Yacht sinks off Bay of Islands in 40knots

[wolfgal]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Hi, wolfie,

For a while, Beneteau had them under the helmsman's seat in the aft end of the cockpit.

I am one of the people who think that fatigued and cold and with all one's weather gear">foul weather gear on, entry from the water into a liferaft in a rough sea could well be impossible for me. Where the liferaft might shine, is in case of fire. It just seems to me that water entry during deteriorating conditions would be extremely difficult. Consider the bulk of the inflated life vest, how're you going to manage the "steps" or "ladder" into the boat.

What I would suggest is to attend one of the clubs swimming pool presentations to practice your liferaft entry. If you can do it safely in those ultra controlled conditions, you'll have had a very interesting experience.

Ann

Good point, Ann, fatigue and cold and the BULK and WEIGHT of our clothing/gear/life vest... all this stuff is already heavy when not wet, but when wet, (for me as a female who weighs 125 lbs), it weighs an absolute ton.

it takes so much more energy to do anything with all the bulk and added weight. even when it is dry, i find that it plays on my movements, my balance, my energy levels (and can make me more fatigued).

and yes, i did do a Safety at Sea course (a couple of years ago) in which i jumped into the water with a life vest, learned to huddle and all that and then scrambled into a life raft. it was an excellent, excellent course, very comprehensive, very serious, conducted by Chuck Hawley and Ralph Naranjo (a weather expert!).

during the jump-in-inflate-and-mount-raft part, i noted a couple of things: in general, it was really difficult for people who were bigger (overweight) and, especially for those who were also bottom-heavy. we can pretty much agree that that women tend to have less shoulders strength and more hip volume/weight. as you can imagine, pulling their bodies up with all that added weight from the water in their foulies was near impossible. (i was one of those in the water pushing folks bums)

and though i did not have any problem getting in, i found that the heavy foulies were a hinderance. i wanted to be wearing a wet suit (diving gear)!

we've discussed elsewhere the dry suit, and it sounds great, except that it can get hot, which means that folks open them up while sailing. my understanding is that IF someone unzips the suit a bit and then finds him/herself in the water, the outcome may not be that positive. it seems that if the suit has an opening of some sort, i fills with water... (correct me if i am wrong, please)

in any case, i'm looking forward to the day when i get to wear a kind of wet suit, something that insulates from cold yet doesn't hinder my movements and doesn't gain in weight when wet.

And yes: to place the life raft, especially at the back of the helmsman's seat, sounds like a good solution: protected from being washed away, easy to deploy, close to where it should be... Another plus: converting the helmsman seat could be a doable modification to make to existing boats. thanks for this!


back to the Bavaria 47: does anyone know if the windows are the glued-in-kind like those of the Hanse that lost a window in the Baltic Sea?

if so, this info is very important to many, for safety reasons. we've mentioned how it is likely that the hull flexed, which would make it easy for a glued-in window to pop its seams. the amount of water that filled that boat as a result must have been enormous... what a nightmare!


though it may feel unsettling to know that this boat chose to go into the weather system while others chose to wait it out (hove to), who would have guessed that the windows would get sucked out?

my lesson here: when i have a choice, i must keep in mind how the sea is a mighty force and the unexpected happens. this said, i also have great respect for John Kretchmer who wrote, the boat matters (in Sailing a Serious Ocean). and i believe Kretchmer is right.




wolfie

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by wolfgal

Good point, Ann, fatigue and cold and the BULK and WEIGHT of our clothing/gear/life vest... all this stuff is already heavy when not wet, but when wet, (for me as a female who weighs 125 lbs), it weighs an absolute ton.

it takes so much more energy to do anything with all the bulk and added weight. even when it is dry, i find that it plays on my movements, my balance, my energy levels (and can make me more fatigued).

and yes, i did do a Safety at Sea course (a couple of years ago) in which i jumped into the water with a life vest, learned to huddle and all that and then scrambled into a life raft. it was an excellent, excellent course, very comprehensive, very serious, conducted by Chuck Hawley and Ralph Naranjo (a weather expert!).

during the jump-in-inflate-and-mount-raft part, i noted a couple of things: in general, it was really difficult for people who were bigger (overweight) and, especially for those who were also bottom-heavy. we can pretty much agree that that women tend to have less shoulders strength and more hip volume/weight. as you can imagine, pulling their bodies up with all that added weight from the water in their foulies was near impossible. (i was one of those in the water pushing folks bums)

and though i did not have any problem getting in, i found that the heavy foulies were a hinderance. i wanted to be wearing a wet suit (diving gear)!

we've discussed elsewhere the dry suit, and it sounds great, except that it can get hot, which means that folks open them up while sailing. my understanding is that IF someone unzips the suit a bit and then finds him/herself in the water, the outcome may not be that positive. it seems that if the suit has an opening of some sort, i fills with water... (correct me if i am wrong, please)

in any case, i'm looking forward to the day when i get to wear a kind of wet suit, something that insulates from cold yet doesn't hinder my movements and doesn't gain in weight when wet.

And yes: to place the life raft, especially at the back of the helmsman's seat, sounds like a good solution: protected from being washed away, easy to deploy, close to where it should be... Another plus: converting the helmsman seat could be a doable modification to make to existing boats. thanks for this!


back to the Bavaria 47: does anyone know if the windows are the glued-in-kind like those of the Hanse that lost a window in the Baltic Sea?

if so, this info is very important to many, for safety reasons. we've mentioned how it is likely that the hull flexed, which would make it easy for a glued-in window to pop its seams. the amount of water that filled that boat as a result must have been enormous... what a nightmare!


though it may feel unsettling to know that this boat chose to go into the weather system while others chose to wait it out (hove to), who would have guessed that the windows would get sucked out?

my lesson here: when i have a choice, i must keep in mind how the sea is a mighty force and the unexpected happens. this said, i also have great respect for John Kretchmer who wrote, the boat matters (in Sailing a Serious Ocean). and i believe Kretchmer is right.




wolfie

We are making lots of assumptions regarding the boat flexing and windows, we really have no idea what happened.

Keep in mind that modern adhesives are extremely strong, sky scraper windows ,car panels etc are all held in place by various 3m tapes and glues, modern adhesives can provide superior adhesion and sealing qualities, without the issues that come about with mechanical fasteners in these areas with their differing expansion properties relative to the various materials they are attaching to.

Maybe they just got unlucky.

[wolfgal]

Originally Posted by daletournier

We are making lots of assumptions regarding the boat flexing and windows, we really have no idea what happened.

Keep in mind that modern adhesives are extremely strong, sky scraper windows ,car panels etc are all held in place by various 3m tapes and glues, modern adhesives can provide superior adhesion and sealing qualities, without the issues that come about with mechanical fasteners in these areas with their differing expansion properties relative to the various materials they are attaching to.

Maybe they just got unlucky.

good call, Dale.

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

I confess I feel a little haunted by the notion that there were five vessels headed for NZ in that same time, and four other skippers decided to heave to and wait for the weather to pass, and have since arrived safely and without comment. It makes it seem that the skipper involved in this incident perhaps lacked respect for the damage the sea can do, believed beforehand that his boat was "safe" to continue, and it was not. It is very, very sad.

Ann

Sad indeed. It is tempting to read hubris in the skipper's decision to carry on rather than heave-to, but I know that I would be tempted to make the same mistake after a long, uncomfortable passage and just hours from landfall. It may be that the other 4 boats were some distance behind and so, for them, the decision to heave-to was easier to make.

[Souzag818]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Then you are not a pilot, at least not a proper one.

I wondered the same thing. I'm not a pilot, but did have a career with a major airline and even I knew what Cockpit Resource Management is. Doesn't matter, he's unsubscribed. Supposedly

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by mikereed100

Sad indeed. It is tempting to read hubris in the skipper's decision to carry on rather than heave-to, but I know that I would be tempted to make the same mistake after a long, uncomfortable passage and just hours from landfall. It may be that the other 4 boats were some distance behind and so, for them, the decision to heave-to was easier to make.

If I understand correctly the incident occurred relatively close to Cape Brett. Cape Brett marks the southern side of the Bay of Islands, a typical entry point to New Zealand. If you were taking the typical route from the islands you would have headed toward the N tip of NZ around N Cape. Its about 80-90 miles to the Bay of Islands from there.
If you made the call to heave to defensively you'd want to do that significsntly further N than N Cape. So it would be at least 24 hours out of the Bay of Islands. So I can see many scenarios where the lead boat would continue on and complete the last 90 miles while boats 70 miles behind would heave to - all being very rational decisions without any hubris. If the front shows up 6 hours early, maybe the lead boat gets in trouble. If the front shows up 12 hours latter and intensifies maybe the heave-to boats get in trouble.

It isn't clear to me on this incident if the boat was planning on heading into Bay of Islands or had decided to continue on down tbe coast.

[CassidyNZ]

Originally Posted by mikereed100

Sad indeed. It is tempting to read hubris in the skipper's decision to carry on rather than heave-to, but I know that I would be tempted to make the same mistake after a long, uncomfortable passage and just hours from landfall. It may be that the other 4 boats were some distance behind and so, for them, the decision to heave-to was easier to make.

Heaving to amongst large breaking seas is not a great idea IMO. I did it once, got knocked down twice, once had the mast well below horizontal into the trough ahead of the wave (thought we were going to be rolled), once with enough force to knock cabinetry off the wall of the forepeak. I made a mental note never to do that again.

If I ever get caught in weather like that again, my MO will be to trail drogues under storm sails and keep sailing, hopefully on a course out of the low. Certainly if I was 30nm from a safe harbour as was the subject vessel, I would slow the boat to avoid uncontrolled surfing but I would keep going.

Slowing the boat in an attempt to avoid a deepening low requires a knowledge of where the low is headed and there is never a guarantee that it will do as expected. Sure, if I was 200nm out, I may slow down to avoid a depression but not if the seas were big, already breaking and unpredictable. I’ve often slowed to ensure a daylight approach too.

A likelihood that I’m going to get hammered for another 24 hours when I’m 7 or 8 hours out would see me carrying on. But the assumption would be that the boat would hold together, not present large orifices through which seawater can inundate the boat. I’m of the opinion the skipper of the subject boat never had that eventuality in his planning either.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

Heaving to amongst large breaking seas is not a great idea IMO. I did it once, got knocked down twice, once had the mast well below horizontal into the trough ahead of the wave (thought we were going to be rolled), once with enough force to knock cabinetry off the wall of the forepeak. I made a mental note never to do that again.

If I ever get caught in weather like that again, my MO will be to trail drogues under storm sails and keep sailing, hopefully on a course out of the low. Certainly if I was 30nm from a safe harbour as was the subject vessel, I would slow the boat to avoid uncontrolled surfing but I would keep going.

Slowing the boat in an attempt to avoid a deepening low requires a knowledge of where the low is headed and there is never a guarantee that it will do as expected. Sure, if I was 200nm out, I may slow down to avoid a depression but not if the seas were big, already breaking and unpredictable. I’ve often slowed to ensure a daylight approach too.

A likelihood that I’m going to get hammered for another 24 hours when I’m 7 or 8 hours out would see me carrying on. But the assumption would be that the boat would hold together, not present large orifices through which seawater can inundate the boat. I’m of the opinion the skipper of the subject boat never had that eventuality in his planning either.

Indeed. We don't have nearly enough information to make any judgements about the skipper's plan. We don't even know what it was.


"Heaving to defensively" is not a tactic I use much, and would definitely not do if I'm already in breaking waves. I have a great deal of confidence in my boat's structure (and maybe the dead captain did too -- who knows?) and if I'm in breaking seas, then I'm running off downwind and trying to dodge the falling crests. Likely with my Jordan Series Drogue out.


I know the Pardeys advocate heaving to in such cases -- and I have their book -- but I'm not sure this works as well in a relatively light, bulb keel boat, and in any case, I wouldn't want at all to be in a passive position among breaking seas.


What was the skipper thinking and did he screw up? We have no idea, and likely never will. I wouldn't assume that. There but for the grace of God etc.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by CassidyNZ

Heaving to amongst large breaking seas is not a great idea IMO. I did it once, got knocked down twice, once had the mast well below horizontal into the trough ahead of the wave (thought we were going to be rolled), once with enough force to knock cabinetry off the wall of the forepeak. I made a mental note never to do that again.

If I ever get caught in weather like that again, my MO will be to trail drogues under storm sails and keep sailing, hopefully on a course out of the low. Certainly if I was 30nm from a safe harbour as was the subject vessel, I would slow the boat to avoid uncontrolled surfing but I would keep going.

Slowing the boat in an attempt to avoid a deepening low requires a knowledge of where the low is headed and there is never a guarantee that it will do as expected. Sure, if I was 200nm out, I may slow down to avoid a depression but not if the seas were big, already breaking and unpredictable. I’ve often slowed to ensure a daylight approach too.

A likelihood that I’m going to get hammered for another 24 hours when I’m 7 or 8 hours out would see me carrying on. But the assumption would be that the boat would hold together, not present large orifices through which seawater can inundate the boat. I’m of the opinion the skipper of the subject boat never had that eventuality in his planning either.

I haven't heaved to in breaking seas so everything I say is speculation, I've crossed a couple of oceans and had many hours to think about the "what ifs".



I agree I would also go the drogue option, two things come to mind in regards to this.

I had a friend who crossed the tasman ,Australia to New Zealand June 2013. They got caught in a storm , the same storm that took the Nina , all hands lost.

They decided to run under drogue. My friend is a boat builder and designed and built is own boat , he fully understood the structural integrity of his boat. His words to me were "I was worried that the drogue was going to RIP the back of the boat off"!. They eventually lost the drogue and run under bare poles. The other problem that can occur is keeping all calm, his crew were hesitant to do what was necessary at times due to fear.

My own insight is , while crossing the Indian ocean we had one strong gale , as the wind built I kept reducing sail until I was running under bare poles, the boat handled it fine , at one point we surfed at 16.3knots, way to fast. I sat at the helm all night just in case the autopilot failed, which it didnt. What I realised was how difficult it would of been to set up the drogue if the weather deterioated more, it was black, wet and very windy. My point is the drogue needs to be setup in advance and be able to be deployed with ease. I would not of wanted to attempt to turn the boat around and tried to have to in those winds and waves.

My experiences have humbled me enough to realize I wasnt there, I have no idea what the skipper should of done or did.

[DumnMad]

I don't think there's much doubt the skipper was running down wind as expected - the window blew out!
At windspeed 41m/second the pressure is 100kg per sq.m.(Approx 80knots gust= 100kg/sq.m.) Could you fly 1sq.m kite in a 100kph wind?
With the open cockpit/cabin pressurised by an 80knot gust from behind plus suction on the window as the wind streamed past the outside, it seems quite feasible the large windows got thumped outwards.

To those who think he made a bad decision:
The weather was not unreasonable for trips to and from NZ and he was handling things OK until the window blew out. How should the skipper know the window wasn't designed for the conditions ??

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by daletournier

I haven't heaved to in breaking seas so everything I say is speculation, I've crossed a couple of oceans and had many hours to think about the "what ifs".



I agree I would also go the drogue option, two things come to mind in regards to this.

I had a friend who crossed the tasman ,Australia to New Zealand June 2013. They got caught in a storm , the same storm that took the Nina , all hands lost.

They decided to run under drogue. My friend is a boat builder and designed and built is own boat , he fully understood the structural integrity of his boat. His words to me were "I was worried that the drogue was going to RIP the back of the boat off"!. They eventually lost the drogue and run under bare poles. The other problem that can occur is keeping all calm, his crew were hesitant to do what was necessary at times due to fear.

My own insight is , while crossing the Indian ocean we had one strong gale , as the wind built I kept reducing sail until I was running under bare poles, the boat handled it fine , at one point we surfed at 16.3knots, way to fast. I sat at the helm all night just in case the autopilot failed, which it didnt. What I realised was how difficult it would of been to set up the drogue if the weather deterioated more, it was black, wet and very windy. My point is the drogue needs to be setup in advance and be able to be deployed with ease. I would not of wanted to attempt to turn the boat around and tried to have to in those winds and waves.

My experiences have humbled me enough to realize I wasnt there, I have no idea what the skipper should of done or did.

The most arrogant and quick to condemn someone who got into trouble are usually the ones with the least experience and poorest skills. Rebel Heart comes to mind. The sea is a brutal teacher; the more you learn the more you understand how little you know, particularly with regards to an incident you didn't witness yourself.

[Tillsbury]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

I don't think there's much doubt the skipper was running down wind as expected - the window blew out!
At windspeed 41m/second the pressure is 100kg per sq.m.(Approx 80knots gust= 100kg/sq.m.) Could you fly 1sq.m kite in a 100kph wind?
With the open cockpit/cabin pressurised by an 80knot gust from behind plus suction on the window as the wind streamed past the outside, it seems quite feasible the large windows got thumped outwards.

To those who think he made a bad decision:
The weather was not unreasonable for trips to and from NZ and he was handling things OK until the window blew out. How should the skipper know the window wasn't designed for the conditions ??

There's no mention of 80kt gusts nor of the winds blowing out the window. The window was sucked out after a knockdown that took the liferaft. Let's try to stick to what we know and not make too many random assumptions

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Tillsbury

There's no mention of 80kt gusts nor of the winds blowing out the window. The window was sucked out after a knockdown that took the liferaft. Let's try to stick to what we know and not make too many random assumptions

80 knots was just to give round figures for wind pressure to illustrate a point.

I don't see how water on the outside can suck a window out. Bash it in yes.
Maybe he misused the words 'sucked out'?
I didn't see he had a knock-down, but did read he had breaking waves wash over them.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

80 knots was just to give round figures for wind pressure to illustrate a point.

I don't see how water on the outside can suck a window out. Bash it in yes.
Maybe he misused the words 'sucked out'?
I didn't see he had a knock-down, but did read he had breaking waves wash over them.

Maybe the 'journalist' misused the words 'sucked out'.... wouldn't be the first time a journo has been writing about a subject they know sfa about....

[CassidyNZ]

Originally Posted by daletournier

They decided to run under drogue. My friend is a boat builder and designed and built is own boat , he fully understood the structural integrity of his boat. His words to me were "I was worried that the drogue was going to RIP the back of the boat off"!. They eventually lost the drogue and run under bare poles.

During our severe weather event we had no drogues and at one point we’re running under bare poles too. Still the boat speed went up to 9kn at times and in the dead of night the boat took off down a wave. Scared me more than any other thing in my sailing life up to that point. My experience with bare pole sailing is that your choices of direction are quite limited.

I think the choice of size of drogues is important. Something too big (like some of the parachute anchors I have seen) would probably more stop the boat than slow it and that would not be my goal. This is all speculation on my part because I’ve never deployed a drogue as a survival tactic but I have deployed mine while motoring at 8kn. It slowed the boat to about 4kn and held it there which is I guess technically what it would do in a serious weather event.

Remember, swells run by a sailing boat at a much greater speed than boat speed and the combination of boat speed and the steepness of the swell are what would start a boat surfing. Remove either element and surfing won’t happen. That, to me, is the key - stop the boat surfing and you’re reasonably able to survive. And in my “tests”, it didn’t take a very big drogue to reduce boat speed sufficiently. FTR, my drogue is a meter diameter, steep sided cone (not umbrella) with a 400mm outlet downstream.