abandoned their boats even though they were in no immediate danger of sinking heading for their liferafts. Of the 24 abandoned vessels only 5 were not recovered and one of these sank under tow.

His analysis provides tables that showed that the smaller a vessel the more likely and did suffer more BI knockdown (horizontal) and B2 (beyond the horizontal knockdown). This meant the human factor was more of an issue in these vessels. As well as over reliance on liferafts where 7 lives were lost.

He was highly critical of the racing rules in that designers had gone to extremes at the expense of seaworthiness.

I have no doubt than you would not have abandoned in those circumstances.

Mainly because I don't race... got nothing to prove...
And... I have no doubt these guys were sailing until their sails shredded.. its stated in the report that the majority had no experience of those conditions so that goes a long way... one thing to race... another to survive in lightweight boats not designed for those seas
But hell... I'm just a bum seaman.. even owned a Hunter so wot do I know..

[downunder]

Originally Posted by yohun

I agree with Downunder completely. One should learn from everything that is available out there. The best skipper makes use of all the resources available. That is why I wanted to join this forum in the first place. To learn.
I volunteered over a 6 year period with a sea rescue outfit. At the time I lived about 9 houses away from the launch station. Needles to say I went out on a lot of missions and heard about those I did not go out on. They rescued anything from a 7 foot windsurfer to a big tankers. I remember going out to a 70' maxi that ran onto the rocks because the "compass was not calibrated" that is what the news papers said.
The drunk skipper was the first to jump on the 21' rescue boat I was on. I think it was a matter of inebriation not calibration. Any size boat is capable of getting into trouble. Does anyone have statistics from the Fastnet that clearly shows that shorter than a certain LOA had a higher than average capsize rate. Bear in mind that the majority of the boats were around and under 40' in length so simple numbers would not suffice. It would have to be apples to apples.

Marchaj's book on Page 82, table 3 shows the vessel sizes and number and types of knockdowns. generally smaller vessels were 2 to 3 times more likely to suffer B1 knockdowns and 5 to 6 times more likely to suffer B2 over 180 degree knockdown. None of the larger class 0 suffered a B2 knockdown.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by downunder

Marchaj's book on Page 82, table 3 shows the vessel sizes and number and types of knockdowns. generally smaller vessels were 2 to 3 times more likely to suffer B1 knockdowns and 5 to 6 times more likely to suffer B2 over 180 degree knockdown. None of the larger class 0 suffered a B2 knockdown.

OK then, it's settled. If caught in a big storm, I'd like to hitch a ride from Jedi on his 64. Come to think of it, I'd like a ride on the big 64 anytime!

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by yohun

I agree with Downunder completely. One should learn from everything that is available out there. The best skipper makes use of all the resources available. That is why I wanted to join this forum in the first place. To learn.
I volunteered over a 6 year period with a sea rescue outfit. At the time I lived about 9 houses away from the launch station. Needles to say I went out on a lot of missions and heard about those I did not go out on. They rescued anything from a 7 foot windsurfer to a big tankers. I remember going out to a 70' maxi that ran onto the rocks because the "compass was not calibrated" that is what the news papers said.
The drunk skipper was the first to jump on the 21' rescue boat I was on. I think it was a matter of inebriation not calibration. Any size boat is capable of getting into trouble. Does anyone have statistics from the Fastnet that clearly shows that shorter than a certain LOA had a higher than average capsize rate. Bear in mind that the majority of the boats were around and under 40' in length so simple numbers would not suffice. It would have to be apples to apples.

So, what does the drunken skipper have to do with the design of the boat?! You are ignoring facts and keep bringing in other factors like drunk crew, better maintenance etc. This makes a sensible discussion impossible, so I'll give it to you: smaller = safer

[yohun]

s/v jedi ...I may have inadvertently directed the topic of this thread to LOA. That was wrong of me. I have found another thread on the site that talks more about this topic. Now is a good time to move over there. This conversation by me was started when a member questioned why someone should be in a 29' boat and another member asked why not? The LOA was the only design factor mentioned regarding the boat in question. Yet it is insignificant as I believe all boats can get into trouble. As far as bad maintenance...that was never discussed by me... as far as a drunk skipper the point I made was the report why the boat ran on the rocks was incorrect thus reports do not hold absolute truth. I have never said smaller boats is safer. I have also not ignored facts. The question I asked was simple. At what length does the LOA of a boat provide the crew with some form of guarantee? Up until now no one has answered this question. If you convince me that a 50' foot boat is safer than my 44' then I might end up buying a 50' boat, as safety is a major concern for me. Incidentally Alan Ker in a Contessa 32 won his class in the 1979 Fastnet and I have felt safer in a 26' cruiser that my dad owned than the Hobie 33' and Soverel 33' racers I have owned. Now I am in a yet an even larger boat and I am asking myself, am I doing the right thing by going bigger.?

[s/v Jedi]

@ Yohun : your question about safety guarantee was answered by somebody; it's behind us, up to the next subject.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

It is called ATIS... Google it for more info

More info on ATIS is here: Automatic Transmitter Identification System (marine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A compromise to transmitting identifying data at the end of every transmission on the same frequency - forcing everyone to listen to a one-third second audible data burst - is to transmit a DSC Position Report on channel 70 (the normal channel set aside for DSC) only when the user transmits on channel 16 (and maybe 9). By limiting the position reports to transmissions originated on the hailing and distress frequency, the traffic load on channel 70 would be very low.

All of the DSC-capable radios have the ability to transmit DSC position reports. I suspect few people know how to use the feature. Automatically sending a position report is only a software change for DSC-enabled radios, and it wouldn't require a full blown standards adoption. There's nothing in the regs that prevents anyone from sending a (legitimate) position report at any time on DSC channel 70. I'm surprised the radio manufacturers don't offer that feature now by default. The position report transmission could be limited to something like one transmission every 10 minutes, and by doing so, the user would only experience the cut-off of receive capability of one-third second (while the transmission was going out) once every 10 minutes.

My chart plotter, like many others, will automatically plot the position of anyone sending a DSC position report. My VHF radio also stores the position, and allows me to set it as a waypoint for navigation. This would also be helpful to nearby vessels wishing to render assistance in much the same way that AIS gives positional guidance. But with this feature, an AIS transponder or a chart plotter wouldn't be needed to receive and use a position broadcast by a vessel in distress. You'd only need a modestly expensive DSC-capable transceiver.

[boatman61]

LMAO..... what size guarantees safety... thats hilarious..
As for Marchaj... experts are there to be ignored IMO... anyone can sit in an office and come up with ratios and statistic's...
but even he had to admit that the main cause of the disaster was a bunch of dumb Hot Shot Racers with little/no experience of what they'd got into... its one thing to play racers in the Round the Island race... any idiot can and does take part..
But the Irish Sea... thats another matter..

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by boatman61

...But the Irish Sea... thats another matter..

+1

[deckofficer]

I spent 6 months in the North Sea during winter. Wind and waves can get a bit high there too.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

When it's howling 30-35 knots, how many 30 footers go out for a sail? Well, in the UK they do because sailors there are like terriers. . ..

Well, if you never went out in 30 - 35 knots (disparagingly referred to in these parts as "a yachtsman's gale"), you wouldn't get much sea time in UK waters Nothing a reef or two won't take care of . . .

[yohun]

The Cape of Storms sees many boats 30' or so on a regular basis even when the South Easter howl a cool 30knts

[Dsanduril]

Back to the thread topic, some fascinating read-between-the-lines from the information released by the CG.

All the news reports said that the vessel was located 65 miles off Monterey as estimated by CG RDF. What was actually the case is the CG had a single RDF bearing from Mount Umunhum (3500' ASL) at 227T. Coast Guard estimates that maximum range of Mt. Umunhum antenna is 65nm. Boat could have been anywhere on the bearing line generated. Since the signal was not picked up anywhere else, and from signal strength, the estimated position at first intercept was about 30-35 miles off Monterey and 65 miles from the antenna.

This is supported by the search pattern that the CG has posted, which shows the densest search activity much closer to shore than has been reported.

Not mentioned in the released information is what level of likelihood that the signal came from 47T (180 opposite the bearing line). That would put the call in South San Jose and well away from any water.

[Cormorant]

I wonder if that couldn't have been produced by somebody with a handheld on 1W or 5W much closer in.