The perils of edgy design offshore

Very glad to see a real smart sailor there. With all the waves, booms and other gear clanking around it really does make sense to wear a helmet...especially when you know rough waters are ahead.

To do otherwise is to allow mother nature to clobber you over the head with whatever is at her finger tips.

We wore them on the decks of navy ships & carriers too (mandatory). If you were caught without one you were in deep $hit.

 

If in the end the deaths are due to head injury the upside down issue is a side show. A side show that those with strong feelings against boats that won't recover from the inverted position are using to push their agenda. Unrelated to boat design the helmet is the most important knowlege to be gained from this tragedy.

 

I wholly concur...especially with boat racing. All notions of a sound, seaworthy design with a good capsize ratio, etc. are given reduced priority because hull SPEED becomes a top design priority.

I tell you what, helmets are really becoming quite popular in more sports than I can count. In my opinion, this is because the designs & quality of the gear these days has left us spoiled rotten with selection. They're just a smart choice plain & simple.

If you're a racer or sail in rough conditions often strap one on your head before the rough conditions get the best of you.

 

I think that although the posts about helmet have a valid point, and effects of personal protection devices should be (and in passing had been) considered here, design issues should not be dismissed.
(Trivial note: any personal protection device is only a last resort, for the case when the incident already happened. The main goal should be to avoid the incident, and wearing protection should not drive the user into a false sense of security. Sorry for reiterating well known facts.)


I can think of 3 scenarios (the actual events might have been different than any of them, it would be interesting to know facts):

1. Head injury took place before capsize. Yes, a helmet can be vitally important in such a situation, but again, it might not be enough. If this happened, then the question arises that how it could happen to two experienced sailors simultaneously, and does it have anything to do with the layout of the cockpit, rigging, etc.

2. They have thrown to the water in the course or immediately before capsize, and the capsizing boat have hit them in the head. If this is what happened, then the boat properties related to the capsize and the procedures in a situation when there is a danger of capsize need consideration. This may include the following:
a) a winged boat can capsize very fast if there is no canvas on. In the case of Lisa on the lawyer's cup, the crew could get rid off the canvas before the gust came. The boat capsized so fast that despite that the airbag had blown in the end of it, the mast had pushed to the mud.
b) I am not saying that it is possible to come to any serious conclusion about it, but considering how the crew falls to the water in the course of capsize, and what parts of the boat will hit that area might (or again might not) lead to useable conclusion.
c) The effects of PFD and harness may also be considered. The harness may be decisive on where the crew falls, and the PFD may have a side effect of pushing the crew's head above water when the boat hits in.

3. They had blown in the head under the already capsized boat.
Here the main factors I can think of are the capsized flotation design of the boat (do the crew have a useable air pocket under the capsized boat, and is there an escape route to either the cabin or the top?), and the effects of harness and PFD in using the air pocket and escape route. As others pointed out, a knife could be very important here.

And yes, in all three cases a helmet (with the needed additional luck) may have made a difference.

 

You are absolutely right about the safety knife as well. This was previously mentioned so I did not dive into it. It is no doubt considered a mandatory piece of gear for any boater who may constrained by a line whether he/she likes it or not. The style below is among the most widely used and can saw through deck lines in no time. Their sheath is also very safe to prevent accidents.



http://www.amazon.com/NRS-Co-Pilot-Knife/dp/B001UHVVK0

Sailors who race or ride out the tough waves really need to think and prepare like whitewater kayakers. In reality there encounter many of the same rough/cold water dangers. All should have:

-Helmet
-Safety knife
-Proper clothing (splash jacket, splash pants, footwear). Note: dry suit if in colder waters.
-Gloves
-PFD
-Emergency LED/chem light
-Emergency whistle
-Cell/Sat phone or VHF radio (water proof Pelican case)
-Locator/GPS beacon (offshore/remote areas)

For calm seas in the tropics I can see scaling back on the clothing, but the other basics are a must for anyone who respects mother nature. I have provided sea kayak & canoe expedition planning seminars for REI and other outfitters in the Midwestern US. Those who don't take it seriously are flirting with disaster. Paddlers are a tight bunch & we share safety tips like gold. We have no choice but to respect mother nature in smaller craft. Because of this training and preparation we often survive as a result.

Lake Michigan racers likely do not encounter rough seas that much, but when they do come that lake turns into an ocean for all intents and purposes. It's high time those in the business of sail boat racing step up the minimum requirements for crew gear. Individuals who ignore the rules are disqualified plain and simple. Granted there are safety boats, and those are a plus on smaller race circuits. However, larger race courses such as the Great Lakes cannot provide a safety boat within a few minutes. Racers must be able to support themselves 100%.

At the highest level, those who established the crew safety rules for this race are responsible. Design notes aside, an individual should be able to survive if the boat doesn't function for whatever reason.

 

What you’re discussing is ostensibly risk mitigation. To do this requires a thorough understanding of the design and the environment it is being subjected to. However, unless done correctly, it can be subjective, depending upon ones experience and point of view, often leading to being too conservative or simply too lax.

However this is achieved requires an appreciation of the risks involved, real risk. From both the purely technical analytical approach identifying risks as well as the practical from those performing the tasks in such an environment. Those that wish to push the boundaries of speed to and beyond the limit, consistently fail to appreciate the risks. As we have already seen here, there are those they seem to think a “gamble” is what living is all about. With such mentality to identify a risk = weakness.

To acknowledge that a risk of XXX occurring is an admission that the whole system has a weakness….nothing has happened to me, ergo, there is no risk. Identifying risk is not the MO of testosteroned fuelled people. Their MO is to keep pushing the limits for glory, until they can’t push anymore, as Paul also noted.

Walking across a busy road is safe, perfectly safe if there are no cars. But when there are cars, how does one traverse the road safely….?? That is when “systems” are brought into place to mitigate the ‘risk’ of being being killed. But there shall always be 1 or 2 individuals who seem to think it is an acceptable ‘gamble’ to run across a busy road, for the euphoric feeling and glory to gloat to ones friends once arrived on the other side as a show of prowess, courage and skill of manoeuvring under extreme conditions. Mention using traffic lights/crossing etc to these people, yields the same response from suggesting wearing a helmet in rough seas.

If one is going to push the limits, be prepared for the unforeseen and don’t focus upon the assumed end game as if it is a done deal. To ignore is putting your life and when sailing, others lives at risk.

It is clear the responsibility is the person in charge as posted by MikeJohns:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/perils-edgy-design-offshore-38903-6.html#post475550

Hence, how much risk was known by them and what to do about it if XXX occurred? The wearing of a helmet may well have saved them…but a proper risk analysis of the vessel, its design, its crew and the conditions they were subjected to should be performed before one can fully conclude this, despite the “evidence” that seem to suggest a helmet may have saved them.

 

Back to design issues. Lets look at the development of aircraft. In the begining almost all had the ability to glide to maybe make a safe landing and were able to glide at low speed without stalling. So were there a bunch of enginers who resisted the development of high speed aircraft that have high stall speeds and can drop out of the sky when they lose power. There always seems to be a conservative crowd that resists the new and precievied dangerous out on the edge development.Certain compromises have to be made in the process of developing and deploying faster craft. Also plenty of those old craft crashed and burned as sailboats that have good stability #s broach and sink along with their lighter faster kin. Since raw boat speed is a significant part of raceing people are going to push the envelope and that is a mixed bag. New faster design sometimes along with increased risk.

 

If you want an aircraft analogy: If there was an inherent flaw in the aircraft that lead to it entering an unrecoverable spin if it banked more than 20 degrees but that inherent flaw let it go faster in aircraft races.
Then how would you feel about aircraft engineers condemning the design for both professional and amateur leisure use ?

If you thought about it you'd also quickly realise that the added safety of ejector seats parachutes and even attached life rafts are all part of the self rescue from many of those vehicles.

 

There is no question that the boat can and did turn over as some aircraft stall. The upside down issue may or may not be directly related to deaths. A broched boat with good stability could just as easily have lost crew as happens raceing or not. Durring the design development and testing stages things happen some may be problems that are uncorrectable tail spins others need a fix. Raceing these new dsesigns is one of the ways to test and improve same. The crews of these boats should be aware of the danger as all crew and racers on any boat and if they wnat to take the risk is that much different than driving a small convertible sports car at 70mph surrounded by big SUVs and semis?

 

But if you predicted that the aircraft had a fatal flaw in the first instance before it even flew?

There's no hindsight here as people keep suggesting. Understand that these designs have been severely criticised since the mid eighties as being inherently flawed for offshore operation at their inception before they were operated. That's the reality of this situation this isn't a new cutting edge design, it's old.

Marchaj who was still actively researching sailboat instability at the time at Southhampton commented on the release of the Moore 30 by Gary Mull and other proposed winged sailbaots in very scathing terms as unseaworthy and unsuitable for operation in inclement conditions offshore.

Whether people died on board Wingnuts or not, and the final blame as to what ultimately lead to the demise doesn't change the vessels suitability for the conditions in which it foundered.

So if the design is clearly unseaworthy has a higher risk of inversion and a lower chance of re-righting it makes the boat dangerous to operate offshore. It's design will inevitably lead to unnecessary deaths in the pursuit of what exactly? placing in a race Hardly worth risking lives for in the field of human endeavor.

Some sensible question that could be being asked:

Could the design be made safer to operate offshore and if so how could it be done?
If unsafe designs are the the result of rating and race rules then how could those rules be changed to reflect some fundamental naval architecture with respect to safety?
What affect would those changes really have on performance?
Are there other designs just as fast that are considerably more suitable for offshore operation?

Consider that the Open series sailboats evolved through hindsight as it became apparent that seamanship wasn't enough. The dice do get rolled and you will lose a weather gamble from time to time.

To quote Marchaj
{ Since not every mortal is equally favoured by the gods, the profession of naval architect had to be invented in order to foster design of seaworthy vessels which , hopefully, would be capable of protecting the lives of seafarers and their estate against the incursion and danger of the sea.

We have come a long way, but in principle the dominating attitude in contemporary yachting is much the same. Strangely enough, and apparently preferable to rationality , is sheer faith in Providence, which operates nowadays in the welfare society in the guise of lifeboats and helicopters called out to rescue those who are often trapped in a yachting disaster. }

 

This is absolutely the crux of the situation. A vessel that is inherently unstable... or even worse.. that is inherently stable when it is upside down, has no place offshore. The questions of resposnsibility for the decision to allow it (and other similar craft) to do so is a matter for another debate. The notion that wearing helmets (which may well be a laudable suggestion in the general sense) can in some way mitigate against this inherent stability problem, is even more foolish.

I'm all for cutting edge design and applaud those who are prepared to test the limits. And It would be a sad day when we all have to sit around and fill out a JSA (job safety analysis) before we can go out on the water. The reality, however, is that in using a vessel that is so obviously innapropriate for the conditions, these people - and others who do likewise - are pushing us ever closer to the point where legislators will be forced to act... and then the joy of boating will be lost to us all

 

Don't know why I'm continuing to post to this ridiculous thread - but aren't you two dingalings missing something? - the most modern yacht development is the multihull (although Pacific ocean crossing versions, proa and catamaran go back to when Western watercraft were still stuck in river mouths) - and modern multihulls are capable of capsize ... but strangely, the multihull is now the preferred yacht type for the apotheosis of sailing, plus they hold all the major ocean crossing records, and astonishing records they are too, plus ever increasing numbers of cruising versions safely sail untold sea miles each year ... but according to your viewpoints, all these boats can invert, therefore they should not be allowed to sail open water. Time to get real gentlemen. Or do you enjoy being members of the daft and backward generation of multihull bashers?

 

That makes two of us..
The boat in question has nothing common with multihuls.. except one hull and sails

 

Don't you mean post ridiculously on this thread?

Is it because you don’t want anyone to grasp the point you are so keen on obfuscating: That dangerous offshore designs are predictable from fundamental Naval Architecture?

But it is you who’s completely confused once again. You don't appear to read anything that's been posted here, or you fail to grasp it with any real understanding the significance of whats being discussed.

So are cargo ships; so what! If you actually read the posts you’d see that’s not the issue, but it’s an issue you seem keen on somehow linking to a particularly unseaworthy offshore monohull design.
You seem very keen to confuse this particular monohull design with multihulls in general based on the single premise that they share high inverted stability. Naval Architecture system dynamics is a considerably more complex subject than you appear to grasp.
Actually if you understood dynamic system behavior you’d immediately see how facile your reasoning was.

Would you like someone to walk you through the Naval Architecture bit by bit? Or suggest some reading material ?
Or do you understand it and you just being obtuse?

 

MikeJohns, the basis of your dogmatic argument, resulting from your immense knowledge of naval architecture - is that the K35 is unsuited for open sea sailing because it can capsize. But a reply disputing this, you revert to your favourite weasel word claiming obfuscation. There is no confusion with multihulls; my above post is my first reference to them and introduced because of your biased comment about the K35,
"So if the design is clearly unseaworthy has a higher risk of inversion and a lower chance of re-righting it makes the boat dangerous to operate offshore."
Hence my pointing out the similarity to the multihull ... or any other wide beamed, light displacement boat.
You seem to have difficulty comprehending this.