Seaworthiness

You mean besides the quality of driving after the invention of cell phones?

 

Oh, I knew there'd be some.

The quality of longboard windsurfer freestyling has dropped over the last 20 years, too. And the ability of the average sailor to work on their own boat.

Still, I think in many sports with a measurable output (ie running etc) the standard has improved enormously. In sports like F1 racing, the safety has improved enormously. It seems likely that the quality of sailing has improved too.

One thing that I didn't realise, until I saw hard cold evidence, is the enormous increase in experience of offshore racing sailors (I don't know about cruisers). Way back when, there were many racing crews who were not experienced enough to be allowed on the start line in a big event today. That makes it harder to assume that they are bad seamen.

 

I'm sure you are aware at least one C30 has been knocked down and downflooded through the main hatch, causing the boat to sink?

 

If that were true in all cases, lifeboats and liferafts would be pointless.

Thanks for the primer on STIX, and for pointing out the implication, fcfc. I appreciate it. Where I disagree, I take it the disagreement is with STIX more than with you.

There was a sailing couple, Swedish I think, who were featured in Cruising World about a decade ago. Their boat was very small, built of nylon reinforced epoxy, and designed to "roll like a kitten" in survival conditions, never generating a force great enough to break itself. A securely corked bottle is pretty seaworthy.

Then there's Pride of Baltimore (the first). Size may matter, but it's certainly not determinant. An unseaworthy ship can be very lethal, and it might be argued that the bigger it is, the more ways it can get in trouble!

Thank you, Guillermo, for what no doubt is a careful and informed analysis. I'll have to read through your post again when I have fewer deadlines.

Yikes.... the posts I'm responding to are way back on page 7! How'd that happen?

Cheers,
Stephen

 

Randy

You said

“Please don't make assumptions, I never said it was too dangerous to be on deck. “
And yet you stated
“ The point is that there should have been no one on deck during the roll.”

So now I am confused since these appear contradictory statements.

You also say

Quote Randy
“The facts of the case tell me that is was unsafe, on that boat, under those conditions. ……………….. It goes back to human error. They did not know the boat well enough to make good choices. The choices they made lost a crew member while the boat survived.”

Human error is a mantra that doesn’t have much standing in the commercial marine world. Seaman and masters of vast experience can stuff up too, yet we don’t let them endanger their crews and we do this by requiring that such people operate vessels that are reasonably tolerant of human error. Remember the wisdom of the old adage
“To err is Human”

Quote Randy
“What alarms me about these threads about stability and seaworthiness is what I see as a desire to limit design and reduce choices.”

Most definitely and enthusiastically when it comes to cruising boats; it’s called social responsibility.

Quote Randy
“It seems obvious to me that you think you know better than I what boat I should be allowed to take to sea. I think that attitude is presumptuous, almost offensive. “

Not what you should be able to take, (take what you like), the issue is who you are going to take with you. If we call it an offshore cruising boat and high profile market it accordingly then people uneducated in the ways of boats will presume it a safe and suitable platform when it may prove very unsafe and very unsuitable. Isn’t it more presumptuous that you should think that you have a right to take what I called “Innocents” on board a hull-form that is considered too dangerous for “public” use in offshore conditions.?

As for catamarans ; I already talked about those. We were talking mono-hulls. Have a look at the energy required to invert a 40 foot catamaran and compare that with the Pogo 40 type. In fact the catamaran is a far more seaworthy hull-form than this type of vessel and would be a much more logical end point for advocates of light displacement and low LPS cruising boats. But they are not currently very “trendy” and they eat marina and hardstand space.

 

I and others in this industry are not trying to kill off the last bastion of free choice !......
just concerned that the deaths that will inevitably happen could be prevented if designers of performance cruisers reigned in some of the more dangerous aspects of the vessels. The counter to this point of view appears to get very heated and not always very logical.

I think that equating remaining afloat with seaworthiness is a worthless apologetic born of misunderstanding.

Ultimately the sorts of argument for not incorporating safer stability in cruising boats comes down to “ I want to be able to do it ”; I find it a disturbing argument, as we discussed before we perhaps need two classes, the racing boat and the cruising boat.
Isn’t it ironic that if your 10 yr old daughter on a school outing she cannot be put on an “XXX” (In regulated countries) because it is too dangerous, but as soon as she gets home a yachting friend of her fathers can take her and her friends anywhere on the same vessel with no restriction, even offshore

The sort of scenario that the I fear is the cruising fleet of un-seaworthy cruising boats relying on weather routing for their “Seaworthiness” being hit mid ocean by an un-forecast localized extreme event. I don’t want to be able to say “see …told you so! ”. I predict that if this trend is not met with some resistance that this is going to be an outcome. I might be wrong but my qualified guess is concerning to me.

Education will always be good and the argument for regulating the skipper is strong but who mandates operating parameters for a given STIX outside of which the skipper is liable. What about all the possible scenarios where you will rely on the vessel characteristics for your very survival?

As for “Damned lies and statistics”
A problem with relying on accident report statistics is that although fatalities remain online the successful rescues seem to be reported annually and the boat is often inadequately described such as “a 35 foot sloop” called “Angina”. We only get detailed info when the coroner has to report. If we wanted a truly representative showing we need a body that will collect and collate all adverse accidents. Every rescue needs breaking down into a scale from “would have died” to “waste of time”. Every “Would have died” is a fatality but is unrecorded and unavailable in the main.

For example I read an account and subsequently talked to an eye-witness of a “Benetau” inverting in tidal overfalls in the Whitsudnays and remaining inverted in the smooth water that followed until she was righted by a rescue vessel. No one died the conditions were warm and the sea past the overfalls wasn’t rough. Now I cannot find a reference to this as I wanted to quote the model as I thought it was another 390. How many of these sorts of accidents are never reported except an abbreviated mention in an engineering journal or a private report to the insurance company?

 

Totally agree that the stats are pretty much useless as they are currently reported. Another point is that the same lack of reporting means that we don't know whether or not inversion is such a major problem AS COMPARED TO OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES OF DEATH, INJURY AND OTHER INCIDENTS.

While we have two Beneteau 390s inverting here, as has been pointed out there are hundreds of Beneteau Oceanis of various lengths and models. Probably lots of them have worked almost full time in chartering. Maybe (just maybe) they have a very LOW loss or incident rate.

Now, Mike, I'm NOT saying that I like fat boats that stay inverted. I'm NOT saying that the Oceanis is my style of cruising boat.

All I'm saying is that without a decent statistical basis, how do we know what the main danger is? Maybe the well-publicised loss of life in capsizes is much smaller than the loss due to other causes. We must always be wary of looking only for the incidents that confirm our own beliefs; there was a lot of this on this forum when the '98 Hobart was discussed. Some people assumed that the heavyweights or cruisers had a better record of finishing than the lightweights. This was incorrect and could easily have been checked, but it was easier to assume.

It isn't at all ironic that kids sailing on a school outing are under different rules than kids sailing with a friend. Many different rules apply when kids are at school compared to what happens when they aren't. We have to sign permission notes for outings, not when going to a friend's. Kids going sailing at a school have to be overseen by accredited instructors (I think); that doesn't apply when they are going out with friends. Teachers have mandatory reporting rules; that doesn't apply to friends. These days I think kids here have to have a roll-call checked every period while at school so they can check no one's playing truant - that doesn't apply when they are down at the sailing club.

The two situations are so different in some many other aspects that there is no irony when they are different in one more aspect.

 

whats to say about overloading the boat or its maintanance? or the capton driving into .....lets say an iceburg ,out of hundreds of boats and only a few sank>? thats like saying Harly davidson s are unsafe ,,,,,,,thousands made,,,,,,sometimes its the skipper,,longliner

 

They only appear contradictory because you removed them context and you think that you can make a point by so doing.

Apples and oranges. The requirements for commercial service have always put boats and crew at risk. It makes very good sense to design to the lowest common denominator, because the boats will sail whether they have good crew or bad. No one expects those crews to use good judgement and not go to sea on time, in any weather ... as short handed as possible ... to increase profit. Those craft have to be more idiot proof. Not to saves the lives of the crew, but to save the money making cargo. Crew have always been expendable, just another expense on the ledger sheet.

Cruising is not sailing for profit or to a time schedule. You do not have to design boats to make passages from Christchurch to Rio in July. Cruisers have the option of not sailing this week or this month, or changing destinations for a more pleasant passage.

I call it a self serving pompous attitude. Since there is no agreement on what seaworthy is, you want to force your opinion on the world.

If I was a cynic, I'd say that getting the rules changed just might make boats that nobody wants more salable ... the popular competition would be banned. If I was a designer of such boats I'd be in favour of it too.

Or perhaps that you think that the public is too stupid to make choices for themselves, so a benevolent designer should dictate to them.

I'll ask one last time ... considered too dangerous by whom?

Some committee of designers that don't have enough work to keep them busy, so they have time to write "safety" standards?

As soon as you try to insure the boats are safe, you become liable. I assure you that some idiot will get himself killed in one of your boats and the estate will hold YOU liable, because YOU decided that the boat was safe.

Social responsibility is not making choices for people, it is empowering them to make good choices for themselves. Your version of social responsibility has given us cars that are designed to save the lives of people drunk, stupid, or irresponsible. They refuse to chose not to drive or wear seat belts. Yet there is little or no attempt to require improved driving skills. After decades of "Don't drive drunk" campaigns, they still allow liquor to be sold in gas stations and they allow bars to have parking lots. They still give drunk drivers a second or third or forth chance to kill someone besides themselves (innocents).

Every time you come up with criteria that you feel is safe enough for innocents, some idiot will find a way to kill their children. What you would like to see happen is impossible. Fools are much more clever than designers.

I maintain it would be easier and more effective to reduce the number of fools sailing than to try to force regulation of design.

Since we cannot agree on any common ground, there is no platform for further debate.

It's been fun Mike, I sincerely hope you don't get your way.

 

CT 249, you're looking in the wrong books OK, among those I agree with you. When the ocean racing community race now a days, they often push the limits to what would be considered bad seamanship not that long ago. Apart from that, their seamanship has not gone down as such, they are professionals, probably more so than 50 years ago.

But why look at that consumer group? At least 99% of the sailors out sailing every weekend do not belong to that group.

The more worrying part is the other end of the coin, the non-professionals. That is why I talk about the evolving consumer group. That group has become much much larger and the knowledge and experience - the seamanship has gone down. And the group will grow even more.

It will be more and more common that weekend yachties will talk about speed in miles per hour

Mikey
"If racers were only used to race with, then I wouldn't be sitting here typing this"

 

Yup, probably more than one.

The danger of downflooding is high whenever conditions put green water on deck. Every wave can put 300 pounds of water into the cabin. The boat immerses 1 inch every 3 waves. A 3500 GPH pump can only cope with two waves a minute. The 360 GPH pumps that most boats are fitted with have no chance at all. It only takes about 20 minutes of stuffing the bow into waves downwind in 40 knots to have about 8 inches of water in the cabin ... that's when you find out that the pump is clogged with dog hair and you can bale quite effectively with your daughter's Paddington Bear waste bin (although it will rust out about 3 days after the adventure). We came second.

The low companionway and the small cockpit drains are also a concern.

I've since found it prudent to close the hatch and secure at least one washboard in anything force 5 or over.

I also know that the boat heels only to 37 degrees when shes dried out on a sandbar. People were taking bets on whether she would downflood before she floated on the next tide. I'm happy to report that those that bet against my fat beauty lost their money.

 

Regulatory Way
Can we start with outlaw talking about boat speed in miles per hour, please

Reduce the Number of Fools Sailing Way
I sincerely hope the number of people sailing will grow! I am lost as to how to achieve this.

Education and Regulation must work hand in hand, one approach alone will not be enough

Mikey

 

I agree, regulate the sailors, so they can choose the boat that suits them.

I also agree, I'd like to see more sailors and fewer fools. Regulating the boats, will produce more boats and more fools.

 

Do not forget that STIX has a domain of validity. This ISO rule appies to sailboat from 20 ft to 80 ft. It is not intended to address smaller or bigger boats, or non sailboats. There is also a minimum requirements in the rule beyond stix : for offshore categories A and B: fully decked and a minimum weigth. You can go lower that weigth, but must provide some kind of unsinkability. (the same flotation as with the delta term in the stix formulae)

 

Not enough unfortunately, both sailors and boats must be regulated, sailors more than boats, fortunately