Hunter sinks at Catalina due to bow cleat failure

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well then, maybe it has something to do with one of the newcomers.

I was thinking that, but didn't want to press the introspection issue on you.

Really, go back and read some of your posts with a clear head and see if they are as civil as you would like to see on this forum. You seem to spend a lot of time competitively focused on a particular member.

Mark

[lifeofreilly57]

Originally Posted by autumnbreeze27

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...el-139308.html

Looks like there's a hunter being cut up for salvage after the skipper tangled with a bridge; if any of you hunter owners need parts.

Like most boating related mishaps leading to groundings/damage/salvage it's usually operator error compounded by a number of contributing factors ending up in an insurance claim, or worse. Fortunately this one looks like it just turned out to be embarrassing with no injuries involved, well other than probably crapping himself.
But salvage yards are a good source of original parts since stupid human tricks are not boat brand specific. It's also a good way to see how your brand is really put together. It's allowed me to inspect the build qulaity on some yachts I usually wouldn't be invited aboard unless I was scraping the hull. Ones mans misfortune is always another's opportunity.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by autumnbreeze27

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...el-139308.html

Looks like there's a hunter being cut up for salvage after the skipper tangled with a bridge; if any of you hunter owners need parts.

Yeah, stuff like that happens, even to Herreshoffs:

72' Herreshoff Ketch Suffers Collision with bridge

Maybe these guys could use the B&R rig from the Hunter?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by colemj

I was thinking that, but didn't want to press the introspection issue on you.

Really, go back and read some of your posts with a clear head and see if they are as civil as you would like to see on this forum. You seem to spend a lot of time competitively focused on a particular member.

Mark

Yes, fair comment and somewhat regrettable. Been reading mostly CF technical & seamanship threads the past several years with nothing but very capable forum members who generally respond quite patiently and sincerely. Their expertise & credibility are self-evident; no need to embellish. Admittedly, I don't do as well with the childish and self-aggrandizing stuff, especially when the proclaimed motives are insincere, but I'm sure that's equally self-evident to most too. Nothing to do with the merits. On the contrary, I believe many of the production boat myths have been dispelled and the issue has been presented in a more balanced light, imho.

I don't think the civility stuff is only about decorum & manners, however, it actually adds or detracts to the persuasiveness of an argument. The rest of the nonsense is just wasteful and, admittedly to guys like me, unneccessarily antagonistic. I just feel compelled to expose it on occasion -- usually with sarcasm and sometimes humor -- but as I said this is rather regrettable since it may just wind up instead adding to the overall antagonism.

[centerline]

this is a ridiculous and misleading thread header/title.... and after reading the body of the OP's post, why should hunter owners be any more cautious than the rest of us? dont we matter?... or maybe he thinks the hunter owners are in greater danger for some reason....

later the OP goes on to say that he doesnt really know the details, but he just posted what he assumed from reading something that a friend of a friend on facebook had written..... WTF kind of information sharing or reporting is this!!!


let me get it out of my system for a minute, by saying... this is a classic example of someone who doesnt know anything about the situation, but is willing to swear to it, or write it as truth, because someone else who doesnt know any more than he does, told him so.....

maybe next time a question to begin a new thread would be better than sharing information that will cause one to wonder why/how the human mind works that would allow the owner of it to think something like this should be written in this context.

and I really dont think it is a hunter thing.
the posting alludes to hunter boats being inferior and the cleat mounting being weak.. and that the owners should be afraid and be careful

it is my opinion that a hunter is as good as any other boat, but its the dumbass that owns the boat, any and all boats, that causes the problems.

you may or may not fall into the catagory of dumbass, but that designation will be more determined by your actions and the number of catastophic or repeated mistakes you make, rather than the boat you own or how you feel about yourself....

my condolences to the families that lost loved ones in the unfortunate event.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by centerline

this is a ridiculous and misleading thread header/title.... and after reading the body of the OP's post, why should hunter owners be any more cautious than the rest of us? dont we matter?... or maybe he thinks the hunter owners are in greater danger for some reason....

later the OP goes on to say that he doesnt really know the details, but he just posted what he assumed from reading something that a friend of a friend on facebook had written..... WTF kind of information sharing or reporting is this!!!


let me get it out of my system for a minute, by saying... this is a classic example of someone who doesnt know anything about the situation, but is willing to swear to it, or write it as truth, because someone else who doesnt know any more than he does, told him so.....

maybe next time a question to begin a new thread would be better than sharing information that will cause one to wonder why/how the human mind works that would allow the owner of it to think something like this should be written in this context.

and I really dont think it is a hunter thing.
the posting alludes to hunter boats being inferior and the cleat mounting being weak.. and that the owners should be afraid and be careful

it is my opinion that a hunter is as good as any other boat, but its the dumbass that owns the boat, any and all boats, that causes the problems.

you may or may not fall into the catagory of dumbass, but that designation will be more determined by your actions and the number of catastophic or repeated mistakes you make, rather than the boat you own or how you feel about yourself....

my condolences to the families that lost loved ones in the unfortunate event.

Whether the poster assumed or knew in the end he was right, the boat did sink because of a cleat failure.

[OldFrog75]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Whether the poster assumed or knew in the end he was right, the boat did sink because of a cleat failure.

So maybe the politically correct thread title should have been, "Boat sinks in Avalon due to bow cleat failure..."

Then someone else would have asked, "What kind of boat?", at which point we'd still get to the same place?

[smackdaddy]

Actually, according to the owner's account, the boat's sinking was primarily due to the aft mooring pendant parting, allowing the Hunter to drift into another boat and be holed.

[OldFrog75]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Actually, according to the owner's account, the boat's sinking was primarily due to the aft mooring pendant parting, allowing the Hunter to drift into another boat and be holed.

So now it goes from negligent owner/improper maintenance or product liability to suing the city for faulty equipment?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by OldFrog75

So now it goes from negligent owner/improper maintenance or product liability to suing the city for faulty equipment?

Well, if you must sue, sue the Santa Ana winds, I guess. They are the reason all this happened in the first place, right?

But at least keep the facts straight while you're preparing your brief.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Well, if you must sue, sue the Santa Ana winds, I guess. They are the reason all this happened in the first place, right?

But at least keep the facts straight while you're preparing your brief.

Yes indeed, you definitely want to keep your facts straight, especially when what facts we have remain insufficient. Based on the ltd. info we do have, the loss of the bow cleat could very well have set into motion a chain of events which caused the sinking. Cleat rips out -- bow mooring is lost -- boat swings around 180 degs. -- undue force/chafe placed on aft mooring pendant results in its failure -- boats come into contact -- Hunter holed & sunk. If and only if the facts support this being the case, then the contact with the other boat would be the "proximate cause" of the sinking, whereas the loss of the cleat would be the "cause-in-fact." In other words, "but for" the cleat loss, the chain of events that ultimately resulted in the sinking would never have occurred. You need to prove both to win, which could amount to a tough case to prove, and one which is highly fact-dependent. Given the limited info we have now, however, it's certainly a plausible scenario.

The other way to look at it is if the bow cleat had held but the aft pendant had still parted, would the boats have come into contact at all? Perhaps not given how all the boats were probably lying in roughly the same direction to the powerful winds & seas. So the title "Hunter sinks at Catalina due to bow cleat failure" could be looking more accurate all the time.

But MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, is it "penDant" or "penNant"? Or is this another one of those "salon" vs. "saloon" deals? These are the critical matters which weigh on inquiring minds.

[CarinaPDX]

Exile-

I certainly agree that it appears that it is a chain of events as you describe, except that your chain doesn't start early enough. The first failure in the chain was the skipper not moving the boat to safe harbor before the long-forecast easterly gales swept into the harbor over a 25 mile fetch. The second failure was to not attach the vessel to the mooring with a bridle (and arguably other lines to multiple points on the boat), again knowing that the gales were forecast. Had this been done then the load on the cleat may never have reached the breaking point, and if it had there would have been backup to hold the boat in position. The failure of the cleat (mounting) may well have occurred with forces above the design limit - we can't know either way at this point. A more important question is whether a designed breaking strength in excess of 2 tons is somehow inadequate - I don't think so. I think had the skipper done his job of protecting vessel and crew the boat would never have experienced such a load on a single cleat. Others may expect their vessels to be strong enough to rescue them from their mistakes. YMMV

Greg

[Exile]

Originally Posted by CarinaPDX

Exile-

I certainly agree that it appears that it is a chain of events as you describe, except that your chain doesn't start early enough. The first failure in the chain was the skipper not moving the boat to safe harbor before the long-forecast easterly gales swept into the harbor over a 25 mile fetch. The second failure was to not attach the vessel to the mooring with a bridle (and arguably other lines to multiple points on the boat), again knowing that the gales were forecast. Had this been done then the load on the cleat may never have reached the breaking point, and if it had there would have been backup to hold the boat in position. The failure of the cleat (mounting) may well have occurred with forces above the design limit - we can't know either way at this point. A more important question is whether a designed breaking strength in excess of 2 tons is somehow inadequate - I don't think so. I think had the skipper done his job of protecting vessel and crew the boat would never have experienced such a load on a single cleat. Others may expect their vessels to be strong enough to rescue them from their mistakes. YMMV

Greg

All very true, and also worth emphasizing again. As others have pointed out, the responsibility probably falls on the skipper, and I wouldn't want to suggest that apportioning blame onto the boat, the mooring facility, or elsewhere would be appropriate in this case. My comment only pertained to what may have precipitated a chain of events based on certain logical assumptions, and in response to a post pointing to a specific cause as if it was fact.

[RTB]

Originally Posted by CarinaPDX

Exile-

I certainly agree that it appears that it is a chain of events as you describe, except that your chain doesn't start early enough. The first failure in the chain was the skipper not moving the boat to safe harbor before the long-forecast easterly gales swept into the harbor over a 25 mile fetch. The second failure was to not attach the vessel to the mooring with a bridle (and arguably other lines to multiple points on the boat), again knowing that the gales were forecast. Had this been done then the load on the cleat may never have reached the breaking point, and if it had there would have been backup to hold the boat in position. The failure of the cleat (mounting) may well have occurred with forces above the design limit - we can't know either way at this point. A more important question is whether a designed breaking strength in excess of 2 tons is somehow inadequate - I don't think so. I think had the skipper done his job of protecting vessel and crew the boat would never have experienced such a load on a single cleat. Others may expect their vessels to be strong enough to rescue them from their mistakes. YMMV

Greg

The truth...the whole truth...and, nothing but the truth.

Ralph

[centerline]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

at least keep the facts straight while you're preparing your brief.

I couldnt agree more

after the "weak link" fails, all sorts of collateral damage can happen which has nothing at all to do with the cause of...

I wonder if the pendent attachment was owned by the boat owner, or if it was part of the mooring?...

I didnt wade thru the 30+ pages of BS to get to find the REAL explanation of what happened, but neither will I post what I think may have happened.

other than im betting the pendent was in poor condition or was undersized for the boat in those conditions...