Cheeki Rafiki deaths: Yacht firm boss guilty

If one was made from the boat before the loss of the keel, it was not received. The EPIRB did not float free, but the activation of a PLB is a MAYDAY call in my book.

I didn't spot anything in the MAIB report that indicated they had a longer range radio than the VHF. So given they had an EPIRB, PLBs and a sat phone a VHF mayday must've been quite a way down the list. If they didn't have time to grab the EPIRB and set it off then they didn't have time for the VHF.
 
Why were they (the crew) not in survival suits?
Why did it take so long for them (the crew) to identify the keel as the cause of leak?
 
Why were they (the crew) not in survival suits?
Why did it take so long for them (the crew) to identify the keel as the cause of leak?

Because they didn't carry them not unusual on that type of boat.

It hasn't been confirmed that the did identify the leak as comping from the keel. It has been speculated that if they had they might have done different things with a different outcome. You had to remove the saloon table to inspect the keel bolts. Innes told them not to be shy in lifting floorboards and damaging the floor to his credit.
 
I didn't spot anything in the MAIB report that indicated they had a longer range radio than the VHF. So given they had an EPIRB, PLBs and a sat phone a VHF mayday must've been quite a way down the list. If they didn't have time to grab the EPIRB and set it off then they didn't have time for the VHF.

Agreed.

What this tells us is that the catastrophe must have been very sudden - which indeed is what we must expect - several tons of lead are not going to slowly work themselves free. The moment the load can no longer be held on the remaining bolts, the keel is gone.
 
...and they'd done this before they left so they were familiar with getting access.

If I recall correctly all they would have seen is the top of the grid/matrix, each bay had a base so they would not see any damage to the hull below that, just the top of the bolts. I assume that the top of the bolts might have also shown water spraying in as the keel worked.

What intrigues me is they reported the water ingress was getting worse in one of the Sat Calls. That is key to making a decision, not a visual of the keel bolts.

Note by saying this I am not implying that the skipper acted in anyway that contributed to the loss of the crew.
 
...and they'd done this before they left so they were familiar with getting access.


They were familiar but did they do it and if they did did they do it early enough in 5 to 6 M seas and winds of 30 mph plus. If they had they would have seen the water in the bays and quickly determined where it was coming from.
 
If I recall correctly all they would have seen is the top of the grid/matrix, each bay had a base so they would not see any damage to the hull below that, just the top of the bolts. I assume that the top of the bolts might have also shown water spraying in as the keel worked.

What intrigues me is they reported the water ingress was getting worse in one of the Sat Calls. That is key to making a decision, not a visual of the keel bolts.

Note by saying this I am not implying that the skipper acted in anyway that contributed to the loss of the crew.

Indeed.
Lifting the floorboards and table could be a total red herring.
The liner might be intact and the water coming in around the leeward side of the liner, which is probably under the saloon berths, and probably has a water tank on top of it.

I have met a lot of Yotmasters who don't really understand a great deal of the stuff on their boats and how it works. Let alone how the boat is built and how it might fail.
The required knowledge of yacht engineering to get YM Ocean is pretty close to zero.
In practice most people in the trade have learned a lot on the job of course.
 
Indeed.
Lifting the floorboards and table could be a total red herring.
The liner might be intact and the water coming in around the leeward side of the liner, which is probably under the saloon berths, and probably has a water tank on top of it.

I have met a lot of Yotmasters who don't really understand a great deal of the stuff on their boats and how it works. Let alone how the boat is built and how it might fail.
The required knowledge of yacht engineering to get YM Ocean is pretty close to zero.
In practice most people in the trade have learned a lot on the job of course.

That is a very plausible explanation thanks.
 
If I recall correctly all they would have seen is the top of the grid/matrix, each bay had a base so they would not see any damage to the hull below that, just the top of the bolts.

Yes, I'm not suggesting sight of the bolts would have helped them.

I assume that the top of the bolts might have also shown water spraying in as the keel worked.

Who knows? Certainly they didn't spot it and they were highly incentivised leak hunters at that point.

What intrigues me is they reported the water ingress was getting worse in one of the Sat Calls. That is key to making a decision, not a visual of the keel bolts.

Not really. Worsening ingress doesn't mean jump off the boat into the rubber liferaft in a lumpy F6. It just means inform the CG and stay on the boat looking for the leak and be prepared to jump off later.
 
The liner might be intact and the water coming in around the leeward side of the liner, which is probably under the saloon berths, and probably has a water tank on top of it.

That's my bet, FWIW. It might even have been coming up at completely different places as the boat pitched and rocked. I doubt this was an easy leak to diagnose.
 
Having no experience of either a loosening keel or one that dropped off I wonder how much noise it might make in its last minutes or even seconds before it finally goes.
 
They were familiar but did they do it and if they did did they do it early enough in 5 to 6 M seas and winds of 30 mph plus.

I expect so, there were four of them, they were pretty highly motivated to find out what was wrong. Once they'd checked easier to check things like seacocks & perhaps rudder I'd have thought keel would have been the very next thing on the list.

If they had they would have seen the water in the bays and quickly determined where it was coming from.

Nope. There would have been no clue whatsoever where it had come from. That was the problem.
 
I expect so, there were four of them, they were pretty highly motivated to find out what was wrong. Once they'd checked easier to check things like seacocks & perhaps rudder I'd have thought keel would have been the very next thing on the list.



Nope. There would have been no clue whatsoever where it had come from. That was the problem.

I don't know if they could have emptied one or all of the bays systematically to see if it was comping past the bolts but if they had exposed the bolt heads and there was water passing into the boat would you be able to detect movement of the keel in the bolt head just by holding it. I don't know just wondering.
 
I don't know if they could have emptied one or all of the bays systematically to see if it was comping past the bolts but if they had exposed the bolt heads and there was water passing into the boat would you be able to detect movement of the keel in the bolt head just by holding it. I don't know just wondering.

But would the water have been coming in through the bolts, or under the liner and then out sideways into the boat exiting somewhere where the liner and hull join? That would be an almost impossible leak to trace. Especially whilst sailing upwind in 5-6m waves.
 
But would the water have been coming in through the bolts, or under the liner and then out sideways into the boat exiting somewhere where the liner and hull join? That would be an almost impossible leak to trace. Especially whilst sailing upwind in 5-6m waves.

... in the dark, in blowing conditions... Boat jumping about, wind noise, boat noise, wave noise, water all over the place anyway...

I've had to hunt a leak in those conditions and I am here to (a) tell the tale and (b) admit that I failed to find it. I was 22 at the time...and was luckier.

We had actually fallen off a wave, cracked two frames and floors and the garboard was working. In smooth water the leak stopped and you would never have known anything was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Reduce sail OR de-canvas completely...
Chuck out a drogue....
Prepare the liferaft....
Find the leak....
Limp to nearest safe haven.
Or abandon.

Could be a completely different story.
 
... in the dark, in blowing conditions... Boat jumping about, wind noise, boat noise, wave noise, water all over the place anyway...

I've had to hunt a leak in those conditions and I am here to (a) tell the tale and (b) admit that I failed to find it. I was 22 at the time...and was luckier.

We had actually fallen off a wave, cracked two frames and floors and the garboard was working. In smooth water the leak stopped and you would never have known anything was wrong.

Wooden boats often leak when given a hard time.
Plastic boat, if it's not one of the thru-hulls, rudder, log, sounder or the deck, it really only leaves the keel?
The problem would be being sure you have eliminated things like stanchion leaks.
A lot of boats leak a bit from deck fittings.
We don't know how much water was getting in.
Initially it might have been a very small amount, just a bit more than the normal.
 
Reduce sail OR de-canvas completely...
Chuck out a drogue....
Prepare the liferaft....
Find the leak....
Limp to nearest safe haven.
Or abandon.

Could be a completely different story.

NOT bare poles. The boat will roll violently with a short period of oscillation and that would cause heavy cyclical stresses on the keel fasteners.
 
Top