Account of recent Hanse 371 sinking

The most worrying part of the story is the failure of the liferaft.Its a pity it was not recovered for examination.
 
I would have thought that the recollection of a forty minute event would have involed thirty-nine and half minutes of; turned on bildge pumps; frantically manually pumped; bailed; strung sleeping bag around stern of hull; yelled at water to leave; anything! There is no mention of attempts to curtail the sinking in the entire story! It would be an understatement to say their emergency planning was lacking.

It was noted, however, that they were quite concerned with getting wet with that nasty cold water and were able to remain perfectly dry so they could at least enjoy watching the boat sink without wet gloves or feet.
 
This so sad but I cannot help making some comment. They were heading north in strong southerly winds. the skipper has decided to reduce by furling his foresail and running on his main. That would be my concern and question? the pressure on the rudder would have been far greater due to the centre of effort being so far back and the helmsman would have been constantly adjusting the boats heading as it attempted to turn to windward. He could have just left the foresail up with reefed or no main and this may not have occurred. I have to accept there could have been a fault with the steering but as a Single handed sailor most of the time I woukd have recversed my sail plan to this one. I dont know what other think and it's worthy of discussion. However, it's a very sad tale to a lovely boat.

regards.

peter.
 
I am becoming disillusioned with boats that deny access to the rudder area through the cockpit floor.

This seems to keep happening. Had they been able to the flow of water by plugging the hole they would still have a boat. Surely a better design would be to have the rudder / tiller part in a tunnel which opens above the waterline, then a failure would not cause the boat to sink.

Though that might affect the pretty lines around the cockpit.

Straw pole, how many of you can get to the top of your rudders easily.
 
I find the tone of this reply to be quite arragant, patronising and out of place. You are making statements after reading only a few paragraphs of a news article. you do not know what has been edited out or what else went on. I think you shoiuld apologise profusely and immediately.

You missed the point completely. They did what was neccessary to save the lives of the 4 crew members. After the liferaft failed they did everything absolutely correct. The sailing ability of the rescue boat should be admired by everybody. If the crew could have stayed warm and dry during the rescue, so much the better. The temperatures in the North Channel at that time of year is such that survival times are probably around 20-30 mins for the average person.

Ships Woofy (in a reply to wayward son) is also wrong (unlike you Jools), the boat could NOT have been saved but the crew was!

I think it is a great credit to everyone involved that there was no loss of life!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Sad loss of a lovely boat.
Sad that they made no attempt to stem the flow of water.
Sad that they felt the need to send a Mayday (and then inform the coastguard that they were in no immediate danger). Maybe they should have looked for the cause of the problem BEFORE they sent the Mayday, at which point it would have been the correct urgency level.

They were fully crewed, in reasonable conditions. Why feel the need to summon urgent help immediately on suffering steering failure?

Apologies for the rant. I sympathise with them, but it just appears from the article that they did nothing to help themselves. Maybe they should take up a less stressful pastime.
 
With safety close at hand I'm not sure that I would be thinking logically enough to go through all of the options for saving the boat. Pumping and bailing would certainly be on the list, although it sounds as if the inflow of water was pretty overwhelming. Had there been any stock protruding from the hull all attempts at pulling a sleeping bag/sail across the wound would have been pretty futile. Probably best to get well clear and not risk anybody being trapped in rigging etc. as the boat neared its end. The crew all survived, saving the boat would have been icing on the cake I suppose.
 
When you've got gallons of water flooding into your boat we'll see if you have the presence of mind to think logically and with hindsight.

I have no critisism of the people involved, though I would like to know if they did look at the damage and decide the vessel couldn't be saved (I would still do mayday if I wasn't sure)
 
And if its anything like my boat, getting access to the lower end of the rudder post would entail getting into a position (right inside a small locker) that I find claustrophobic enough while safely tied up in a marina. let alone out to sea on a boat taking on water rapidly..... personally, if this had been me and my boat, given my layout, I wouldn't have considered trying to access the rudder post a viable option at all, and trying to do so would be tantamount to placing myself or one of the crew in a potentially lethal position...

I think they did the right thing from the limited info we have..... as someone else said.... insurance companies can't replace lives......
 
"It was noted, however, that they were quite concerned with getting wet with that nasty cold water and were able to remain perfectly dry so they could at least enjoy watching the boat sink without wet gloves or feet."

I don't think you should under-estimate the importance of staying dry. Offshore safety training for rigs and boats puts a focus on equipment and techniques to avoid getting wet even with your survival suit. You learn to exit a ship or rig by free fall lifeboat, davit lifeboat or escape chute directly into a liferaft. The most recently built stand-by vessel I know of has a stern ramp designed to deploy and recover man-overboard boats and pull inside life boats or rafts so that there is no chance of losing anyone into the sea. If you are already wet and cold from you don't want to be falling in when survival time without a survival suit is measured in minutes.
 
The thought of having to watch my boat slowly sink before my eyes horrifies me as I expect it does others.
It appears to me the skipper did the right thing in ensuring his crew were saved, that is his responsibility, and if he had lost one of them through delay or making a wrong decision could have found himself at the wrong end of some very serious charges at a later inquiry. He is to applauded for doing so, as must be the support vessel's crew. I also agree with what has been said about keeping dry and expected survival times.
However, I also must agree with those (and hindsight is a wonderfull thing) who suggest the skipper could have done more to investigate the source of water ingress and to plug it if possible. Only of course after he had ensured all the crew and himself were properly prepared for rescue and or time in the water following the non activation of the liferaft. Saving the boat is secondary to lives, but we all know it is a better option being on board if not sinking than in a liferaft.
I also do not agree that a honestly held opinion expressed here, unless downright insulting which is certainly not the case of those I have read, should justify anyone calling for an apology because they happen to disagree with it no matter how strongly.
It has also been pointed out that using the main in the way it was could have been a contributing factor, my choice of sail would have been different in order to keep her better balanced with an easier helm.
I am sure we all feel for those concerned.
Mike
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sad that they felt the need to send a Mayday (and then inform the coastguard that they were in no immediate danger). Maybe they should have looked for the cause of the problem BEFORE they sent the Mayday, at which point it would have been the correct urgency level.


[/ QUOTE ] With a flooding boat it is best to get your distress of quickly, batteries and electronic gizmos don't like water. With the boat flooded it is a little too late to find that the hand held's batteries are flat, or that it has insufficient range to contact help.

This situation had the potential for a loss of life and IMHO did warrant a mayday, even with another boat on hand. Had crew gone in the water during transfer things could have been very different.
 
I agree, but with the benefit of hindsight. However, they were not aware they were taking on water when they sent the Mayday, just a steering failure at that point. Surely a Mayday should be used only when there is a grave and imminent danger to a vessel or person. i.e on discovering the water ingress.
 
Thats my take...

I would have thought a Pan Pan... and then upgrade to a Mayday when the water ingress was discovered...

Although as Stuge pointed out, the water could have resulted in loss of electrical power, and hence inability to make a distress call........

Its interesting that you often hear comment from the coastguard that they would rather receive too many maydays, than not enough.....

There but for the grace of God and all that.... I'm just glad they are all OK...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

conks01
Hanse 301 Buying Advice
Replies
4
Views
216
TSB240
TSB240
M
net worth of yacht brokers
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Tranona
T

Share this page

Top