Yacht Design School?

Ad Hoc,

A workable definition of "good" in this context would include at least the following elements: 1) being able to design a boat that is safe, and 2) being able to design a boat that a client is willing to buy. There might be other items one could add, but those two seem to be the key ones.

 

MikeJohns, your denigrating comments would include, for example, your comment implying that Westlawn graduates don't know the difference between tensile yield and shear yield, and a strong undertone in your comments that graduates of yacht design programs aren't trained to build a safe boat.

By the way, I don't disagree with your comments that it would be nice if yacht design programs included more content on fundamental engineering principles, and that if a designer is venturing into new design territory it would be a good idea to have the work checked by a good engineer. (By the way, if an engineer were venturing into new design territory the same principle would apply to him/her as well.)

However, the key question regarding the engineering aspects of boat design is not whether it would be nice of yacht design programs included more engineering content, but rather the question is whether curriculum of the programs is sufficient for a designer to design a safe boat of a type that falls within the scope of his training and that performs adequately to satisfy a client.

 

Lets look at that in context:

Sounds like I touched a raw nerve Alan !

If you read the "Massive Stem bar" ref I linked to youll find me saying exactly the opposite; too much unnecessary material and overly strong because of a miss_understanding of structures.

I disagree, as I said I formed my opinions not from some personal bias but from directly working with these designers.

The trap for them is that they don't go and work in a design office, get experienced peer input and learn the omissions from their course, it's not even a requirement before they go it alone.
If you start telling these people that they are empowered to design anything without even going through class plan approval then overconfidence in their abilities can and inevitably will lead to serious problems. That's a simple fact. They can labor under misunderstanding for their entire design career and I could cite several high profile designers in this category too. If I survey an existing boat and find something dangerously amiss I always contact the designer, usually they are very happy to have the input.

The crux is just at what point do the alarm bells go off in your head and you flag a design check. The example I gave of strength of material in tension being presumed to be the same in shear is a very good example.

You find it denigrating, which is interesting. I think it's simply factual.

 

To address the second one first, the ability to “sell” a boat that someone wishes to buy does not equate to professional training nor an understanding of engineering principals. That realm is salesmanship and the ability to take what someone thinks they want and turn it into what they know they want. That has nothing to do with being a “good” designer. It is about massaging ego’s and playing to their ‘perceived’ budgets amongst others. And as I stated in my first post on this thread, that is a financial model, nothing to do with engineering professionalism.

The first one, designing a boat that is ‘safe’.

Again that comes with a the caveat..what do you mean by ‘safe’..??

Exactly, that that is the whole point.

My “experience” I assume is pretty much similar to many in this industry, although I could be wrong. After graduation, I worked in a small boat/shipyard. Because this was a small yard, there was no “formal” training program, as stipulated in RINAs rules and regulations of the approval path to becoming a full Member. They, at the time, and still do, offer 2 years ‘on the job training’ in lieu of one year in a formal training program.

Today very very few companies in the UK and indeed the world, offer such formal training programs. This formal training program takes approximately 3-4 years, as in the old days of big Shipbuilding. The program would consist of things like: 3months on the mould loft, 3months in welding/fabrication, 3 months in the test tank, 3 months in the project management and so on. So, you see why these programs are indeed very rare, if at all now.

So, I spent 7-8 years “training” on the job with the appropriate disciplines and having my “work” reviewed and signed off by a full Member as witnessed. I had to document this for the entire period until RINA were satisfied that I had completed the minimum standards required for the “professional” training aspect; to supplement the academic side. I was then interviewed for the final acceptance by the committee members.

Once this was approved, I become a full member and a charted engineer. During this “on the job training” it becomes very clear and obvious where limitations in one skills are and then what to do about them. Coupled with the fact that QA is a very very important part of being a professional naval architect. This is never addressed yet is probably the single most important feature learnt in a ship/boat yard.

The point MikeJohns makes, is that ‘graduates’ from Westlawn do not and feel they need to undergo this “on the job training” for some 7-8 years as a minimum after graduation before they think they are competent and professional as a yacht designer or other. They are given the belief that they can hit the ground running because “they have passed”, ergo, they are now small craft/yacht designer, what else is required? They either go it alone from the start or join small companies that many could never ever provide the full breadth of training required.

So, to answer the ‘safe’ part…a small craft/yacht design graduate of Westlawn, if they have had training by a recognised professional naval architect with a wide range of disciplines over a period of some 8 years, then yes, they “should” be competent enough to design a safe boat.

 

Ad Hoc,

What do I mean by safe? A safe boat would be one designed so that it does not fail when subjected to the full range of conditions under which the boat was designed to operate, with a reasonable safety factor thrown in as part of the bargain. I think that would be a pretty standard engineering definition for safety. Do you use a different definition?

For example, a canal barge is not designed to operate on the high seas. Therefore, its design strength would not need to be to the same level as, let us say, an oil tanker designed to cross the North Atlantic. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this concept is well recognized.

 

To add, who are the instructors at school in question? Can one see any with academic degree in naval architecture in the list?

 

If what you say is true then it is a good point. However, I doubt if Westlawn or the Landing School are telling their students that they can tackle any design. Everything I have read from those schools says quite the opposite, namely that their training is only applicable to a certain range of watercraft. I do not believe you can document that the schools are representing their programs as empowering their students to design outside of the realm of their training.

 

Let's approach this discussion from another point of view. How many cases can you name in which a graduate of Westlawn or the Landing School designed a boat that was within the parameters of their training but which subsequently failed? I am prepared to be educated on this.

To be fair, are there similar instances of failure of a yacht designed by a graduate of an accredited naval architecture program? It is certainly not hard to find engineering failures of structures outside of the naval architecture field that were designed by trained engineers. Some of them have made the news. Tacoma Narrows Bridge is a classic and spectacular example. The space shuttle disaster is another. The failure of some of the "Liberty Boats" during world war II is another example, but I suspect we are now back to naval architecture proper.

 

Ad Hoc, when I referred to a boat that someone would buy as being one factor in a good design I was using a shorthand to cover a large number of factors, including boat performance, cost, ergonomics, styling, and any other factor the customer sees of value. Most of these are highly dependent on the design.

 

All of which is subjective and has nothing to do with the level of education/training from a small craft program, or indeed any other. One mans ergonomics is different from another’s, as is performance, cost etc. This is generally rolled up as the SOR (statement of requirements). How you approach this and arrive at a solution is the important aspect. Due process.

I don’t think you’ll get many takers admitting to their mistakes, no matter where they were educated!..since this requires the person at fault to say so publically. Won’t do their reputation much good if they were found to be negligent.

Indeed, but they generally fall into 2 types of failures. The first, the engineers identify a problem, but were overruled by “management” in whatever guise you wish to call it (Space Shuttle prime example). Thus the failure was not as a result of the engineer’s ability. The second type is that correct procedures were not followed by the engineer, again for whatever reason (which is negligence), or a “new” level or analysis/procedure becomes the result, as the failure was unforeseen by everyone (Liberty Boats, new knowledge on Brittle Fracture).

It is all about being methodical and following correct procedures. Which brings me to your “safety” definition. Safety is a culture and a philosophy not just “does she meet perspective Class structural rules for North Atlantic etc”. Identifying, understanding and mitigating the risks is a very important role in design. And more often than not, there is no “prescriptive” rule for guidance, other than ones training and understanding of the variables at hand. The professionalism comes about when the designer recognises their limitations and seeks guidance/advice from others to address the issues at hand.

 

No need to ask for admissions of guilt. Just look at the accident reports. I am not a professional in the field, and you are, so it would be much easier for you to find information on boat failures.


I think it is incumbent on those making accusations (in this case accusations about the safety of boats designed by yacht designers vs. naval architects) to supply objective evidence to back up the claims. So far there has been none presented in this thread.

 

Let me add that when I referred to "yacht designers" in my last thread I was referring specifically to Westlawn and Landing School graduates, or graduates from another comparable program.

 

Statistics says that 80% of boat accidents are due to 'human factor'; technical issues comprise only about 10% where equipment problems is major part of it. So there is almost impossible to make any conclusions on design factors of safety and its correlation with designers qualifications, based on such statistics of accidents. There is no statistical base.

On other side, one can look at efficiency of boats or designer's capability to perform design optimisation task.

 

Hmmm, if I can paraphrase your post, you are aware of no evidence that yachts designed by graduates of yacht design programs are failing in the field at a higher rate than boats designed by naval architects.

However, you do believe there is anecdotal evidence that graduates of yacht design programs are not up to the task of designing a yacht. Is there more definitive and objective evidence that can be cited?

 

I’m not sure how much you know about this industry, but there is very little in the public domain, despite protestations to the contrary, that there must be.

One field of design I know a lot about has an accident analysis database, for this very reason. This is based upon commercial vessels that have been formally designed and built by experience persons, from NAs to welders, to Class to Flag authorities etc. One would assume that since all the parties involved and the companies involved are professionals that reporting openly and publically their accident, faults errors etc would be common place. You could not be further from the truth. It is terribly difficult to ascertain this information and the information gained, is often scant at best. So you think the yachting industry would be easier??..i think not!

I, like I assume MikeJohns, am often asked to review reports or actual accidents/failures for “others” to ascertain the causes of such failures etc. All these cases I have viewed and/or reported on, none, not one single one has been made public, and never shall be. As soon as “money” becomes involved and “blame” it is all done behind closed doors. The only ones which become ‘public’ are those were an amicable solution was never found, for whatever reason, thus seeking further mediation elsewhere.

So, like MJ, our evidence is anecdotal (emprical), from our own experiences from our own work. You can either accept what we shay or not. It is your choice, but either way, doesn’t bother me if you do not. But where I suspect MJ and others have found, as have I, that such “failures” are often down to overstretching ones limitations coupled with a lack of due process...ie in experience and poor training.