Cornish Cruising has incredibly safe boats.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well done to the skipper and Cornish Cruising - it seems that they all acted professionally and put the crews safety first.

When the problem was realised they got the boat back safely, and got the crew into another boat.


There was a comment a few posts back that seemed to cast a doubt on CC's procedures, but having run several companies I know first hand that you can't risk assess everything and have a procedure in place for all eventualities - there is no master manual for business.

For me the true measure of people and companies is how they handle the unexpected.

chris
 
reddragon2 said:
Well done to the skipper and Cornish Cruising - it seems that they all acted professionally and put the crews safety first.
Click to expand...

A previous post said that the people who had the boat at the Scillies reported having a bump. It would be interesting to know what checks Cornish Cruising did as a result - and, of course, how much of a bump was reported. It would also be interesting to know what state the keel bolts were in beforehand. Only four of them for a 1.7 tonne keel? My Jouster's 1/2 ton keel is held on with 16 3/4" diameter bolts.
 
reddragon2 said:
There was a comment a few posts back that seemed to cast a doubt on CC's procedures, but having run several companies I know first hand that you can't risk assess everything and have a procedure in place for all eventualities - there is no master manual for business.



chris
Click to expand...

I of course agree with that... however I think that this incident will re-define what is considered possible..

Whilst the loss of a keel is unbelievably rare, the downside of this is so serious, (Both in the potential downside to the company, and the risk to life.) that there odviously needs to be some attempt to mitigate the risk.

Currently there does not appear to be any procedure in place with the vast majority of charter companies to mitigate this risk in any way... we certainly have never had a underwater inspection either prior to or after any charter...

If this accident had resulted in the loss of life, then I doubt if the business would have survived.

I do find it stunning, but also understandable, that this can happen... so I am sympathetic.... but the message from this has got to be that a underwater inspection needs to be done between charters.

I am surprised, given the history of the operator.. (Who is first class in every way...) that they have not learnt the odvious lessons;

1) Yachts run aground.
2) People are not honest about this happening.
3) Catastrophic damage can be caused by this.


The more I reflect on this the more surprised that they have not instituted a regime of underwater checks between charterers.... as they odviously have the capacity to do so from the above post.

I think that if this had resulted in a investigation... they would have had major problems.

If the MCA chooses to investigate... and I think they should... then they may still have issues.

We cant escape the fact that they sent out a yacht which was in a dangerous state.

As Tigger says.. its not just them that are gonna have to change there procedures.
 
I chartered a boat in Palma, and standard procedure was that EVERY returning boat had un underwater inspection - precisely because people are not honest about hitting things.

For those who want to do an inspection on the cheap, here's an idea - I have an Olypmus Tough 8000 which is waterproof to 10 m. Strap it to the end of a boathook, put it in "motion picture" mode and shove it under the boat - it isn't rocket science. Can also be useful at sea, to check if something is wrapped around the keel / prop.
 
Last edited:
I would imagine that if the worst had happenned the lawyers would be rather busy, especially in light of the legals that followed the Lyme Bay canoeing tragedy and the subsequent legislation.
 
Does anyone know if there some sort of trade association e.g. Yacht Charterers Association?

If there is then perhaps this issue needs to be considered by them and guidance issued.
 
photodog said:
.. however I think that this incident will re-define what is considered possible..

Whilst the loss of a keel is unbelievably rare,
Click to expand...

What seems so totally unbelievable is the loss of a keel in a way that cause no visible damage to the inside of the hull and no water ingress. The non capsize of the boat whilst surprising presumably just demonstrates how form stability works on modern AWBs.

Is it possible that the bolts were already weakened in some way prior to the accident in the Scillies? or could there be some specific aspect of the accident - i.e that the keel became wedged between two rocks in a cross sea rather than a head on impact at 6 knots?

On the need for inspections it would seem from the later comment from oppsmykeel that a serious look at the waterline would have shown a problem existed. Plimsol line on charter boats anyone??
 
eigerwand said:
On the need for inspections it would seem from the later comment from oppsmykeel that a serious look at the waterline would have shown a problem existed. Plimsol line on charter boats anyone??
Click to expand...

You would think so wouldn't you, but I looked at that at the time and couldn't see anything untoward. When I had my Jeanneau 42 the difference in waterline from when she was brand new and empty to when she was full of all sorts of stuff was not discernible. I guess its a feature of these modern falt bottomed designs.

Still can't get my mind around why she stayed upright, I would love a naval architect or stability expert to tell us - anyone out there?
 
dt4134 said:
photodog said:
If the MCA chooses to investigate... and I think they should... then they may still have issues.

QUOTE]

For a coded vessel doesn't this sort of incident have to be reported to the MAIB?
Click to expand...

Every charter vessel in the UK is coded. You have to report a grounding to the MCA and/or their agents. They then ask for a haulout and inspection. That is what happened when charterers went gently aground off Mayflower Marina where the slipway opposite the fuel berth is. It was a VERY gentle grounding (no damage done), but we still got the charteres to haulout and an independent surveyor to have a look at the results. The costs woudl have been borne by the charterers except I wanted a scrub (we were taking Tigger on our own annual cruise shortly thereafter :)) so we split the cost of haulout two ways.
Click to expand...
 
eigerwand said:
What seems so totally unbelievable is the loss of a keel in a way that cause no visible damage to the inside of the hull and no water ingress. The non capsize of the boat whilst surprising presumably just demonstrates how form stability works on modern AWBs.

Is it possible that the bolts were already weakened in some way prior to the accident in the Scillies? or could there be some specific aspect of the accident - i.e that the keel became wedged between two rocks in a cross sea rather than a head on impact at 6 knots?

On the need for inspections it would seem from the later comment from oppsmykeel that a serious look at the waterline would have shown a problem existed. Plimsol line on charter boats anyone??
Click to expand...

Yes, I find this very odd too. It's counter-intuititive to think the bolts will pull out of a metal keel, rather than the grp hull.
Perhaps this is by design? Nothing is indestructable, so you design it to fail in a certain way rather than ripping the hull in half?
 
I didn't get round to interjecting yesterday and I get the impression we've got back to being civil anyway so I'm going to do a bit of pruning on this thread.

Posting the same subject on different forums is against the forum rules, just as explained most people will read more than one board and it's confusing/annoying to have the same subject discussed across more than one board.

Equally, there's no reason to act abusively towards other members of the forum and this is by far the worse infraction.

Now back to the (amazing) thread...
 
So often these days there is a freak accident and the press come out with the universal cry 'This must never happen again' resulting in yet more restrictive legislation. Then the public cries out about 'nanny state', loss of liberty etc.

Adding the cost of an underwater inspection to check the keel is still there after every charter? Who's smoking funny stuff?
 
snowleopard said:
Adding the cost of an underwater inspection to check the keel is still there after every charter? Who's smoking funny stuff?
Click to expand...
Well, they did it with a diver in Palma. Although the charter operation was larger and obviously there were economies of scale.
And it wasn't to check that the keel was still there, but to check whether it had been damaged (scrapes, dents etc) which - I assume - would lead to a more detailed inspection.
It would be perfectly feasible to do the same thing with an underwater video camera, very quickly and at very little cost.
 
snowleopard said:
So often these days there is a freak accident and the press come out with the universal cry 'This must never happen again' resulting in yet more restrictive legislation. Then the public cries out about 'nanny state', loss of liberty etc.

Adding the cost of an underwater inspection to check the keel is still there after every charter? Who's smoking funny stuff?
Click to expand...

I've got this from Maplins - certainly good enough to check if the keel's still there, and it only costs £60. So, the cost of underwater inspection need not be a factor for a business. Employing a diver, even on a weekends only basis, would cost considerably more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top