Cheeki Rafiki yacht operator cleared over sailor deaths

[RobbieW]

Exactly. Given that they had at least 24 hours between "there's some water" and it falling off, then if the boat was being used in Coastal waters there is very little chance of it falling off before they could make a safe haven and arrange for the boat to be lifted.

Ho hum, I think we've now gone circular in this discussion.

On the one hand, enforcing the MCA interpretation of commercial passages and the categories required for those passages would have prevented (or perhaps just delayed) this tragedy.

On the other, it brings into question the suitability of some yacht designs for long passages. Is RCD A a good enough indicator of suitability for usage ? given that any RCD A (non-commercial) vessel is considered fit for unrestricted passage making (and many do - before the usual suspects make that comment).

We know that some of Stormforce's competitors circumvent the MCA by racing back across the atlantic - some ship the boats back to meet specific deadlines. We also know that races have thier own rules, which the racing section of the ARC utilises.

For my 2p worth, I think the lessons to be learned are that the industry needs to find a cost effective way of testing for matrix failures and of resolving those when detected to at least the original strength. I'm pretty sure that Beneteau issue a repair schedule for matrix damage, how pervasive that is in yards other than Beneteau repair centres I've no idea.

 

[[163233]]

But would correctly coding the boat stopped the keel from dropping off?

During a previous coding survey a problem was found with the keel attachment, and a repair was carried out. So it did do that time.

 

[Uricanejack]

Ho hum, I think we've now gone circular in this discussion.

On the one hand, enforcing the MCA interpretation of commercial passages and the categories required for those passages would have prevented (or perhaps just delayed) this tragedy.

On the other, it brings into question the suitability of some yacht designs for long passages. Is RCD A a good enough indicator of suitability for usage ? given that any RCD A (non-commercial) vessel is considered fit for unrestricted passage making (and many do - before the usual suspects make that comment).

We know that some of Stormforce's competitors circumvent the MCA by racing back across the atlantic - some ship the boats back to meet specific deadlines. We also know that races have thier own rules, which the racing section of the ARC utilises.

For my 2p worth, I think the lessons to be learned are that the industry needs to find a cost effective way of testing for matrix failures and of resolving those when detected to at least the original strength. I'm pretty sure that Beneteau issue a repair schedule for matrix damage, how pervasive that is in yards other than Beneteau repair centres I've no idea.

The difficulty of detecting and repairing a matrix failure was one of the wider issues which came out of the investigation.
Even so the reasons for the failure are speculation or an educated guess. There was no evidence of a recent grounding in the Caribbean and no direct evidence of an unrepaired grounding in her Solent based life. Leaving speculation the boat may have had a light grounding or groundings at some unknown time. based upon routine practices which existed at the time.

One would hope those practices are now a thing of the past.

Even so. These boats are Cat 2. not Cat 0. Continuing the practice of using these boats commercially for an ocean voyage is beyond reprehensible in my opinion.

To some extent I have sympathy for Doug Innes. His company practice was common to the industry. He probably genuinely thought it was OK.
The reality is it could have happened to any of these boats. It happened to this particular boat due to just the right set of unfortunate circumstances lining up on this particular voyage. Ultimately we do not actually know exactly what those circumstances were.

The book was thrown hard at Doug Innes. Perhaps it serves as a warning to others. The warning appears to go unheeded.

The MCA should in my opinion have taken steps to eliminate the use of Cat 2 boats on ocean voyages for commercial purpose.

 

[Mark-1]

On the other, it brings into question the suitability of some yacht designs for long passages.

Of course now the issue has received widespread publicity the danger of this design is lessened. Future crews in the same situation with that design will know to put an immediate Mayday out if they can't explain a water ingress and will have a good chance of being rescued in time.

 

[lpdsn]

During a previous coding survey a problem was found with the keel attachment, and a repair was carried out. So it did do that time.

Except there was a lot of doubt as to whether that repair was complete. IIRC, the yard hadn't seen the famous Beneteau repair procedures. And there's also a claim that the Farr design office hadn't seen them to approve them either.

Definitely room for improvement.

 

[lpdsn]

Correct... The alternative being to ship the boat back.

Or the actual owner could've employed a delivery skipper and Doug Inness could've re-imbursed him. No laws broken and different people would've died.

 

[Mark-1]

Or the actual owner could've employed a delivery skipper and Doug Inness could've re-imbursed him. No laws broken and different people would've died.

Or Doug could have organized a psuedo-race back. No laws broken and the same people would have died.

 

[alant]

Or Doug could have organized a psuedo-race back. No laws broken and the same people would have died.

IIRC, "going to a race, or returning from a race" exempts any of the manning & other coding requirements, perhaps someone can confirm or otherwise.

 

[Mark-1]

IIRC, "going to a race, or returning from a race" exempts any of the manning & other coding requirements, perhaps someone can confirm or otherwise.

Can't confirm it, but that's certainly my recollection of the rules posted in previous threads. I guess at least one of the juries felt that returning from the ARC after a season on hire to be raced in a season in the Solent didn't count as going to a race or returning from a race.

 

[BelleSerene]

Can't confirm it, but that's certainly my recollection of the rules posted in previous threads. I guess at least one of the juries felt that returning from the ARC after a season on hire to be raced in a season in the Solent didn't count as going to a race or returning from a race.

Yes, the MCA held so. http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...ared-over-sailor-deaths&p=6415666#post6415666

 

[RobF]

Yes, the MCA held so. http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...ared-over-sailor-deaths&p=6415666#post6415666

Indeed, the MAIB report includes the following quote: (from page 29)

On 26 March 2014, the MCA stated in an email to YDSA ‘…not sure how it got to the Caribbean from the UK on a Cat 2 Certificate, especially as they are using it commercially out there?’ This email was forwarded by YDSA to Stormforce Coaching, who responded directly to the MCA on 27 March 2014 ‘…Just to clarify, the yacht crossed the Atlantic in the racing division of the ARC under ISAF regulations. She will not be carrying any paying passengers for the way home…’

 

[RobF]

Can't confirm it, but that's certainly my recollection of the rules posted in previous threads. I guess at least one of the juries felt that returning from the ARC after a season on hire to be raced in a season in the Solent didn't count as going to a race or returning from a race.

Clearly, what was said in the Jury deliberations is not for public knowledge. I think DI argued that going to Antigua counted as a race (ARC) and therefore done under ISAF rules. The delivery trip home was less clear as it wasn't a race. DI argued that it was a normal delivery trip back to the UK and that there would be no paying passengers. However, the MAIB's opinion was that

‘Paying passengers are only one element of the definition. If the voyage is a relocation voyage for commercial purposes, the vessel is almost certainly not being used as a pleasure vessel.’
The definition of a ‘pleasure vessel’, a copy of which was attached to the email, is provided in The Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998 and is reproduced at Annex F. On 31 March 2014