Small yacht capsize and crashes into Redondo pier

[alctel]

A martin 242 is an extremely nippy little 24' race boat with a very big rudder. It has basically 0 side deck space - I can't imagine trying to untangle the jib in conditions like that while trying to hang on

There is no way a raceboat would be carrying an anchor on the bow either - more stuff to get your spinny tangled up in

[Crazy Talk]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Since there are probably many folks new to sailing reading here, I think it is helpful to point out that one need not (or should not) commit to a schedule or destination. They were trying to get back into the harbor entrance but really were not in a condition to make it. It can be a tough call but a wise one when you say to your crew, who may be in a hurry to get home, you know everyone, we aren't going to make it, I am going to head back out, sort this out or call for help. I am trying to suggest this without too much Monday morning QB, but with an eye to learning the right lessons.

Thanks for that post, Don. As a new sailor I'm watching this wondering how I would react in that situation. Initially it could seem that since the jib is moving you towards the pier more quickly it is counterintuitive to raise the main. I can't imagine the stress of the situation and trying to figure out how to save yourself and the boat.

I didn't know about the other issues until I read them just now, but I cringed when I saw those guys thrown from the boat.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Your argument is ridiculous.

Larger boats for example, a fifty three footer, nearly all have engines, wide decks and sustantially more weight than a twenty four footer.

Dockhead is correct in his assessment. I can even show you a chart picture/map of what happened to us under exactly the same set of circumstances off Garrucha Spain three years ago. We didn't end up on the beach or on the rocks despite an engine fire and all electrical systems being off-line including sails. We had more time to deal with the situation due to the boat not getting knocked around as much, and we also had three hundred feet of heavy chain along with a 45kg Ultra anchor to deploy manually (free fall) during the emergency to keep us off the rocks. Something most 24 footers don't have.

Another point... I was the only competent clear-headed person onboard at the time... being totally distracted by a drunken idiot who was basically second guessing all my actions and doing his best to create a chaotic situation.

But would a 24 footer with enough chain and heavy enough anchor (for its size) be able to prevent what happened in that video? Otherwise I don't buy your "our 53 footer with all the doodahs vs their bare 24 footer". And if size was such a great safety factor why the Titanic did not end up as the safest vessel known to man?

I think most people miss the point that boat's size utility is more of a function of its intended use. And that final safety determination is directly related to that use. Thus, in some circumstances, large size may be a hinderance (short or incompetent crew, lack of finances, lack of physical strength to operate all the systems, etc) while in other circumstances small size may be the only way to achieve one's goals - being close to shore, gunkholing, short crewing, training, etc. So in that video my view is that a 53 footer would not be "safer" as it would not be useful for their intended purpose - short races around the cans. In another words a boat which can't be used in given circumstances cannot not to be considered a "safer boat". Just as if your goal is to get to the beach directly your 53 footer is not as safe for that purpose as your 10ft dinghy.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

But would a 24 footer with enough chain and heavy enough anchor (for its size) be able to prevent what happened in that video? Otherwise I don't buy your "our 53 footer with all the doodahs vs their bare 24 footer". And if size was such a great safety factor why the Titanic did not end up as the safest vessel known to man?

I think most people miss the point that boat's size utility is more of a function of its intended use. And that final safety determination is directly related to that use. Thus, in some circumstances, large size may be a hinderance (short or incompetent crew, lack of finances, lack of physical strength to operate all the systems, etc) while in other circumstances small size may be the only way to achieve one's goals - being close to shore, gunkholing, short crewing, training, etc. So in that video my view is that a 53 footer would not be "safer" as it would not be useful for their intended purpose - short races around the cans. In another words a boat which can't be used in given circumstances cannot not to be considered a "safer boat". Just as if your goal is to get to the beach directly your 53 footer is not as safe for that purpose as your 10ft dinghy.

You might want to stop before your posts get any more ridiculous. Our boat did not end up on the beach for the very reasons I described... the 24 footer did.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln

[kmacdonald]

It's the size of the captain that matters, not the boat.

[Terra Nova]

Originally Posted by Don C L

...I think it is helpful to deconstruct it; not to criticize him...

Gotta disagree with this.

It's very important that everyone heap a bunch of scorn on the skipper's pathetic lack of skill.

[leftbrainstuff]

Geez. I'm glad most of the posters here weren't the rescuers. The poor sods would have drowned.

Lot's of assumptions about crew skill level. Not sure how you read that from the video.

All I saw was main and jib in trouble and the crew trying to deal with them and claw off a lee shore.

Without an anchor the criticism is pretty pointless.

So who on this forum could have sailed to windward in this situation? I can confirm that I couldn't have in that boat.

[boatman61]

I don't know this area personally but.. it looks to be a N'ly wind and instead of keeping the stern to the wind as in the start of the video till they had the jib under control and the main stowed.. which is what they appear to be trying to do.. they were in trouble the minute the helmsman turned to Port and surrendered sea room.
The false illusion of safer closer in..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Dockhead,

You are not doing apples to apples comparsion in your description. I'd like the comparsion to be as similar to the video as possible, i.e. no anchors deployed, no winches used, etc. Just doing what the smaller boat was doing with the same # of crew. Then, at least to me, the differences (either way) would become obvious.

I agree with you re: slower progress for a larger boat. But not for ALL larger boats. An ULDB 50 footer with its jib fully unfurled may accelerate as fast as that 24 footer, if not much faster.

People here keep comparing unequal things, ie. assuming larger boat has this or that and the smaller boat doesn't. That IMO is not a true comparsion if you for example assume 4 crew on 24 footer and 8-10 people on a 50 footer (and crew competence or lack thereof is the same). Then, I dont think a better outcome for a large boat is a given. It may or it may not be. It depends.

I don't know. Having both and engine out and no anchor available is just too hypothetical for me. Is there any single 50 footer sailing out there, with no anchor? Certainly not my boat. I just wouldn't do it -- it's basic gear and basic seamanship. The anchor is not just a parking device -- it is one of the three fundamental means we have to control the boat.

Why in the world would you need 8-10 people on the 50 footer? Even an old gaffer doesn't need that kind of crew. Two is all I would ever need in a situation like that, and one -- myself -- would be enough.

"Jib fully unfurled" is also a bit of a mine field. If the sheet is unfouled and the jib is flapping, then it doesn't make any difference. And in any case, the (apparently) intimidatingly massive jib on a 50 footer, is not necessarily a big deal -- the issue is SA/D, not the area of the sail. It's much easier to control a jib on a big boat with wide side decks, electric winches, furlers, etc., than on a boat like in the video.

So I don't know. We can torture these hypotheticals to death, but the outcome in any realistic set of parameters (excluding unreal stuff like you don't have any single anchor on board), will most definitely be far better, for the bigger boat.

Says the guy who has wrestled boats of all sizes from 16' to 90' in all kinds of wacky conditions. The bigger the better, if you want to be stable and avoid calamities like in that video.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Gotta disagree with this.

It's very important that everyone heap a bunch of scorn on the skipper's pathetic lack of skill.

I'm surprised it hasn't been blamed on "fatigue" yet. Or maybe it has and I missed it.

[kmacdonald]

I bought my Capri used. It had been raced previously and had a 3 lb mushroom anchor that came with it. Racers only carry an anchor if required to do so and then it's not the right type or weight to do anything except bottom fish with.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I don't know this area personally but.. it looks to be a N'ly wind and instead of keeping the stern to the wind as in the start of the video till they had the jib under control and the main stowed.. which is what they appear to be trying to do.. they were in trouble the minute the helmsman turned to Port and surrendered sea room.
The false illusion of safer closer in..

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.

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

Geez. I'm glad most of the posters here weren't the rescuers. The poor sods would have drowned.

Lot's of assumptions about crew skill level. Not sure how you read that from the video.

All I saw was main and jib in trouble and the crew trying to deal with them and claw off a lee shore.

Without an anchor the criticism is pretty pointless.

So who on this forum could have sailed to windward in this situation? I can confirm that I couldn't have in that boat.

DROWNED!!!!?????? they were less than 30 FEET from BEACH in surfline. drown??? only if you're not a cali surf/sail person.
i woulda sed bum, but ida got dissed. and so-- you sail into a surf line CLOSE to the BEACH (did you notice when they stood up in the water???) you are in the dead wrong location.
th esoutherly drift no one seems to take into account is a trickster on occasion. it is visible when you are unable to make your channel without help and are helpless to do anything but call for help. (i got stuck with a friend--in her boat--off angels gate,1988, where we measured the rate of drift--that day it was 4 kts.oopsy.we had engine. whew
)
the opening to redondo beach marinas, king harbor, portofino, and the other one-- is not there--it is more north and outward from the beach. oopsy. wind and southerly drift got them good. i think they shoulda asked for a tow out in the real ocean, not at the beach where it was too late for the boat.
is a hard call for the skipper. hopefully a vhf radio isnot too heavy for a racing boat.
to answer your final question--NO ONE coulda sailed out of that unless with an engine, as the drift rate is faster than the ability at that time to catch the wind, which was whipping the jib. he was screwed and getting screweder and had no control of boat due to the befouling of the sheets or whatever the issue was with the jib. before they got caught in the surfline, and before they passed that pier, yes it may have been possible to unfoul that aberrant jib and sail out into open water and regroup, BUT..... that was not an option, apparently.
it looks like they were btween the pier and the entrance... is a tough call for em.hard to exit once inside.

[Tacmed]

Good to see people come out to help others out of the water.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

But would a 24 footer with enough chain and heavy enough anchor (for its size) be able to prevent what happened in that video? Otherwise I don't buy your "our 53 footer with all the doodahs vs their bare 24 footer".

You don't need any chain at all on a kedge anchor, which is the right tool for that job, not the bower. You could easily carry my kedge (Fortress FX37 with 60 meters of rope rode) in a 24 foot boat, and a couple sizes down would be a snap.

So yes -- having an anchor at the ready is basic seamanship and size doesn't play much role. In fact, small boat = smaller anchor, and since you handle the kedge by hand even on a 54 footer, here the small boat might have some advantage IF you have a place to store the kedge which doesn't require you to crawl up non-existent side decks.

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

And if size was such a great safety factor why the Titanic did not end up as the safest vessel known to man?

I think most people miss the point that boat's size utility is more of a function of its intended use. And that final safety determination is directly related to that use. Thus, in some circumstances, large size may be a hinderance (short or incompetent crew, lack of finances, lack of physical strength to operate all the systems, etc) while in other circumstances small size may be the only way to achieve one's goals - being close to shore, gunkholing, short crewing, training, etc. So in that video my view is that a 53 footer would not be "safer" as it would not be useful for their intended purpose - short races around the cans. In another words a boat which can't be used in given circumstances cannot not to be considered a "safer boat". Just as if your goal is to get to the beach directly your 53 footer is not as safe for that purpose as your 10ft dinghy.

I think you're mixing up a couple of different issues here.

Obviously smaller boats are relatively more useful for gunkholing, creek crawling, and doing anything where size gets in the way. Obviously bigger boats are relatively better for ocean sailing where size doesn't get in the way -- but subject to budget constraints of course

But I don't think it's true, that there isn't any fundamental difference in safety between smaller and larger boats. Size brings huge advantages in stability and seaworthiness, on an almost exponential curve, in fact. With little downside in terms of safety (cost, berthing, etc. are different stories). Sailors of little boats almost always talk about how hard they think it is to handle the gear and the sails on a big boat. But you should come sailing with me sometime -- it actually gets easier and easier, as the boat gets bigger. The gear gets more and more robust and reliable, stuff doesn't break as much, you have a more stable platform to work on, you don't have to crawl on the decks. With all sails on furlers, you don't notice how big they are. If something does break, of course, then you might have a bigger challenge, than the same breakage on a smaller boat. But overall, I would say that safety goes up reliably with size. I would bet an eye tooth that insurance data backs that up, too.

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.


Concerning the Titanic -- this WAS an extremely safe vessel. But "safe" is always a relative concept, and if you run a ship into an iceberg at 30 knots, size is not going to help you much. Bad example!