haydude
Well-Known Member
Perhaps we should just clarify on the classification, because ocean going Class A does not mean that the structure is tested for robustness.
Beneteau First lost her keel, four good men lost at sea.
- Thread starter haydude
- Start date
Perhaps we should just clarify on the classification, because ocean going Class A does not mean that the structure is tested for robustness.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Where would Shrimpy fit into system
Neil_Y
Well-Known Member
Passage planning for ocean crossings is just having charts for all possible land falls and a sound yacht with a plan for any failure of kit or vessel that allows you to survive or make it to a safe haven.
Weather is read by cloud formations and wind strength/direction you will get warnings, as others have said outrunning a storm is not that easy at 5-6knts. One trip I had an ssb weather fax, nice but not essential. We had storms and were equipped to ride them out hove to. Yes you can get a smoother ride if you have forecasts but relying on electronics in my view is poor planning.
I don't think you should plan to be rescued even if the boat sinks, you should plan to survive. If that means carrying immersion suits for more northerly crossings then so be it, it's your call as skipper. Instant hot food systems for grab bag another consideration? In my view too many people cross oceans in the belief it's just a long cruise, there is also a tendency to think that with technology you can be found and get help quickly. Understanding the vastness of 2 or 3,000 miles of sea is difficult until you have a problem and then it's too late. People should seriously plan for jury rigs, jury rudders no electrics and survival in a raft/dinghy (or both) for several days. That's a passage plan. A sailable dinghy is possibly a better option on an ocean passage than a liferaft should you loose the boat and your electronics fail.
I've been on a sinking yacht calling a mayday and I've had electronics fail.
Sail as if you are the only boat on the ocean and there is no S&R, it's still safer than crossing the road.
Weather is read by cloud formations and wind strength/direction you will get warnings, as others have said outrunning a storm is not that easy at 5-6knts. One trip I had an ssb weather fax, nice but not essential. We had storms and were equipped to ride them out hove to. Yes you can get a smoother ride if you have forecasts but relying on electronics in my view is poor planning.
I don't think you should plan to be rescued even if the boat sinks, you should plan to survive. If that means carrying immersion suits for more northerly crossings then so be it, it's your call as skipper. Instant hot food systems for grab bag another consideration? In my view too many people cross oceans in the belief it's just a long cruise, there is also a tendency to think that with technology you can be found and get help quickly. Understanding the vastness of 2 or 3,000 miles of sea is difficult until you have a problem and then it's too late. People should seriously plan for jury rigs, jury rudders no electrics and survival in a raft/dinghy (or both) for several days. That's a passage plan. A sailable dinghy is possibly a better option on an ocean passage than a liferaft should you loose the boat and your electronics fail.
I've been on a sinking yacht calling a mayday and I've had electronics fail.
Sail as if you are the only boat on the ocean and there is no S&R, it's still safer than crossing the road.
Capt Popeye
Well-Known Member
I find your post quite observant of human actions and fallibility, thank you.
I may be entirely incorrect, but my observation over quite a few years around the water is that sea farers of old prepared their craft, provisions, diy materials and tools to overcome obstacles themselves, and sailed as such with the knowledge that their life was really in their hands.
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
>My boat is category A for example & all I know is that it is rated as Ok for extended unassisted offshore passages
The category system was hijacked by the large French manufacturers Beneteau, Jenneau and Dufour, they demanded that all their yachts must be Cat A. This is why Bavaria and other AWB's are also A.
The category system was hijacked by the large French manufacturers Beneteau, Jenneau and Dufour, they demanded that all their yachts must be Cat A. This is why Bavaria and other AWB's are also A.
TimBennet
Well-Known Member
Any proof? You sound like the UKIP marine spokesman. As I've pointed out before, the classification was British driven and hugely influenced by the Contessa 32 being the benchmark for small boat 'oceangoing' performance. The cutoff between Cat A and B was pitched at where the Contessa came on the scale.
The large French manufacturers had little input and at least one model (Figaro 1) had to be completely redesigned and retooled as it was the 'wrong side' of the categorisation.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Can you provide evidence for this that trumps the cat c signs on their yachts at last years sbs?
alant
Well-Known Member
+1, sensible post.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
While it's very trendy on these forums to jump on the electronics are no help bandwagon, this yacht was found in under 2 days because of the PLBs the crew had set off. Saying electronics won't help is counterproductive and encourages people to not take them. I agree with the principle of planning to survive, but I'd rather plan to survive while having people know my position than sit in an emersion suit for a month hoping a ship will spot me.
Daydream believer
Well-Known Member
That is the point. The categories are too loose & just ( as far as i know) 3 cats ie A,B,C
Mine is said to be suitable for waves up to 4 metres which is hardly ocean going, but the description still mentions oceans
I believe the consumer needs a better rating system with a clearer indication of what they mean. I suggest a lot more classification divisions
Elsewhere a post has said that Beneteau etc hijacked the rating system
Well in a way they might because every manufacturer is entitled to comment on the proposals & the biggest ones are able to put the strongest points
However, I believe that the " keep it cheap" brigade may have had too much influence.
Understandably manufacturers would not want difficult rules which might affect production costs & each manufacturer would not want a wide range if it might allow a competitor steal a march
There is nothing wrong with producing cheap boats for the masses, as long as the masses are clear of the limitations
Possibly the eurocrats knew no different
lw395
Well-Known Member
TBH, I think in the Atlantic, generally, if you can survive a day or two and have an EPIRB that gets a fair chance to work, it's not unreasonable to plan on being picked up.
You need to survive for the first few hours though, in a sufficiently organised state to be in the raft with either PLB or EPIRB operating as it should.
You might have to survive whatever storm destroyed your yacht of course.
The idea of a dinghy you can sail to land might be more important if there are any bits of ocean left where you won't be within a small detour of a ship's route.
To me the crux seems to be a) not having the boat fail and b) either surviving in the broken boat or making it into the raft.
Neil_Y
Well-Known Member
I'd never suggest not using all available technology to increase your chances, I carried an EPIRB on my yacht, I've also carried PLB, 2xgps, plotter, VHF on an F18 cat as well as charts. Electronics are a great aid to safety. My point is that Ocean crossing is a very different game to coastal passages and needs a different approach to preparation.
TimBennet
Well-Known Member
There are four main categories
Does it? Where?
Cat B: OFFSHORE: Designed for offshore voyages where conditions up to, and including, wind force 8 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 4 m may be experienced.
Where's the confusion? There's hundreds of pages of ISO standards and thousands of pages of explanatory notes. What more do you want?
Myth. Never happened.
Consumers are aware of the limitations - the boats are cheap.
The RCD was largely the product of British academics and naval architects at the behest of American powerboat manufacturers.
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
>Any proof? You sound like the UKIP marine spokesman. As I've pointed out before, the classification was British driven and hugely influenced by the Contessa 32 being the benchmark for small boat 'oceangoing'
I think you've made the point that a well built Contessa 32 was the benchmark but AWB's got an A. The differently built boats assigned to Categories, particularly A, was challenged by makers of long distance boats. When they never got a response it then became clear that the French had influenced it because there was no way they should have got an A. For obvious reasons the French never admitted to it but bear in mind at the time the French were producing more yachts than any other country and thus had clout to influence the decision makers. I won't give a name but this was told to me by one of the people involved in the classification.
I think you've made the point that a well built Contessa 32 was the benchmark but AWB's got an A. The differently built boats assigned to Categories, particularly A, was challenged by makers of long distance boats. When they never got a response it then became clear that the French had influenced it because there was no way they should have got an A. For obvious reasons the French never admitted to it but bear in mind at the time the French were producing more yachts than any other country and thus had clout to influence the decision makers. I won't give a name but this was told to me by one of the people involved in the classification.
seacock
Member
Quite Agree!
After seeing the images from the US Coastguard, would you (anyone) charter or buy ANY Beneteau First??? The keel is simply butted onto the hull as a bolt-on attachment - how can anyone call this a sound structure? If I owned, operated or raced ANY Beneteau First I'd strongly recommend they are lifted and structurally examined.
For the yachting industry as a whole, it may be time to look at the aircraft industry and use some of their rigor to understand and therefore prevent such tragic loss of life.
It seems 4 people plummeting to their deaths in a private aircraft has far greater worth, significance and value than 4 people drowning due to a structural failure of the boat. My point is, what will be done about this tragedy - Nothing!!! However if it was an aircraft which suffered engine mounting bolt failure, there would be an immediate grounding of that type of aircraft, an investigation, an inquiry, and then an industry wide directive to improve the design.
After seeing the images from the US Coastguard, would you (anyone) charter or buy ANY Beneteau First??? The keel is simply butted onto the hull as a bolt-on attachment - how can anyone call this a sound structure? If I owned, operated or raced ANY Beneteau First I'd strongly recommend they are lifted and structurally examined.
For the yachting industry as a whole, it may be time to look at the aircraft industry and use some of their rigor to understand and therefore prevent such tragic loss of life.
It seems 4 people plummeting to their deaths in a private aircraft has far greater worth, significance and value than 4 people drowning due to a structural failure of the boat. My point is, what will be done about this tragedy - Nothing!!! However if it was an aircraft which suffered engine mounting bolt failure, there would be an immediate grounding of that type of aircraft, an investigation, an inquiry, and then an industry wide directive to improve the design.
30boat
N/A
My Westerly Fulmar has exactly the same type of fixing for the keel but it's aspect ratio is much lower and there are more bolts.Modern keels impose higher stresses so it might be a good idea to come up with a way of better spreading those stresses into the hull.I don't think that bolts are a bad system to attach a keel but there is room for improvement on the engineering of the wole thing.
oldvarnish
Well-Known Member
seacock; It seems 4 people plummeting to their deaths in a private aircraft has far greater worth said:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
That is an oversimplistic view - a bit like saying aircraft wings are stuck on the fuselage as that is what they look like. In fact the structure is designed so that the loads are taken by an internal grid structure, not the hull. The design of such structures is governed by the standards chosen to comply with the RCD, often the American Bureau of Shipping rules. If you knew anything about the standards and the structures that are required to meet them, you would not make such a crass statement.
If you look at at previous keel failures, almost all have been related to either racing boats (which do not have to comply with the RCD) boats taken to the limits of performance, not made to the right specification, or have suffered damage to the structure prior to the loss. This latest example seems (based on what is so far known) to be the result of at least two of those factors - extreme weather and significant prior damage leading to fracture of at least one and possibly 3 of the bolts.
Tens of thousands of boats with that design of keel structure are in use all round the world, regularly cross oceans, bounce off rocks when in the hands of novice charterers, run aground by chancer racing crews etc and only tiny numbers ever lose a keel. So rare in fact that reports get blazing headlines out of all proportion to the real problem.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
But they do as I explained above. Suggest you look inside a modern boat and compare the sophistication with your boat. Worth repeating that it was problems experienced by the builder of your boat with keel attachment on some models that led first to their bankruptcy but also to a rethink on how such structures were designed.
30boat
N/A
Oh I agree.I had to heavily reinforce the area on my boat.Perhaps using my boat as an example was not a good idea.What I meant is that very high aspect ratio keels create their own problems and there might be room for improvement on the more radical designs such as the First 40.7.