Small yacht capsize and crashes into Redondo pier

[double u]

going through the vid bit by bit I notice the following:
0:13 boat on stb tack, jib flogging, everybody in the cockpit - heading in the wrong direction, no?
0:34 jibing, jib still flogging, now there is somebody on the right sidedeck (presumably working on the jibsheet), main not properly tied down
1:01 bearing away, main "blowing in the wind, no attempt to taem it visible
1:12 again heading up on pt tack, person visible at jibsheet/clew
1:21 finally 2 crew taming main
1:41 tiller all the way downwind
1:58 the guy at the jibsheet/clew is doing something with his right foot
2:01 he's picking up a dark object from the sidedeck
2:14 he's pullin the sheet by hand, helm hard alee

(I have to confess: my first idea when I saw the vid was: they've stolen the boat & don't know how to sail - apparently not true...)

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

None of this means that bigger boats are BETTER. Safety is only one quality of boats. There are all kinds of tradeoffs with size, so everyone has to choose the size which suits him best. The principle downside is cost -- an existential question, of course. Cost (capital and running) goes up reliably with size, just like safety does. There are other tradeoffs, too, so YMMV.

I have started my sailing learning curve on a 39 footer and in the past 12 years owned 5 boats from 25 to 36. I also crewed on my friends' 46.5 footer for a total of may be 5,000-7,000 miles. I haven't crewed on anything bigger than that but 50-55' would probably be the upper limit for 99% of the regular boaters anyway. So I speak if not from extensive experience but from some experience.

What I am hearing/reading in this thread in reply to my comparison or attempts at one is "but the bigger boats usually have electric winches, etc, etc." So it is still apples to oranges as far as I am concerned. And there is nothing hypothetical about not having electric winches, etc - batteries and engines die, winches get stuck or broken, anchors are parted, etc. etc. So for me comparing a 55 footer with all tricked out electric this or that and a 24 foot bare racer is not a valid comparison. Kind of like comparing two riders but one of them is on on a Harley and the other one is on a regular bicycle. Which is inherently safer? Don't you think the answer will largely depend where/when are they riding, how long, availability of gas, personal stamina, etc.?

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I have started my sailing learning curve on a 39 footer and in the past 12 years owned 5 boats from 25 to 36. I also crewed on my friends' 46.5 footer for a total of may be 5,000-7,000 miles. I haven't crewed on anything bigger than that but 50-55' would probably be the upper limit for 99% of the regular boaters anyway. So I speak if not from extensive experience but from some experience.

What I am hearing/reading in this thread in reply to my comparison or attempts at one is "but the bigger boats usually have electric winches, etc, etc." So it is still apples to oranges as far as I am concerned. And there is nothing hypothetical about not having electric winches, etc - batteries and engines die, winches get stuck or broken, anchors are parted, etc. etc. So for me comparing a 55 footer with all tricked out electric this or that and a 24 foot bare racer is not a valid comparison. Kind of like comparing two riders but one of them is on on a Harley and the other one is on a regular bicycle. Which is inherently safer? Don't you think the answer will largely depend where/when are they riding, how long, availability of gas, personal stamina, etc.?

None of this matters, with respect to size. It's simply a matter of preparation, judgement, and the ability to problem solve and make decisions under duress.

First of all, a big heavy displacement boat is not going to accelerate as fast as a smaller race boat (and that is a race boat in the video, and not a centerboard). Just a fact. Yes when properly trimmed and up to speed the bigger boat is going to be faster, but we're not talking about a Farr 40 or anything.

I single-hand my 40' boat all over the place. I also race extensively on other people's boats. My boat, which is a cruising boat, is rigged for dealing with exactly the type of situation in the video. The two anchors at the bow are ready to go; I can basically kick the clutch on the windlass and down they go. An anchor at the stern needs only to be lifted from it's bracket and dropped. And I act early if a situation develops; secure the boat, then deal with the problem.

Race boats are different matter. Most race committees require that you carry an anchor and rode, but that means "carry" not ready to deploy, and only a newbie racer would carry it at the bow. If you race a lot in a given area, you get casual about it...you're familiar with the area and you take for granted that you can manage the boat. I'm going to bet that boat in the video had been in and out of that breakwater dozens if not hundreds of times without incident. They thought they could get the situation under control, it took more time than they expected and they did not have someone working on a back up plan, i.e. digging out the anchor.

Dockhead is right. The crew of the boat did not take the right steps to secure the boat. Perhaps they didn't even have an anchor, but having one is the FIRST step to secure the boat. Big boat, small boat, doesn't matter. A kedge would at the very least have kept them bow to the wind/waves and slowed their progress towards shore by a factor of 10. It would have expanded their options by a factor of 10 as well.

[thomm225]

All this big boat/small boat comparison in this situation is A waste of time.

If the small boat in the video wasn't damaged and the main was up and still usable, they would have simply sailed away from the beach.

Race boats that size here not only do not have anchors onboard, many remove their outboards before "important?!" races

[double u]

...imho this is not necessarily the conclusion...

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by double u

...imho this is not necessarily the conclusion...

It is the conclusion if all had been normal with the crew, and the boat hadn't been damaged. (The crew seems to be out of sorts a bit from whatever damaged the boat and mainsail)

Had the mainsail been up along with the jib, they would have simply sailed the boat wherever they chose.


In some races, you have to sail in and out through the surf line. This along the Atlantic Coast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_0o0YFfesM

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I have started my sailing learning curve on a 39 footer and in the past 12 years owned 5 boats from 25 to 36. I also crewed on my friends' 46.5 footer for a total of may be 5,000-7,000 miles. I haven't crewed on anything bigger than that but 50-55' would probably be the upper limit for 99% of the regular boaters anyway. So I speak if not from extensive experience but from some experience.

What I am hearing/reading in this thread in reply to my comparison or attempts at one is "but the bigger boats usually have electric winches, etc, etc." So it is still apples to oranges as far as I am concerned. And there is nothing hypothetical about not having electric winches, etc - batteries and engines die, winches get stuck or broken, anchors are parted, etc. etc. So for me comparing a 55 footer with all tricked out electric this or that and a 24 foot bare racer is not a valid comparison. Kind of like comparing two riders but one of them is on on a Harley and the other one is on a regular bicycle. Which is inherently safer? Don't you think the answer will largely depend where/when are they riding, how long, availability of gas, personal stamina, etc.?

I don't know -- not really, I think. Safety can be expressed in statistics. Engines die on a regular basis, so everyone should be able to deal with an engine failure. Other gear fails. But you can't say that power winches fail so often, and just at the moment when you are in danger, that it's a safety advantage to have a smaller boat. It's kind of like saying it's safer to sail without a chart plotter, because it might fail.

The question had to do with the specific incident we saw in the video. I think objectively it's very obvious that the crisis they had would have been far easier to deal with, on a bigger boat. I think that was the question which was asked and I think there's a clear answer.

It doesn't mean that all risks are always lower on a bigger boat. As you said, it depends on where you're sailing. I'm getting ready for my 7th North Sea crossing in a few weeks. Obviously that is far riskier, even on a large boat, than sailing around the cans on a 24 foot racer (and I actually got knocked down, during my third crossing, albeit in conditions which would have made matchsticks out of that 24 footer). Nobody said that 24 foot racers are dangerous. They are fine for the use they are intended for. But a comparison was asked for, and a comparison was given - that's all.


Another thing is if you compare insurance data, I'm sure you will see that the actual incidence of accidents goes down sharply with increasing size of the boat. So even adjusted for different ways you use different size boats, bigger boats are less likely to be involved in accidents.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by thomm225

. . . Race boats that size here not only do not have anchors onboard, many remove their outboards before "important?!" races

Around here, small race boats usually carry small kedges, usually Fortresses, usually kept in a cockpit locker, and for this exact situation.

I wouldn't go out in my DINGHY without an anchor - it's a basic instrument of control over the vessel. Outboard, oars, anchor.

If you choose to go out without an anchor and outboard to gain the last bit of performance while racing, I think that's fine, but then you really have to be awfully careful around lee shores, since you now only have one of the normally three means of controlling the vessel. The risk is just what we saw in the video.

[vw1961]

I think in a situation like this it might be really bad to be attached to the boat with harness/lifelines. I think its a question of whether "just" fall into the water and if lucky swim away vs. getting caught under water and drowning.
What do you think?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by vw1961

I think in a situation like this it might be really bad to be attached to the boat with harness/lifelines. I think its a question of whether "just" fall into the water and if lucky swim away vs. getting caught under water and drowning.
What do you think?

I think you made a very good observation.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't know -- not really, I think. Safety can be expressed in statistics. Engines die on a regular basis, so everyone should be able to deal with an engine failure. Other gear fails. But you can't say that power winches fail so often, and just at the moment when you are in danger, that it's a safety advantage to have a smaller boat. It's kind of like saying it's safer to sail without a chart plotter, because it might fail.

The question had to do with the specific incident we saw in the video. I think objectively it's very obvious that the crisis they had would have been far easier to deal with, on a bigger boat. I think that was the question which was asked and I think there's a clear answer.

It doesn't mean that all risks are always lower on a bigger boat. As you said, it depends on where you're sailing. I'm getting ready for my 7th North Sea crossing in a few weeks. Obviously that is far riskier, even on a large boat, than sailing around the cans on a 24 foot racer (and I actually got knocked down, during my third crossing, albeit in conditions which would have made matchsticks out of that 24 footer). Nobody said that 24 foot racers are dangerous. They are fine for the use they are intended for. But a comparison was asked for, and a comparison was given - that's all.


Another thing is if you compare insurance data, I'm sure you will see that the actual incidence of accidents goes down sharply with increasing size of the boat. So even adjusted for different ways you use different size boats, bigger boats are less likely to be involved in accidents.

The statistics, if true as you say, may simply reflect the fact that larger boat owners/operators overall and on the average are older (i.e. more sedate and take less risks) and thus more experienced than smaller (and younger) boat owners. But I still don't see that the larger boats (except in some specific offshore conditions) are inherently safer precisely because it takes extra or specialized gear to make them safer (more and heavier anchors, windlasses, winches, etc, etc). And yes, having a chart plotter onboard makes for a safer passage. But having one does not make the boat itself safer. I agree that the larger boat, WITH all the additional gear it can carry over the smaller boat, makes for a safer passage. When I'll have a chance I will ask my boat builder/NA buddy to answer this question: "If 3 boats sizes 24, 36 and 48 feet are made of the same materials, same fiberglass thickness/strength, same or appropriately sized gear and sails of same quality, etc. will the safety be increased proportionally or exponentially, if at all.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

The statistics, if true as you say, may simply reflect the fact that larger boat owners/operators overall and on the average are older (i.e. more sedate and take less risks) and thus more experienced than smaller (and younger) boat owners. But I still don't see that the larger boats (except in some specific offshore conditions) are inherently safer precisely because it takes extra or specialized gear to make them safer (more and heavier anchors, windlasses, winches, etc, etc). And yes, having a chart plotter onboard makes for a safer passage. But having one does not make the boat itself safer. I agree that the larger boat, WITH all the additional gear it can carry over the smaller boat, makes for a safer passage. When I'll have a chance I will ask my boat builder/NA buddy to answer this question: "If 3 boats sizes 24, 36 and 48 feet are made of the same materials, same fiberglass thickness/strength, same or appropriately sized gear and sails of same quality, etc. will the safety be increased proportionally or exponentially, if at all.

One thing I think I will agree with you on, is the phrase "offshore conditions".

The safety advantages of size are most significant in tough weather and sea conditions. That's where the safety goes up with size faster than linear. Offshore you start to care a lot more about the safety qualities of the vessel, than you do knocking around the bay.

In calm weather in the bay, no lee shore, etc., I guess there's not much difference, but then, in those conditions, the safety qualities of the boat matter very little in general.

But the safety advantages of size don't depend on gear-carrying ability. It seems like you're grasping for a rationalization for thinking that small boats are just as safe. "But what if you don't have a winch!" Then my Sunfish is safer than your 25' whatever. "But you need a rudder on that Sunfish! What if it breaks?! So my rubber dinghy which works without a rudder is safer than your Sunfish!". This is endless, and pointless. More elaborate gear is naturally a feature of bigger boats (starting already with Sunfishes vs rubber dinghies!) which are already more expensive even without the more elaborate gear. So it's just part of the package, just like having winches is part of the package of your own boat compared to Sunfishes, and etc. etc. ad infinitum.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Hi Boatman, I expanded the shot a bit for those interested, it may help to understand the situation. Entering the channel there is farther upwind, north, and he would have had to tack up into it too. Wind and swell was northwesterly. You can see in the shot the water is shallow in front of the pier there, hence breakers there.

Agreed.. in the opening shot he was running downwind parallel to the outer wall of the pier.. then for some weird reason he turns toward the pier and entrance while still in a mess with his sails.. totally dumb and begging a disaster.

[zeehag]

in a lee shore with current and wind affecting the b oat, neither large nor small generally escape--is why there are boats on beaches.
once inside the gap between the entrance to king harbor et alii, and the redondo pier, there is no escaping without engine power. the currents donot assist the engineless sailor in that particular location.
safety rule 9,00000---no small boat racing without an outboard that functions reliably on the transom.
the lag between the awareness of conditions vs responding to those conditions is a large one in the case of these folks. and sadly, the conditions awere not severe or extreme for the location, only for the sailors. .
had response time been shorter,perhaps the boat coulda been saved and not even entered the situation in which they found selves. they were not entering the channel--they were between the jetty for the channel and the redondo pier, a no exit mistake.
that boat a sout of control before it even got into that space--he got there due to the same actions on a boat dragging anchor--out of control. pushed by currents and wind. jib was flapping before he was near the pier.
yes i have sailed there. lived in king harbor a few months -- during rodney kings grand party, while working in hospital in lost angeles. i also partied there quite nicely. used to watch sunsets with bob bitchin and jody and the crowd that collected expressly for that purpose, before there was a lats and atts magazine.

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by vw1961

I think in a situation like this it might be really bad to be attached to the boat with harness/lifelines. I think its a question of whether "just" fall into the water and if lucky swim away vs. getting caught under water and drowning.
What do you think?

You wouldn't normally be attached to the boat with harness/lifelines that close to shore anyway unless it was a boat that you would be trapped out on.

And in that case, you wouldn't have been trapped out without the mainsail up.

Sailing just off the surf line for 20-50 miles can be a fun time especially if you have a steady sea breeze and a nice fast boat