Cheeki Rafiki deaths: Yacht firm boss guilty

[Frogmogman]

Oh I am not arguing that the failures are related at all. I am painting out that keel failures when they occur are catastrophic and not unknown. Any leakage cause water in the bilge not stopped by closing all sea cocks should have immediatly raised the question of keel failure. This is not with the benefit of hindsight, it is the first thing that should have occurred to the skipper.

I'm not suggesting that the keel failures are related. The point I'm making is that just because other (incomparable) keels have fallen off in the past, there was no particular reason for those on CR to expect sudden and catastrophic failure of the conservatively designed keel of the First 40.7.

 

[Tranona]

This was all covered in the MAIB report. The raft was not in a locker, but in its dedicated stowage position in the cockpit under the aft seat. The report recognised the difficulty of accessibility on such a boat and recommended consideration of alternative stowage of the raft.

However, all a bit vague as this is an ongoing problem and there are very few designs of boats that have better solutions and none that are foolproof in a situation where the inversion is sudden and unexpected. Similar problem with fishing boats where inversions are more common and raft usually stowed on wheelhouse roof and fitted with a hydrostatic release - but still not foolproof.

 

[Simondjuk]

I firmly believe that the liferaft was left in the most appropriate place.

The liferaft stowage on a 40.7 is essentially part of the cockpit sole anyway, only with the benefit that the raft isn't in the way or a danger to the crew due to sliding about as it would if moved into the larger area of the cockpit forward of the wheel.

Moreover, the stern, with its removable guardwires between the pushpits, is the only place you can tip the liferaft off the boat without having to manhandle it over the full height of the fixed side guardwires. When you find you can't do that, because a 12 person <24hr pack liferaft can weigh well in excess of 100kg and is very difficult to lift or even slide around when your hands and the case are wet and slippery, you'll find yourself trying to fight it back round the massive wheel, through its stowage area where you took if from in the first place, in order to launch it from the most sensible and viable place - over the stern.

Finally, the painter has its padeye in that stern stowage area. Move the raft to the cockpit and what do you do with that?
Leave it attached to its dedicated padeye and trail enough of it round the helm and across the cockpit to reach the raft, then keep tripping over it and pulling more out bit by bit until there are several metres washing around the sole? Make it off to an aft mooring cleat maybe? Assuming you've actually managed to get the largely smooth 100kg plus box into the wrong place forward of the wheel in very lumpy conditions, it hasn't slid across the cockpit and broken your ankle, and you haven't yet had cause to struggle to shift it back aft of the wheel to the most realistic place from which to launch it, what's quite likely to happen to that painter in the meantime?

 

[Uricanejack]

To my mind one of the most important learning opportunities for sailors
Particularly offshore sailors. If your on the inside of the boat and your feet are getting wet. You don't know the source.
It is time to request assistance
Hind sight? You bet.
I don't know a decent mariner from anywhere who would not respond and stand by

I am sure at least one shipping co manager will confirm. The company would not object
I would rather be tasked by AMVER to steam 6 ,12 even 24 hrs back to stand by while a problem was resolved several times. Than show up once when I am unable to do anything because it was to late.
If an AMBER request is made. The shipping co is not going to be held liable. They will respond

It's natural for most guys to resist calling for help. I have. Even guilty myself.

 

[Mark-1]

Maybe, maybe not, one thing for sure is that all contingency plans will not likely survive such a catastrophic failure in the weather conditions. The storage space for the liferaft is shown in the picture. Maybe the helm seat was still on when the yacht inverted and like the windows, post inversion, it was forced off by the action of the sea.

The MAIB report says they took the lid off to make the LR accessible faster. There was plenty of communication with the shore so we know a fair bit about these decisions.

 

[Elessar]

I very much resent that suggestion. I would have had the foresight to have prepared to lose the keel it is the OBVIOUS source of sea water.

It's not a suggestion. It's a statement. In case you misread "you are sailing with hindsight ".

 

[Kukri]

To my mind one of the most important learning opportunities for sailors
Particularly offshore sailors. If your on the inside of the boat and your feet are getting wet. You don't know the source.
It is time to request assistance
Hind sight? You bet.
I don't know a decent mariner from anywhere who would not respond and stand by

I am sure at least one shipping co manager will confirm. The company would not object
I would rather be tasked by AMVER to steam 6 ,12 even 24 hrs back to stand by while a problem was resolved several times. Than show up once when I am unable to do anything because it was to late.
If an AMBER request is made. The shipping co is not going to be held liable. They will respond

It's natural for most guys to resist calling for help. I have. Even guilty myself.

You actually don't have a choice. You are legally obliged to respond to a distress call, if you are in a position to help, under the Safety of Life At Sea ("SOLAS") convention - which we owe to the loss of the TITANIC fwiw.

To be precise, the 1974 SOLAS convention states: "...the master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so..."

The 2006 Amendments add: “This obligation to provide assistance applies regardless of the nationality or status of such persons or the circumstances in which they are found."

You must respond to an AMVER request until released.

It can get a bit silly with Mayday relays - my son's ship picked one up from off Gibraltar when they were in Brazil. They didn't respond to that one.

All modern merchant ships have a Man Overboard boat and a crew who officially at least have passed an exam in launching and driving it (my son, who safety boats for our club when not at sea, is actually a bit scathing about some of his colleagues' ability at launching and driving a RIB, but officially they all can - and we have a friend who as Mate of a VLCC rescued the entire crew of a sinking logger in heavy weather in one of her God-awful powered lifeboats, so it really can be done.)

There is the question of the time lost and the fuel used. These costs are covered by the ship's P&I Club but of course the claim goes on the record. One can ask nicely - a couple of years ago I diverted a ship to rescue the crew of a bulker which had sunk and to my pleasant surprise their P&I Club coughed up. In the past we diverted a ship to pick up the crew of a US Coastguard cutter which had stranded on a Pacific island and the USCG just wrote back saying our actions were in the finest traditions of the sea - and no cheque! We claimed on our own P&I Club for that one - grrr!

 

[dom]

It's not a suggestion. It's a statement. In case you misread "you are sailing with hindsight ".

Any post-accident discussion will by definition contain elements of both hindsight and speculation; I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point

The point is no doubt well made above, but while the designed location of the liferaft on boats such as the First 40.7 protects it when the decks are awash, it creates a serious problem in the event of an inversion. In addition, liferafts no matter how they are stored can be ripped out of the hands of a crew and blown away, or be rendered inoperable for some reason.

Aside from the Cat 0 question, even in the spirit of good seamanship and human decency it seems to me an extraordinary omission that no second liferaft was fitted, most likely to the sternrail with a hydrostatic release system/ This would have been accessible by the swimming crew. It is also a matter of enormous sadness that the crew for whatever reason did not insist upon one. Those who know this segment of the industry will know well the pressures relatively inexperienced crews are put under to just 'get on with the job'.

The MAIB notes:
.

"Liferaft stowage on small vessels is particularly challenging as weather decks canbe frequently awash, running the risk of liferafts being lost overboard. However, inthe event of a yacht capsizing and inverting in circumstances in which survival isdependent on liferaft availability, it is vital that every effort is made to ensure thatthey remain readily accessible and capable of being deployed for use quickly andeasily.

"In the event of a yacht capsizing and then inverting in circumstances in whichsurvival is dependent on liferaft availability, it is vital that every effort is made toensure that a liferaft remains readily accessible and capable of being deployed foruse quickly and easily."​

 

[Deleted member 36384]

The MAIB report says they took the lid off to make the LR accessible faster. There was plenty of communication with the shore so we know a fair bit about these decisions.

Okay, I missed / forgotten about the lid still being in place.

 

[dom]

Okay, I missed / forgotten about the lid still being in place.

Also, I don't know what boat you were sailing across Biscay (perhaps a cruising boat?), but a loose liferaft in a slippery canister can be lethal if left unrestrained in a big open racing pit. Removing the stern bench seat rendered the liferaft open to the sky, de facto placing it in the cockpit. This was arguably the best compromise available in what was an inadequately rafted vessel. .

 

[Deleted member 36384]

In a previous career I worked with a large charter fleet for a Scottish yacht charter and sailing school company. Regarding the life raft stowage on the CR and the suggestions that it was in the best place. This is my experience of handling life rafts under the helm seat. The space is very restricted between the wheel and the seat and you can not face the seat, bend over and work the lid catches, lift the life raft out and manoeuvre it easily. The fact is that the wheel gets in the way as the torso leans forward or bunches up in a crouch it hits the wheel and tips the body forward when it wants to lean back to balance. The body has to be sideways on to the seat so it can be braced to lift both the lid off and the life raft out. I don't know if the seat lid is hinged on the CR but that would make it much easier but because of the back stay it probably is not. On the yachts that I worked on the seat had to be lifted clear. That too was not straight forward, the seat / lid had to be lifted straight up, by about 6 to 9 inches, if it was tilted it would stick because of the deep sides of the seat / lid. I recall that it was always a faff in a marina with a contortion and the lid sticking. Similarly lifting the life raft up and manoeuvring it out of the space and around the wheel was awkward as the raft is heavy, the space narrow and the need to lift and turn, they can not be slid out.

Food for thought.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Also, I don't know what boat you were sailing across Biscay (perhaps a cruising boat?), but a loose liferaft in a slippery canister can be lethal if left unrestrained in a big open racing pit. Removing the stern bench seat rendered the liferaft open to the sky, de facto placing it in the cockpit. This was arguably the best compromise available in what was an inadequately rafted vessel. .

I stated what boat in the post, a Sigma 41, wide enough cockpit, yes it is a hassle and yes it is a risk. I decided that the risk of being struck in fog and the likely hood of rapid sinking justified my actions.

 

[dom]

In a previous career I worked with a large charter fleet for a Scottish yacht charter and sailing school company. Regarding the life raft stowage on the CR and the suggestions that it was in the best place. This is my experience of handling life rafts under the helm seat. The space is very restricted between the wheel and the seat and you can not face the seat, bend over and work the lid catches, lift the life raft out and manoeuvre it easily. The fact is that the wheel gets in the way as the torso leans forward or bunches up in a crouch it hits the wheel and tips the body forward when it wants to lean back to balance. The body has to be sideways on to the seat so it can be braced to lift both the lid off and the life raft out. I don't know if the seat lid is hinged on the CR but that would make it much easier but because of the back stay it probably is not. On the yachts that I worked on the seat had to be lifted clear. That too was not straight forward, the seat / lid had to be lifted straight up, by about 6 to 9 inches, if it was tilted it would stick because of the deep sides of the seat / lid. I recall that it was always a faff in a marina with a contortion and the lid sticking. Similarly lifting the life raft up and manoeuvring it out of the space and around the wheel was awkward as the raft is heavy, the space narrow and the need to lift and turn, they can not be slid out.

Food for thought.

All good points. However (AFAIK) the bench seat located over the raft n a First 40.7 is easily removed by simply opening the two stern lockers. It may then be stored down below or tossed overboard. The raft is now open to the sky and may be lifted vertically out. The stern guard wires can also be opened making the launch as convenient as possible in the absence of an inversion

 

[Elessar]

Any post-accident discussion will by definition contain elements of both hindsight and speculation; I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point

Seriously? Then you really lack quite a lot in your ability to reason.

The point is that armchair sailors, with the benefit of hindsight, are criticising my very able and very dead friend.

Andy was making decisions in horrendous conditions and i have every faith in his ability to have made the right decision based on what he knew/thought at the time.

If, with the benefit of hindsight, if true experts can see that he could have done something different, then, like with the 79 fastnet and other disasters, i hope many learn from that.

That is very different to the with hindsight, "i told you so" attitude of some here. And yes i will continue to labour that point.

Got it now?

 

[Mark-1]

However (AFAIK) the bench seat located over the raft n a First 40.7 is easily removed by simply opening the two stern lockers. It may then be stored down below or tossed overboard. The raft is now open to the sky and may be lifted vertically out. The stern guard wires can also be opened making the launch as convenient as possible in the absence of an inversion

Yup, they did the right thing regarding the liferaft. Even with hindsight, nobody has suggested a better spot for them to have moved it to.

 

[dom]

Seriously? Then you really lack quite a lot in your ability to reason.

The point is that armchair sailors, with the benefit of hindsight, are criticising my very able and very dead friend.
....

Got it now?

I deeply sympathise with the feelings both you and the crew's families must have after this terrible loss. For the record I have only made a couple of posts on this thread, none of which criticise your friends in any way.

There are many open questions here and I'm sure in time lessons will be learnt, which will in turn improve safety at sea.

In the circumstances, however, it just cannot be appropriate to enter a personal slanging match.

 

[lw395]

Yup, they did the right thing regarding the liferaft. Even with hindsight, nobody has suggested a better spot for them to have moved it to.

I suspect it does not matter, because in 5m+ waves, once the yacht inverts you have no choice but to disconnect your tether which is dragging you under ever few seconds, then you have no chance of staying with the yacht.
Hypothetically, if one thought an inversion was on the cards, would attaching tethers to a long (25m? more?) line enable the crew to get back to the raft?
Would the raft be accessible at the transom of the inverted boat? I think that would depend on sea conditions.
I think it's more accessible there than anywhere else.

 

[Mark-1]

I suspect it does not matter, because in 5m+ waves, once the yacht inverts you have no choice but to disconnect your tether which is dragging you under ever few seconds, then you have no chance of staying with the yacht.

Agree. Looks highly likely none of them ever got back to the yacht. If they had surely one/all of them would have found a way to attach themselves to the rudder.

Hypothetically, if one thought an inversion was on the cards, would attaching tethers to a long (25m? more?) line enable the crew to get back to the raft?

FWIW I reckon so. Playing around I could never swim fast enough to keep up with a boat moving at 2knts, but tow a fender on a mooring line and all of a sudden it's easy to pull myself back to the boat. Clearly finding the rope at all in a sea state will be very difficult but it gives you half a chance which is something. Problem with all this conjecture is it requires you to know/suspect the boat is going to imminently and suddenly fail. In this case the first sign of the magnitude of the problem was when the boat turned over.

Would the raft be accessible at the transom of the inverted boat? I think that would depend on sea conditions.
I think it's more accessible there than anywhere else.

FWIW I reckon it's just about possible if your life depended on it. Callahan dived down to a sinking boat. Of course the LR might be tangled or stuck in some way or might just be impossible to retreive in the time you can hold your breath whilst 'working'. Of course once back at the boat harnessing themselves to the upturned rudder would have increased their chances of being found massively even without a liferaft. Four inflated lifejackets together on an upturned hull must surely be more visible than a blue upturned hull alone.

Incidently, it occurs to me that in the case of inversion having the LR at the stern makes a lot of sense since the rudder is the only handhold on an upturned hull.

 

[Elessar]

I deeply sympathise with the feelings both you and the crew's families must have after this terrible loss. For the record I have only made a couple of posts on this thread, none of which criticise your friends in any way.

There are many open questions here and I'm sure in time lessons will be learnt, which will in turn improve safety at sea.

In the circumstances, however, it just cannot be appropriate to enter a personal slanging match.

Yep agreed. I also agree there has been a lot of good stuff here. Ill defend myself by saying I only react when it has already got personal and erroneous.

 

[lw395]

,,,,,, There was plenty of communication with the shore so we know a fair bit about these decisions.

I don't think the comms with shore rate as 'plenty'.

In my work, if somebody has a problem with a big bit of capital equipment, and I'm a long way away, I'd want to know a lot more about the detail, and I'd want to know ASAP.
Because I might be on the phone to the manufacturers or other people in the trade for any tips about what the problem is.

It seems to me that time was wasted when it would have been possible to get advice from people who know the structure of these boats.

The scale of the leak problem was never quantified.

It's a cultural thing that you are on your own and satphone minutes are expensive. Minimalist communication that harks back to wireless telegraph.
I want more information when somebody is looking at a problem with my car, which might possibly cost me a grand or two to fix, why do we accept this level of comms when so much more is at stake?