UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki missing in mid-Atlantic

[JPA Cate]

Ted,

YMMV, but I really think laws that take away skippers' responsibilities and put them on race committees are bad for racing and bad for cruising sailors, as well. Not saying people don't adjust to them.

If a sailor believes it is up to someone else to save him, he will be unlikely to practice good seamanship. Where's the motivation?

There's a yacht club here in Pittwater where the common practice at the fuel dock is very convenient for the members: the hired hands are to offer you dock lines from the fuel dock. What happens is that people don't learn to get their fenders and lines ready and learn how to tie up their own boats. I think that's a negative unintented conseequence of service to members.

There was not in 1996, well before 1998, any doubt among the meterologists that we spoke to at Ekka in Brisbane, that wind speeds in Oz are calculated as 10 min. averages, and that actually, wind gusts may actually be 50% stronger than the predicted wind strength. I don't know why they've adopted the 40% averages statement for the wx forecasts. What I'm saying is that the knowledge was there, and if we, a couple of foreign visitors had access to it, ought it not to be common knowledge amongst the racing skippers and crews?

The skippers in the '98 S to H had VHF radios. Coastal Patrol Eden has not only the State weather forecasts available, but the oil rigs forecasts as well; and observations. Anyone southbound not liking the looks of the skies could have received wx from that source. If the skippers didn't know what "storm force" meant, they hadn't done their homework. Blaming the race committee and the coroners report buying into it ends up creating less responsible skippers.

That's enough of this digression on this thread. The crew of the Cheeki Rafiki were not racing, they were bound for Cowes to race some more. I do not think they chose a conservative route. They paid grievously for that, and so have their families. Rest in peace.

Ann

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Ted,

YMMV, but I really think laws that take away skippers' responsibilities and put them on race committees are bad for racing and bad for cruising sailors, as well. Not saying people don't adjust to them. If a sailor believes it is up to someone else to save him, he will be unlikely to practice good seamanship.

There was not in 1996, well before 1998, any doubt among the meterologists that we spoke to at Ekka in Brisbane, that wind speeds in Oz are calculated as 10 min. averages, and that actually, wind gusts may actually be 50% stronger than the predicted wind strength. I don't know why they've adopted the 40% averages statement for the wx forecasts. What I'm saying is that the knowledge was there, and if we, a couple of foreign visitors had access to it, ought it not to be common knowledge amongst the racing skippers and crews?

The skippers in the '98 S to H had VHF radios. Coastal Patrol Eden has not only the State weather forecasts available, but the oil rigs forecasts as well; and observations. Anyone southbound not liking the looks of the skies could have received wx from that source. If the skippers didn't know what "storm force" meant, they hadn't done their homework. Blaming the race committee and the coroners report buying into it ends up creating less responsible skippers. That's enough of this digression on this thread. The crew of the Cheeki Rafiki were not racing, they were bound for Cowes to race some more. I do not think they chose a conservative route. They paid grievously for that, and so have their families. Rest in peace.

Ann

Ann, no one has removed skippers responsibilities. The moral and legal responsibility is still present and just as valid as it's always been.

The knowledge of 40% possible increase in weather was NOT well known in the 90's. I worked commercially in the 90's and it was a surprise to me. This information was pointed out at the inquest that it was published by the met, but was largely found in small print in a disclaimer. Since 1998, it's now broadcast widely and announced with every weather forcast and in clear type on web pages. I certainly have never heard of the 50% so I'm not conscious of where you got that from. And I'm not blaming the MET either though as a result of the deaths they now work significantly closer with race organizers.

The rest of your comments about weather and VHF availability, are covered in the coroners report so I'm not going over them. But I will say it's just plain ignorance of the facts to blame the skippers alone for continuing to head south. It's simply too simplistic to say they should have been aware.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

I refer you to my reply to Dave, above. Since your comment is in reply to a comment regarding my own, I must assume it relates to my own. In this case, you are simply employing a pointless strawman, and your ad hominem is a poorly considered hostage to fortune. I did not do what you suggest, so kindly don't suggest it. And if I am an "armchair" expert, sailor boy, I must have a very small armchair bolted to the deck, as I live at sea and continually engage in Ocean crossings and passages as a professional. Further, I have commercially skippered many different Beneteaus as well as many others of all shapes and sizes. You?

Sounds to me you are trying to use some type of triple talk to pick a fight

[pbiJim]

Has anyone found a good news report that puts all the raw information on what happened into one place?

Thanks,
Jim

This is the best that I have found so far - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...iki-yacht.html

[mbianka]

Originally Posted by pbiJim

Has anyone found a good news report that puts all the raw information on what happened into one place?

Thanks,
Jim

I haven't. Seems like everyone is walking away after they found the liferaft still on the boat. Yet, there may be remains inside but, have not heard if anyone explored further than the surface swimmer who only reach under water an arms length. Also got to believe that anyone in the cockpit had a life jacket and that may still be floating around in the search area waiting to be found along with the PIRBS that were activated. I could see calling off the planes but, maybe the Coast Guard and Navy vessels could spend a little more time looking around in the search area instead of just steaming off. I hope they are.

[Southern Star]

Ann/Pelagic, I'm with Ted on this one. The laws which resulted from the inquest into the Hobart race did not 'shift the blame' to race organizers, nor did they take away the skipper's ultimate responsibility. Indeed, at common law an inquest cannot apportion blame; they can and did, however, make recommendations that can help to prevent similar deaths in future.

By requiring race organizers to cancel a race when conditions become untenable, they can protect the lives of crew who are sailing with a 'cowboy' skipper who would, if the race continued, keep on sailing directly into harm's way. We must remember that it is not just the skippers who perish for their bad decisioins.

Brad

[Southern Star]

Sorry for contributing to the thread drift - and it is drift as Cheeki Rafika was not engaged in a race at the time it was lost. My heartfelt condolences to the families of the skipper and crew and thanks, as a member of the sailing fraternity, to all of those, both paid and unpaid, who engaged in the search effort.

We cannot now and, if the boat is not recovered, will likely never be able to do more than speculate as to the exact conditions and circumstances that gave rise to the loss of the keel and the lives of all aboard. It is, therefore, IMO both unwise and unfair to criticize the skipper, the owner of the boat, the design and construction of the boat, the manufacturer, the mentality of 'racers', the level of maintenance etc., etc. at this point. Lives have been lost and I for one have no desire of contributing to the anguish of the owner and the survivors of the captain and crew; I also have no desire to attempt, in any way, to hold the manufacturer responsible for this tragic loss of life.

At this point about all that can be said is that this event once again reminds us that the sea is a very unforgiving mistress. For those who sail across oceans, it is trite to say that we must take care with respect to the design and condition of our boats, our preparedness, our anticipated weather patterns and our routes. Even then, of course, we must be prepared to recognize that there are occasionally perils that cannot reasonably be anticipated/or prepared for by even the most prudent.

Obviously I am unable to say that this was one of those situations, but I am also unable to say that it was not. For eample, what if the boat struck a partially submerged container in heavy conditions, but the crew were able to keep up with the ingress of water and seemed in no imminent danger; what if as a result of the damage the keel suddenly and unexpectedly broke off and the boat did a snap capsize in heavy conditions; what if in the course of that snap capsize the crew were rendered unconscious below and drowned before coming-to? Who would you want to blame?


Brad

[Southern Star]

In post #441 above, I left out the word NOT prior to the phrase 'shift the blame'. I hope that error was obvioius from the context of the rest of the post, but thought I should mention it (I did not notice the error until after 30 minutes had expired and I was unable to edit it).

Thanks!

Brad

I have edited the post, Pete7.

[robert sailor]

Brad some of your post I completely agree with but you start out suggesting that we shouldn't speculate but you end up speculating about submerged objects and snap roll capsize. Sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

[Southern Star]

robert, I was just trying to point out the problem with pointing fingers/assigning blame by speculating as to what happened - you can just as easily speculate about a set a circumstantces that would leave them blameless. IMO no one should be indicted based upon speculation - and certainly not those who are no longer alive to defend themselves.

Brad

[robert sailor]

Good reply Brad, I understand, you make a good point.

[svlamorocha]

I am trying to find a photo of the bilge (basically the area with the two rows of bolts) of a another 40.7 to compare against a photo of the same area in Cheeki Rafiki that Evans S posted in SA.

Can anyone please share such a photo? Many thanks!

Charlie

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Sorry for contributing to the thread drift - and it is drift as Cheeki Rafika was not engaged in a race at the time it was lost. My heartfelt condolences to the families of the skipper and crew and thanks, as a member of the sailing fraternity, to all of those, both paid and unpaid, who engaged in the search effort.

We cannot now and, if the boat is not recovered, will likely never be able to do more than speculate as to the exact conditions and circumstances that gave rise to the loss of the keel and the lives of all aboard. It is, therefore, IMO both unwise and unfair to criticize the skipper, the owner of the boat, the design and construction of the boat, the manufacturer, the mentality of 'racers', the level of maintenance etc., etc. at this point. Lives have been lost and I for one have no desire of contributing to the anguish of the owner and the survivors of the captain and crew; I also have no desire to attempt, in any way, to hold the manufacturer responsible for this tragic loss of life.

At this point about all that can be said is that this event once again reminds us that the sea is a very unforgiving mistress. For those who sail across oceans, it is trite to say that we must take care with respect to the design and condition of our boats, our preparedness, our anticipated weather patterns and our routes. Even then, of course, we must be prepared to recognize that there are occasionally perils that cannot reasonably be anticipated/or prepared for by even the most prudent.

Obviously I am unable to say that this was one of those situations, but I am also unable to say that it was not. For eample, what if the boat struck a partially submerged container in heavy conditions, but the crew were able to keep up with the ingress of water and seemed in no imminent danger; what if as a result of the damage the keel suddenly and unexpectedly broke off and the boat did a snap capsize in heavy conditions; what if in the course of that snap capsize the crew were rendered unconscious below and drowned before coming-to? Who would you want to blame?


Brad

Very well thought out and sensible response. Thanks Brad.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

. . .What if the boat struck a partially submerged container in heavy conditions, but the crew were able to keep up with the ingress of water and seemed in no imminent danger; what if as a result of the damage the keel suddenly and unexpectedly broke off and the boat did a snap capsize in heavy conditions; what if in the course of that snap capsize the crew were rendered unconscious below and drowned before coming-to?

Who would you want to blame?

Brad

Brad In your scenario above I would not blame anyone..... However, if hitting containers started to become commonplace I could rationalize that fiberglass boats with bolted on keels are at a higher risk from that particular event, than say a steel yacht with long integral keel.
That is not a judgement but a fact.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Brad In your scenario above I would not blame anyone..... However, if hitting containers started to become commonplace I could rationalize that fiberglass boats with bolted on keels are at a higher risk from that particular event, than say a steel yacht with long integral keel.
That is not a judgement but a fact.

OMG, do you not understand he was using it as an illustration, or rather an example of why making all the assumptions are not really helpful?