Lagoon 450 (Next Life) damaged in the Exuma, The Bahamas

[Kettlewell]

I have been involved in a few sailboat salvage operations out in the boonies and it is surprisingly difficult to move a grounded boat, even when it is mainly on sand. Add in coral, and the friction/grabbing is hard to imagine until you see it. The best course of action, once you are piled up on the rocks, IMHO is usually (each situation must be analyzed on its own) to get out an anchor as quickly as possible on as much scope as possible in the safe direction. Even if you can't pull the boat back the anchor will often hold the boat from going further up with wave action. I think sometimes people make the mistake of trying to motor back off for too long, and instead wipe out the engine/engines through over heating or winding up a line or hitting a rock or losing the tide. Even in the Bahamas if the boat isn't pounding it might be worth it to pause and wait for a higher tide before trying to get off. In the other thread about the sinking in the ICW I pointed out with soft mud mostly there, it is often better to pull the bow around towards deeper water with an anchor and then proceed in forward so as not to smash up your rudder by hitting something in reverse, which is exactly what happened to Primrose.

All of this is in no way criticizing Rolf's actions--I wasn't there to see his circumstances.

[ElGatoGordo]

Originally Posted by ArtM

Would a deep-keeled sailboat have suffered this kind of damage? It's hard for me to imagine it getting tossed up on the rocks in that way.

No, it would not be the same. It would be grounded on the coral much father out where it is deeper....THEN it would be the same!

Please don't turn this into a mono vs multi thread!

[Sulaire]

Hi guys,

Firstly, to Rolf, thank you for sharing your experience , your willingness to share is the true mark of a sailor. Hope you are back on the ocean soon .We all need to help each other, not pick faults.

"This has all happened before and will happen again"... BSG-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/lancashi...00/8465144.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...lands-11605365

We all know Sailing is not an axact science, but when we are given the chance to learn from REAL LIFE experience, we had better sit up and listen.

The lessons are there loud and clear.

The charts are not perfect, ..... Get over it !

I think we should start to regain some of our natural navigating skills that have foundered on the reef of elec wizardry (sic).

Charlie.

[ElGatoGordo]

That's pretty fair Charlie!

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

Mr. Carnev,

It is both good and courageous that you decided to join us here. Thank you.

I work in the aviation industry. Contrary to your original post, it is in fact routine for aircraft to both navigate and land with low visibility using nothing but their GPS systems. This is possible due to the excellent quality of the mapping availble in areas around airports and due to the fact that aircraft land on a designated path, exactly like an older ILS system, but described wholly within the database of the GPS. Each of these routes is carefully tested and certified before being approved and released. So it is possible, but clearly aviation and marine GPS are two different markets with different needs and working within different realities.

In the aviation industry, we take all accidents or near accidents very seriously and work to learn from the mistakes of the past. In this case, a boat was lost due, in part, to the fact that your product was simply incorrect. It is easy to say that the skipper should always be aware of possible errors, but mariners have relied on accurate charts for centuries, and there's a reason for that. Underwater obstructions are really hard to see because of all the water on them.

Not only did your company not clearly show reefs that other companies seemed to know were there, but you actually recommended a route through the area, straight onto a reef that you should have known was there. Whether the line was dashed or solid is irrelelvent (especially since neither is standard charting practice), the label said it was recommended.

All companies make mistakes. The difference comes in how they respond to it. Making a fix to the chart is nice. Talking to the community about it is nice too. The important thing, though, is to understand the route cause and prevent further accidents.

My question to you is whether your company has embarked on a formal route cause analysis to understand how these charting errors occured? If so, would you be willing share with the community an "approved for release" version of your findings?

The blue bolding is mine.

I think that pretty much gets to the nub of things for me .

For most folks on the boats the fact that a chart (paper or electronic) is never going to be 100% correct is not a revelation - nor even a problem.......but when it comes to including a route marked "recommended" then I would expect it to be based upon facts on the ground that have been carefully verified to be true (and for that checking I would discount "crowd sourcing").

I note the earlier comments from Navionics that "recommended" does not apparently mean just that and simply means: "that looks possible on the chart" (I paraphrase!), therefore I would respectfully suggest that including un-verified routes marked "recommended" on the base data (even if in the crowd sourcing data, that can be switched on or off at will by the operator / navigator) be ceased as misleading to the point of dangerous - despite no doubt the small print disclaimers elsewhere.

Would be of interest to know why (apparently) no recommended routes in the Med - scarier lawyers? .

The above not meant as having a pop at Navionics - fair play for them putting head above the parapet on this event .


Definition of "recommended":-

to endorse
to advise

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recommend

[nimblemotors]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

I have been involved in a few sailboat salvage operations out in the boonies and it is surprisingly difficult to move a grounded boat, even when it is mainly on sand. Add in coral, and the friction/grabbing is hard to imagine until you see it. The best course of action, once you are piled up on the rocks, IMHO is usually (each situation must be analyzed on its own) to get out an anchor as quickly as possible on as much scope as possible in the safe direction. Even if you can't pull the boat back the anchor will often hold the boat from going further up with wave action. I think sometimes people make the mistake of trying to motor back off for too long, and instead wipe out the engine/engines through over heating or winding up a line or hitting a rock or losing the tide. Even in the Bahamas if the boat isn't pounding it might be worth it to pause and wait for a higher tide before trying to get off. In the other thread about the sinking in the ICW I pointed out with soft mud mostly there, it is often better to pull the bow around towards deeper water with an anchor and then proceed in forward so as not to smash up your rudder by hitting something in reverse, which is exactly what happened to Primrose.

All of this is in no way criticizing Rolf's actions--I wasn't there to see his circumstances.

Another counter-intuitive tip I got when stuck on sand, is to use the motor to first go FORWARD, steering full right and then left, to essentially push the sand to the sides before you go into reverse.

JackB

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by ElGatoGordo

No, it would not be the same. It would be grounded on the coral much father out where it is deeper....THEN it would be the same!

Please don't turn this into a mono vs multi thread!

I'm not, and I don't want it to become that, but I do want to better understand this issue as I plan to cruise fulltime on a multihull boat at my very first opportunity.

But much has been made of the "unsinkability" of the multihull design, due to the lack of a heavy keel. I'm trying to understand now if the multihull design (my future boat) has some inherent vulnerability that is inherent to that particular design.

Further, I think it's useful to talk about the likely effects of a grounding like this on a deep-keel boat BEFORE it happens to someone on this forum.

[Lagoon4us]

Art once again 'unsinkability' only exists with land based vessels it's not a given.

Neither of these boats effectively sank, both were towed away, the beauty of a grounding is your essentially grounded. It's the extreme weather/isolated places groundings that kill.

Sinkings from collisions largely depend on the conditions and the forces involved, designing your way around that is not easy.

Cheers.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by ArtM

I'm trying to understand now if the multihull design (my future boat) has some inherent vulnerability that is inherent to that particular design.

Speaking as an Atheist - I think the answer to whether a mono or multi is more vunerable on a reef (coral or rocks) is in the lap of the gods!

or in more plain speak it's a crap shoot dependent on the exact circumstances at the time - with a squillion variables.

I can certainly see how a Cat could more easily get stuck well over a reef (low draft) but a Mono bumping into a reef is not likely to simply stay bow on for long (and won't always simply be a case of hitting reverse) - so the question of whether it is better to have the hull bottom or the hull side grind through (and how long that takes) is largely academic.

My take is that both designs have an inherent vulnerability to hitting a reef (and that steel not an automatic "get out of jail free" card either)........but I will concede that no hands (nor bottom!) on experiance of hitting reefs - coral or rock.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

Art once again 'unsinkability' only exists with land based vessels it's not a given.

Neither of these boats effectively sank, both were towed away, the beauty of a grounding is your essentially grounded. It's the extreme weather/isolated places groundings that kill.

Sinkings from collisions largely depend on the conditions and the forces involved, designing your way around that is not easy.

Cheers.

You're right, the key here is that the occupants were not left bobbing in the ocean.

But in terms of damage to the vessel, though not technically "sunk", it appears that these catamarans are coming back to shore so heavily flooded that they might as well have been "sunk".

In any case, my key questions for everyone here are "how to avoid it" and "what to do if it happens".

These questions - at least the second one have different answers depending on the type of boat involved.

A second inherent aspect of catamarans that I'm seeing here is confidence in shallow waters. I think a Cat owner is more likely to be confident approaching an area that appears shallow on the idea that (a) he has a shallow draft, and (b) that you can just back off if you bump bottom.

So yes I do see an inherent risk for cats that is different from the risks for monohull sailboats, and I think it's a worthwhile discussion.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

Another counter-intuitive tip I got when stuck on sand, is to use the motor to first go FORWARD, steering full right and then left, to essentially push the sand to the sides before you go into reverse.

JackB

This can work with a power boat, a catamaran or maybe a shallow keel boat where the prop is close the bottom of the boat. In a monohull with any sort of keel to it the prop will generally be too high above the bottom for the prop wash to have any effect.

[Lagoon4us]

No one approaches reef with the intent to back off if touched, sorry Art i'm not having a go.

Both these events were disastrous ending in total loss.

The discussion is regarding mis-information leading to the event in Rolf's case.

[ElGatoGordo]

Originally Posted by ArtM

I'm not, and I don't want it to become that, but I do want to better understand this issue as I plan to cruise fulltime on a multihull boat at my very first opportunity.

But much has been made of the "unsinkability" of the multihull design, due to the lack of a heavy keel. I'm trying to understand now if the multihull design (my future boat) has some inherent vulnerability that is inherent to that particular design.

Further, I think it's useful to talk about the likely effects of a grounding like this on a deep-keel boat BEFORE it happens to someone on this forum.

You are and have. As lagoon 4 us said, this is about what happened and why. Start another thread and ask this, OR search! It's been discussed ad nauseum!!

DOJ...GREAT post on previous page! Recommended routes? Insanity!! Did anyone ask a lawyer about that? I suspect we're about to get a legal rendering on how good idea that wasn't!

[Kettlewell]

Checked the owner's blog today and they have salvaged some of their gear and the insurance company sold the boat to the owner's of the Kevalli House. They plan on buying another Lagoon 450 and hope to be back in the Bahamas next year.

[ElGatoGordo]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Checked the owner's blog today and they have salvaged some of their gear and the insurance company sold the boat to the owner's of the Kevalli House. They plan on buying another Lagoon 450 and hope to be back in the Bahamas next year.

well that's good news. I hope we hear more detail. I'd be hard pressed to believe that the ins just paid up w/o wanting something from Naviaonics, though I'm no lawyer. Maybe they will just sue after.