Cornish Cruising has incredibly safe boats.

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's a big assumption that the keel fell off because of being grounded and knocked about. It is not unheard of for keel bolts to corrode and fail. It would be unusual for all the bolts to fail in this way, but it's a far more realistic cause than a grounding that's strong enough to break the keel away without damaging the hull.


I'm no expert of Cornish Cruising and their SOP's for a reported grounding. But I do know a lot of their boats have had major work done to their keels after their guests have put them on the bricks so I'd guess that the management would take a report of going aground quite seriously.
 
prv said:
...even more especially, as for much else in this case, when a missing keel is not a possibility you would ever contemplate.
Click to expand...

I think that's really the point. No-one would expect the keel to have fallen off when no damage was apparent on internal inspection. No-one would expect a boat without a keel to look that normal, nor that someone could loose it with out noticing!

It's worth noting that scale has an effect here - the bigger the boat the less 'noticeable' it is...
ie greater the immersion value (more weight to immerse by 1 cm)
 
Little Rascal said:
It depends where the centre of gravity shifted to, following the loss of the keel. If it shifted aft (in other words the keels cg was forward of hull cg) then the boat would trim by the stern anyway and not be so noticeable there.
Click to expand...


yes, I see exactly what you mean, I hadn't thought about CG at all...

I think I was trying to reconcile in my head the statement in post 75

"skipper rom working boat walks round to pontoon behind us and says 'shes about 2 foot too high in the water'.

and HoratioHB's observation that nothing looked untoward at the helford river

and the suggestion that the (whole?) keel has been found in the Scillies.

and your calculation.

I can see that on the Helford the conditions were possibly less ideal - viewed at deck level with a hull curving away as viewed from above then perhaps a couple of inches of antifoul extra exposed would be very hard to see on a moving surface

whereas against a pontoon looking near the rudder the change might be a lot more obvious?? perhaps the cg even went the other way and the stern was lifted? and so the comment referred to the length of antifoul exposed going backwards i.e out of the water rather than the actual height change if that make any sense?
 
eigerwand said:
I can see that on the Helford the conditions were possibly less ideal - viewed at deck level with a hull curving away as viewed from above then perhaps a couple of inches of antifoul extra exposed would be very hard to see on a moving surface

whereas against a pontoon looking near the rudder the change might be a lot more obvious?? perhaps the cg even went the other way and the stern was lifted? and so the comment referred to the length of antifoul exposed going backwards i.e out of the water rather than the actual height change if that make any sense?
Click to expand...

The other factor is that you are used to seeing trim changes for and aft. If you have two big blokes on the foredeck the the stern might well look like you describe on a boat with a keel.

Also you are used to seeing the boat heeled so it would be easy to assume she was out of trim athwartships. Or if you were on deck amidships looking over the rail, your own weight would push the boot top down anyway.

It's trickier than you might think...

But most people just wouldn't imagine that it could possibly be what it was.
 
Woodlouse said:
There's a big assumption that the keel fell off because of being grounded and knocked about. It is not unheard of for keel bolts to corrode and fail. It would be unusual for all the bolts to fail in this way, but it's a far more realistic cause than a grounding that's strong enough to break the keel away without damaging the hull.
Click to expand...

There's been several here , including me, who have seen the vessel on the hard. The bolts are bent back and sheared. No evidence of any corrosion
 
reddragon2 said:
Oh what utter nonsense. I'm not sure how many individual charters happen every year nor how many keels fall off like this, but am fairly certain I am safe in saying that it is in the many thousands to one category.

Are you seriously suggesting all charter companies should change how they operate and instigate underwater inspection upon return of the boat?

Seriously?

Really?

Have you got shares in a diving company or underwater camera manufacturer? Or have you been brainwashed by the elf & safety brigade?:D:D:D:D

What sort of nanny state do you want? Perhaps we should all have our car tyres x-rayed (after we go over a pot-hole or road lump) for stress damage just in case they blow-out.

Or perhaps every shackle on a boat should be tested after every sail just in case it has been unduly loaded and damaged.

Oh please.....
Click to expand...


So, just so that I understand your view on this...:)

You would be perfectly happy... and would not blame the charter company... if YOU had hired this boat, (Or any other Keel-less boat) and it had turned over and someone in your crew had been killed.

You would put this down to just the average risk of sailing, and any legislation which says, for instance... that a craft that you charter in the UK has to be safe and fit for purpose, you would say was the nanny state interfering.

In fact you would be quite happy if the current legislation as laid down was abolished, as clearly it is unreasonable for the operator to have to ensure that the boat is safe.

:)


Lets just make sure that we have some facts clear....

1) The last charterers of this yacht were in no way to blame for the loss of the keel.
2) They hired this yacht with the expectation that it would be fit for purpose, and adhere to the appropriate regulations as laid down by the MCA for charter yachts in the UK.
3) The operators were aware that the yacht had "Hit Something".
4) The operators did not conduct a inspection after this was reported.
5) The operators have had a number of previous incidents were underwater damage was caused to their yachts by charterers.
6) Many operators conduct underwater inspections as a matter of course.
7) The operators have the facility to conduct a inspection, and in fact did so after the reports of a serious issue.
8) The operators have a legal obligation to conduct a inspection after a grounding.


If this had resulted in a death, I suspect that the directors of this company would be facing criminal charges of corporate negligence. Certainly the company would not have survived.

This isnt about making sure that the boat has a keel it is about compliance with basic legislation in terms of the operation of charter craft, and about consumer legislation which ensures that consumers can expect that things they pay for are safe and fit for purpose.

The failure of the keel is a extreme and highly unlikely event, but underwater damage to charter yachts is commonplace, and can make a vessel unfit in many ways.

So, I think that it is reasonable to carry out a routine and simple inspection via a remote camera, (Which is NOT a expensive device or operation) to ensure that the vessel has not suffered damage which may make it unfit at that time, or lead to further damage which may make it unfit.

The fact that many other companies already do this as a matter of course reinforces my belief that it is reasonable.


But of course, if you would have been happy to have chartered this yacht, then who am I to judge!
 
Ubergeekian said:
I don't think you do. He was saying that an underwater inspection after every charter was over the top, not after a reported grounding.
Click to expand...

No, I got that, I may not have made it odvious, but I think a inspection after every charter is perfectly reasonable... its really the only way, given the lack of honesty on behalf of charterers, (See my earlier post...) to mitigate the risk from underwater damage..

There are a lot of systems in our business that we have in place, not because they are strictly necessary, but because the cost of a failure that these systems prevent, no matter how infintesimal the odds on those failures occuring, is so great that they must be offset.

I happen to think that the downside to the business of not doing this is potentially so great, that the precaution must be taken.

The operators in this case had a VERY VERY lucky escape.
 
jimi said:
...however in this case that would have been sod all use cos the grounding was not reported...

I
Click to expand...

I think from a earlier post they had reported that "They had hit something..."

Which of course... one may be inclined to interpet as not a grounding if so inclined.

The operator has a issue here I think......
 
As I understand it the original operator did not report it until asked - because by then CC knew the keel was missing.
Lots of discussion here about cause and effect. But I'll bet just like most accidents, there was a mix of things, grounding stresses, corrosion, build defect, fatigue cracks, osmosis weakening the fin, galvanic attack etc etc. We really ought to wait until its been investigated properly before pontificating on what circumstances caused it.
And so to knee jerk into saying all boats must be inspected every time is in my view an absolute classic example of why this county is drowning in uneccesary safety laws.
Simple question - how many times has anyone on this forum heard of this happening before? and I don't mean racing boats and the like (Drum, Bullimore etc) I mean ordinary cruising boats be they chartered or not. I've been sailing for forty years and can't think of one.
Of course one could argue that if the damn thing had done what we all thought it would, ie fallen over, then this would all have been a lot simpler!!
 
At least one poster has seen the bent keelbolts ... just how hard do you have to run aground to do that and for the keel to fall off... do you remember this grounding (and they were racing at the time) -clicky- hardly any damage done.

The original party who did the damage MUST have known something was up

Also, how did they find the keel, I can only imagine it was above the low water mark? I guess the real story will only come out when some engineering analysis can be done on the hull and keel (once it's shipped back).
 
photodog said:
No, I got that, I may not have made it odvious, but I think a inspection after every charter is perfectly reasonable... its really the only way, given the lack of honesty on behalf of charterers, (See my earlier post...) to mitigate the risk from underwater damage..

There are a lot of systems in our business that we have in place, not because they are strictly necessary, but because the cost of a failure that these systems prevent, no matter how infintesimal the odds on those failures occuring, is so great that they must be offset.

I happen to think that the downside to the business of not doing this is potentially so great, that the precaution must be taken.

The operators in this case had a VERY VERY lucky escape.
Click to expand...

So what else do you suggest is necessary to avoid infintessimally small risk of failure?

Should all the fire extinguishers be serviced after each charter in case the previous charterers have messed about with them?

I think it has already been said that the bilges around the keel were checked, but that's maybe a couple of minutes work per boat. This is the first case I've heard of on a cruiser with keel loss or serious damage where the bilges were unscathed. No one else has posted to say they've seen it before. So what is the risk of it happening again? 10^-4?, 10^-5?, 10^-6? (i.e one in ten thousand?, one in a hundred thousand?, one in a million)?

Lets say it is 30 minutes per boat to check it with an underwater camera, including bringing the camera down, setting it up, doing the check then moving on to the next boat. In reality they'll be checking for dents on the keel or chips out of the rudder or maybe something tangled around the prop.

If there are thirty boats on a charter company's books all out for a weekend, that 15 hours of work, two man days.

Are charter companies so profitable that they can take that extra cost and still remain in business?
 
dt4134 said:
Are charter companies so profitable that they can take that extra cost and still remain in business?
Click to expand...

:)


Well a lot of companys do, and they remain in business... You should read my earlier post in reference to my thoughts on the impact on costs..


I will leave this subject on one point...

Would you be happy to wave all your legal rights, in regards to the liability of the charter company for a accident, should they hire you a boat which was unfit for purpose and unsafe?

If Yes, then of course there is no need for a inspection.

If No, then why is it unreasonable, when so many others are doing so, to carry out a inspection?

How else can a company be sure that a charterer has not caused damage?

:)
 
Little Rascal said:
Some of the earlier posts are implying that it was known to CC.
Not disagreeing with you Jimi :D
But can you or anyone else clarify?

Ta
Jon
Click to expand...

My understanding is that nothing was reported to CC , not a dicky bird. My understanding is based on a very brief conversation with one of the CC staff.
 
jimi said:
My understanding is that nothing was reported to CC , not a dicky bird. My understanding is based on a very brief conversation with one of the CC staff.
Click to expand...

The charterer must have known they had a problem...:confused:

The same thing happened with the boat I saw go onto the bar on the Fal, they didnt say a thing until confronted.



The problem is that ALL of the incentives are for the Charterer to lie if he runs aground...

We all know that in sailing Running-aground is a fairly normal thing, and is just one of those things that happen... and if we do it in our own boat it may not be a big deal...

But if you charter and this happens you get nailed for a lift, lose your deposit, etc etc... So, people lie.


We need to incentivice the charterer to tell the truth... there really shouldnt be any penalty for the charterer if he does so.

Maybe get rid of the big deposit, and have a unrefundable fee for all risks insurance instead?
 
Last edited:
photodog said:
:)

Would you be happy to wave all your legal rights, in regards to the liability of the charter company for a accident, should they hire you a boat which was unfit for purpose and unsafe?
Click to expand...

Don't be daft, I'm just pointing out that you have a niave attitude to risk assessment.

If the company has a risk assessment and inspection procedure that is reasonably comparable with the norm and its employees have followed that procedure I don't think they be considered to have been reckless. They won't have been the only ones who assumed inspection of the bilges would spot major damage to the keel and so cover the safety risk. Even now a assessment of the risk is likely to conclude that the chances of this happening again without been spotable with a bilge inspection are too small to justify the cost.

I know one well-run charter company with about thirty boats that generally have two employees. So 15 man hours per week for camera inspection would be a 20% increase in the costs for what is likely to be a one in a hundred thousand or one in a million risk. (I notice you didn't come back with your own estimate of the risk.)

I also expect the charter company is insured for this sort of thing and no doubt their insurers insist on what should be done.

Diving might work in the Med but it wouldn't be foolproof in muddy northern waters. I know of one boat that sent a diver down who didn't spot that about a third of the leading edge of the keel was stove in. Ok, it wasn't a safety issue as the damage didn't affect a structural part of the keel but it certainly affected the speed of the boat when racing.
 
photodog said:
The problem is that ALL of the incentives are for the Charterer to lie if he runs aground...

We all know that in sailing Running-aground is a fairly normal thing, and is just one of those things that happen... and if we do it in our own boat it may not be a big deal...

But if you charter and this happens you get nailed for a lift, lose your deposit, etc etc... So, people lie.


We need to incentivice the charterer to tell the truth... there really shouldnt be any penalty for the charterer if he does so.

Maybe get rid of the big deposit, and have a unrefundable fee for all risks insurance instead?
Click to expand...
AN interesting thought. John Mannall who ran Skye Charters in Armadale for many years had a policy of not charging for minor keel damage. The logic was that if people reported it he could fix it before it became a problem and if they weren't to be charged they were more likely to confess. I did take advantage of this on one embarassing occasion when I knew less than I do now, and he used his home-made underwater keel inspecting periscope ( a length of plastic pipe with a mirror in, basically) to inspect the damage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top