Leopard 50 burns and sinks

[PaulBartomioli]

It was brand new. I started looking at some of their previous videos. I believe it was a 2020 build. What struck me was how quickly the entire boat was engulfed. and they were home in Australia. NOW the nightmare has started. Interesting questions being raised about insurance, brokers, USCG, liability, etc.

[ausnp84]

Originally Posted by BillKny

A couple things surprise me: First is the incredulity of the owners that they are being held financially responsible the cleanup of the mess that their boat has left behind. “It’s not fair. We were in Australia!” Yeah, well, SOMEBODY has to pay for the cleanup, and it is a whole lot less fair to dump those costs of your toy on the local taxpayers. I guess they’ll be even more surprised when the owner of the other boat destroyed comes after them for the value of HIS boat and it’s cleanup! Now, if the fire was the result of the actions of workman, then you better hope THEIR insurance is paid up so you can be made whole.

Y’know, I didn’t get that from the vid. What I did get was the incredulity that the USCG was onto them so quickly to sign a salvage contract, and that they were trying to process the news, deal with a tardy insurer, manage salvage vultures AND deal with the USCG after not a lot of sleep and the time zone difference.

These are two medical professionals who’ll have been dealing with paperwork and various responsibility clauses all their life. I’d be suprised if most people weren’t equally overwhelmed if this happened to them, and struggled to handle the first 24-72 hours very well.

N

[PaulBartomioli]

IF people LISTEN to the audio, they admit they will be responsible. I agree with your post. MY other issue was how their insurance company went totally dark until the 11th hour. These people had questions about payments, etc and no one from the insurance company responded. I believe the poster was one of those that attacked these people.

[mcarling]

The USCG liability of more than $100K per day was for the petroleum spill. I think that’s another factor to consider in the question of going all-electric. If there had not been any hydrocarbon fuels onboard, that particular liability would not exist for the owners.

[PaulBartomioli]

What petroleum spill? Granted the video was not specific, but it seemed that whatever diesel,oil, etc there was on both boats was consumed in the fire.

[Tillikum]

If portlights were being replaced or reglazed I wonder if there was a build up of acetone(?) vapour in the interior spaces which being confined there and to some extent mixed with the air in those spaces, and set up a "perfect storm" just waiting for ignition?

Acetone vapour is heavier than air, so that might explain the leg burns on one or both of the workers and the fact that the vapour was apparently not obvious enough to drive them outside(?)

Definitely should make a boater think about both flammable materials on board and what if anything can be done to minimize them!

Regardless of the hull material, if offshore and one was able to escape to a dinghy or life-raft, and the life-raft is potentially doubtful, the obvious question is has all the food, water and comms gear just burned or gone down with the ship?

At least a steel hull, if the through-hulls don't fail, will still be afloat and potentially some shelter once it cools down, and perhaps some drinking water left in the tanks...

[mcarling]

Originally Posted by PaulBartomioli

What petroleum spill? Granted the video was not specific, but it seemed that whatever diesel,oil, etc there was on both boats was consumed in the fire.

Look at the letter from the USCG in the video. The USCG position is that if a vessel is lost, then an oil spill occurred. It’s the owner’s problem to convince the USCG (or a court) that an oil spill could not have occurred. If an oil spill could have occurred, then it is presumed to have occurred.

It might be the case that the USCG would impose liability over the small amount of lubricating oil in an electric motor, but I’d rather argue with them over one liter of oil than over 1000 liters. At least the fines would be lower.

[Sailor647]

Originally Posted by CarlF

The lesson here is that you should be extremely careful to only use acetone outside and even then with great care. It's amazingly dangerous stuff.

I wonder why we don't see more nail salon fires?

[PaulBartomioli]

or, it could be a revenue-raising scheme on the part of the USCG in this instance.

[wannago]

I'd have to assume there was diesel on the boat, possibly a lot of it, that once burning would generate enough heat to burn fiberglass in a hurry.


If it was a metal boat, through hulls above the water line, sure, the hull might survive, if you were one it out to sea you'd still burn to death. How much diesel do you usually carry?


What really alarmed me watching this is imagining being out to sea if this happened. Wind is pretty much going to blow your inflatable life raft right into the fire, and you're in the water.



Kinda scary to consider.

[CarlF]

So the most recent video spends several minutes on the fire dangers of acetone and two pack paints. To avoid legal problems they don't say WHY they are discussing acetone - but I think we can guess.

I've used acetone for 40 years (always outside) but this fire makes me rethink whether I should be carrying it onboard. A leaking container could be catastrophic. Perhaps I should just buy it locally and dispose of any remainder before heading out?

Or are there less flammable solvents that could replace acetone onboard? One poster mentioned Interlux 2333N but it's pretty expensive. Any other thoughts on a good - but fire safe - solvent?

[Icarus]

Originally Posted by mcarthur

Welded standpipes to above the waterline on all underwater throughhulls ... of course the welds fail as well at 650 Celsius (1200 fahrenheit for those in Liberia, Caymen Islands and USA )

Welds fail at 650C? No

[ixnax]

Originally Posted by Sailor647

I wonder why we don't see more nail salon fires?

I googled that and was surprised at how nail salon fires many have occurred. Still, your point is well intact. I think before I join acetones anonymous and take my dinghy gas to the disposal facility I'll wait to see just what level of insanity lays behind this tragedy.

[flightlead404]

Originally Posted by ixnax

Not so much of a distinction as it is the other side of the coin. The main point is that maybe someone could have afforded 2 Grand to have Liability insurance against damage caused to others but could not afford to pay for damage to others out of pocket.

Well yeah, a different perspective I suppose

[Howard888]

That was a new boat. The problem with US insurers is that they will not offer insurance on boats older than 15 years, so how can responsible boat owners possibly get insurance and have a good old boat?