Diving on anchors

[RupertW]

Way before the internet and NGAs, most folks could work out how an anchor system worked if they took time to think about it. It really did not require videos and diving on our anchors to establish that. There was also ways in which one could establish and test the holding capability of their anchor. Experience was also gained from the effort required when weighing anchor, looking at the quality of the bottom from charts and inspecting what came up with the hook. All in all, diving was not considered relevant to understand how our anchors worked. Reading about such stuff was not weird before the internet and undersea videos became routine and when they did, it confirmed what many thought, improved understanding and dispelled some myths. The thing about diving is that it is a risk that is not required to be realised just to check an anchor.

We will have to agree to differ, there are things you can see when you look at your anchor set that will definitely cause you to weigh anchor and try somewhere else then re-dive to check. Of course that doesn't happen often each year but it does happen as in the pic above and my recent experience with a chain around a rock crevice.

So diving almost every time prevents dragging occasionally, assuming you have already done all the things above. Of course it's not mandatory any more than a GPS is, and apart from the Med and Caribbean where you swim every day anyway I doubt it's common.

 

[GHA]

Way before the internet and NGAs, most folks could work out how an anchor system worked if they took time to think about it. It really did not require videos and diving on our anchors to establish that. There was also ways in which one could establish and test the holding capability of their anchor. Experience was also gained from the effort required when weighing anchor, looking at the quality of the bottom from charts and inspecting what came up with the hook. All in all, diving was not considered relevant to understand how our anchors worked. Reading about such stuff was not weird before the internet and undersea videos became routine and when they did, it confirmed what many thought, improved understanding and dispelled some myths. The thing about diving is that it is a risk that is not required to be realised just to check an anchor.

Yet again the black and white world of forums Why not do both - think and look?? And nothing new, read moitessier et al, they were all in and out of the water.

What about the posts above about anchors just hooked on a bit of rock but not dug in at all.

So snorkeling in nice warm clear water bay and have a look at the hook while you're at it is too dangerous??

 

[Balbas]

Yet again the black and white world of forums Why not do both - think and look?? And nothing new, read moitessier et al, they were all in and out of the water.

What about the posts above about anchors just hooked on a bit of rock but not dug in at all.

So snorkeling in nice warm clear water bay and have a look at the hook while you're at it is too dangerous??

Black and white or just a bit of fun debate?

 

[noelex]

b) Its often simply not practical in the UK

Yes, it needs to be a warm water area with reasonable visibility. I don’t think anyone is suggesting doing this in the UK, but in most of the Med, Australia, the South Pacific and in many other cruising locations a swim is often needed after a long sail so this is an ideal time to learn what the anchor is really doing on the sea bed.

In summer in the Med a large percentage of skippers dive on their anchor, although interestingly even if it looks terrible they almost never take any action.

If the anchor is on the bottom it is seems to qualify as a successful set . I think readers of this forum would be better informed.

"Fashionable" seems to come across as "people following some new fad" rather than an opportunity to learn more, noelex's pics and panope videos are gold dust for the most of us who rarely see what's actually going on down there and just hope for the best (which nearly always works)

Thanks, GHA

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Yet again the black and white world of forums Why not do both - think and look?? And nothing new, read moitessier et al, they were all in and out of the water.

What about the posts above about anchors just hooked on a bit of rock but not dug in at all.

So snorkeling in nice warm clear water bay and have a look at the hook while you're at it is too dangerous??

Sure, black and white world of the forum, fill your boots with disdain. The fact that I gave practical experience of how we all established our anchoring knowledge without diving and before the internet is ignored.

In most anchoring situations, with old and new anchors, I have been sure about the holding integrity after testing if it is dug in. One or two examples of diving and finding an issue is not an endorsement of diving as a security measure. I didn't suggest that snorkelling is dangerous.

 

[Balbas]

For the record I didn't say that snorkeling was dangerous either. I did however point out that it's not an entirely risk free activity, and pondered whether those advocating it had considered whether tye mitigation of one risk (anchor dragging) warranted the introduction of other risks.

I still think it's a fair question BTW.

 

[GHA]

Sure, black and white world of the forum, fill your boots with disdain. The fact that I gave practical experience of how we all established our anchoring knowledge without diving and before the internet is ignored.

It wasn't ignored at all if you read very carefully , you are allowed to do both , looking at something is actually a very good way of seeing what the real world is like and double checking it's like the idea you formed in your head from other little bits of data.

So long as the water is nice anyway.

 

[GHA]

For the record I didn't say that snorkeling was dangerous either. I did however point out that it's not an entirely risk free activity, and pondered whether those advocating it had considered whether tye mitigation of one risk (anchor dragging) warranted the introduction of other risks.

I still think it's a fair question BTW.

Hard to imagine anyone who actually considered jumping off the back of the boat for a swim as needing a risk assessment would do something as dodgy as go sailing

 

[RupertW]

In most anchoring situations, with old and new anchors, I have been sure about the holding integrity after testing if it is dug in. One or two examples of diving and finding an issue is not an endorsement of diving as a security measure. I didn't suggest that snorkelling is dangerous.

You might have been sure but sometimes you will have been wrong. I'd love to know what I could have done in the example from a few weeks ago apart from having anchor and chain that I trust, checking the chart and pilots on the holding in the bay, laying out the chain and moving slowly up to full reverse to find it all holding very well. And then the dive showed it was just chain caught on a 90 degree turn round a boulder.

Basically if you don't dive you will almost always be fine but if you are able to you will find out just how often you have got through the night by luck alone. In my case it seems to be a couple of times a year in unfamiliar bays. Of course it does also allow you to expand your level of risk when it comes to unknown bays as you can have a punt at anchoring and really know whether the bottom and holding is good enough and move on otherwise.

 

[vyv_cox]

For me, diving on my anchor and taking photos of it, and those of others, is a great pleasure, especially when it is blowing a bit. I have learned a great deal by doing so and seen some very interesting sights. I certainly would not do it in UK, probably a waste of time due to poor visibility, but in the Aegean it is brilliant.

 

[thinwater]

a. Dangerous sea life is a very regional issue.
b. I suspect most, if not all people who dive on their anchor do so because they were going swimming anyway. At least that is always the case for me (unless I am doing specific testing).
c. Setting problems. If the anchor didn't set the first time there is a problem down there. You know it. Just sayin'. You need to decide how important that fact is.

Outside of testing, I have dove on anchors VERY few times. But there have been a few, when I felt like I didn't know what was going on down there and dragging would be bad. Mostly I found something interesting. A few times I manually re-positioned the anchor (often not all that hard if the wind is light, since you are weightless).

Then there is the case of real storms (not just squalls or a front passage). If were faced with riding out sustained winds over, say 45 knots (depends on exposure and my knowledge of the bottom), I would consider having a look part of the job, along with chafe gear and most likely setting two anchors. As for cold water, I believe gear to go in the water, at the prevailing temperature, is fundamental to good seamanship. There may be a need to untangle the prop or help with an MOB. IF you hit something, how do you inspect? I think this is as basic as PFDs and vital to self-sufficiency. Others will feel differently. Given the number of times I have found it important to safety to enter the water, I will not likely be persuaded otherwise. A wet suit or dry suit is simple a part of a well-outfitted cool/cold water boat, and snorkeling kit belongs on every boat. It's part of the boat's tool kit.

But no, I don't see a routine need.

 

[michael_w]

Ahh! The azure waters of the Thames Estuary ...Mind you the Pyfleet has the world's stickiest mud, after the Currituk Sound in North Carolina.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

You might have been sure but sometimes you will have been wrong. I'd love to know what I could have done in the example from a few weeks ago apart from having anchor and chain that I trust, checking the chart and pilots on the holding in the bay, laying out the chain and moving slowly up to full reverse to find it all holding very well. And then the dive showed it was just chain caught on a 90 degree turn round a boulder.

Basically if you don't dive you will almost always be fine but if you are able to you will find out just how often you have got through the night by luck alone. In my case it seems to be a couple of times a year in unfamiliar bays. Of course it does also allow you to expand your level of risk when it comes to unknown bays as you can have a punt at anchoring and really know whether the bottom and holding is good enough and move on otherwise.

For many years the majority of my anchoring was in unfamiliar area in cold, dark waters, with CQRs or a Bruce, rarely a Danforth unless on a running mooring or dual anchoring. I don't think your diving experience adds significantly to reducing anchoring risk compared to anchoring technique and everything that goes with it. One has to have confidence without diving and that is easily achieved. Yes, I agree that all may not appear as surface indications suggest, but based on my experience, the surface indicators are good enough. If they are not I will deal with it.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the snorkelling observations and have enjoyed looking at anchors this way when the opportunity presented itself. I am pretty sure that the majority of time, it is not luck that gets me through the night (nor mis placed confidence) but a degree of skill and competency.

 

[Balbas]

I am pretty sure that the majority of time, it is not luck that gets me through the night (nor mis placed confidence) but a degree of skill and competency.

With me it's probably luck. But as fighter pilots used to say 'I'd rather be lucky than good'... ;-)

 

[[163233]]

It had occurred to me in the past that it'd be quite useful having a loop of chain with a camera on that you could lower down an anchor or mooring chain to have a nose at what you're hooked up to or to survey moorings without a diver..

 

[RupertW]

It had occurred to me in the past that it'd be quite useful having a loop of chain with a camera on that you could lower down an anchor or mooring chain to have a nose at what you're hooked up to or to survey moorings without a diver..

I have seen videos where people seem to have attached Bluetooth cameras (I'm guessing) to their anchor and filmed the whole drop and dig in, but where's the fun in that.

 

[Neeves]

It is odd.

Months ago I started a thread on dragging of anchors and no-one admitted to their NG anchor dragging. Now that we have NG anchors - people who obviously find them reliable, dive on them. Contradictions abound.

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?440143-Dragging-of-anchors


Obviously the advent of reasonably cheap and idiot proof underwater cameras and video has opened a whole new opportunity for photography. This has not necessarily increased knowledge as some of the conclusions drawn are either economic with the truth - or down right wrong (and misleading).

Good images. moving or not, does not mean good assessment.

But apart from select areas, which largely exclude the UK (and a lot of other sailing grounds), diving on anchors is not a realistic pastime - It too cold, murky, down right dangerous) Unless the majority of UK residents move their yachts it is a practice that is 'academic' - and these UK residents needs rely on old fashioned skills, knowledge of how their anchor is predicted to perform (and an anchor alarm). I think there is a faction strongly advocating the development of those skills. Arguably diving on an anchor to assess how it is set - instead of honing skills on the yacht to assess how an anchor is set - reduces the use of those on deck skills - when diving is simply not possible.

It is a long time since I heard anyone mention touching the rode when under tension to assess anchor security.


I think there are minor technical issues with Bluetooth under water - its switch on and forget. Current underwater drones (which are still inordinately expensive if all you want to do is look at your anchor) seem to reply on a 'tether' through which interaction might be routed.

http://www.top10drone.com/best-underwater-drones/

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

In many anchorages, judging by the mud sticking to my anchor and chain when it comes up, a diver would only see the chain disappearing under the surface, often well away from the actual anchor. What would that tell him?

 

[RupertW]

In many anchorages, judging by the mud sticking to my anchor and chain when it comes up, a diver would only see the chain disappearing under the surface, often well away from the actual anchor. What would that tell him?

It's great - it tells you the anchor is buried and not lying on the surface or just caught on a rock. Perhaps I might have moved to an NG anchor wrongly if I didn't have the opportunity to dive each time as I would almost certainly have dragged once or twice when I was held firm only by an obstruction in one direction, but as it is the 15kg Delta still does the job in all conditions so far as long as the seabed is fine.

I hope nobody is interpreting my continued defence of diving as saying it is mandatory but my goodness it adds an extra element of security on top of using ( I hope ) all the techniques I have learnt over the years - even if it only makes an actual different occasionally.

 

[RichardS]

It is odd.

Months ago I started a thread on dragging of anchors and no-one admitted to their NG anchor dragging. Now that we have NG anchors - people who obviously find them reliable, dive on them. Contradictions abound.

It is a long time since I heard anyone mention touching the rode when under tension to assess anchor security.

Jonathan

Not odd at all, and not restricted to NG anchors. The reasons for diving, where practicable, are clearly expressed in my post #9 above.

Doesn't everyone put a foot on the rode to assess holding?

Richard