Frogmogman
Well-known member
Excusez-moi, Monsieur.
I am very off-fendered by your remark.
Il ne manque pas de pare-battage sur mon bateau !!
Eleonora sunk in harbour
- Thread starter [2574]
- Start date
Excusez-moi, Monsieur.
I am very off-fendered by your remark.
Il ne manque pas de pare-battage sur mon bateau !!
ean_p
Well-known member
can you blame them when this happens.........Don't you believe it. They will wriggle for years. Its what they do.
Missouri woman who caught STI in boyfriend's car wins $5.2m payout from his insurer
Laysula
Well-known member
The insurers may expect some efforts on damage limitation, but my first priority is to my own neck.
Capt Popeye
Well-known member
Well whos to blame eh ? well my guess is that the Skipper of the Commercial Boat maybe did not do effective Pre Checks of the Boats systems ; ie Checking with a very short burst Ahead and Astern plus Neutral were in fact useable ; seems to me from the Video that its going astern rather speedily for such a confined Harbour ; surely there was no need to apply such speed in those confined circumstances
But then again from observing a number of Commercial Craft on the Thames and elsewhere they often appear to be rather 'gung ho' on the speed used , relying upon checking their Crafts speed by use of a good Handfull of Reverse burst when approaching a Berth , rather than manouvering carefully when undertaking any manouvers
But then again from observing a number of Commercial Craft on the Thames and elsewhere they often appear to be rather 'gung ho' on the speed used , relying upon checking their Crafts speed by use of a good Handfull of Reverse burst when approaching a Berth , rather than manouvering carefully when undertaking any manouvers
Kukri
Well-known member
The “Punta Mayor” , the vessel that backed into the yacht, is owned by the Spanish Government as a rescue tug. I don’t have recent experience with the Spanish Government in maritime matters, but a few years ago their reputation for fronting up after a blunder was not the best.
I don’t know if this vessel carries commercial insurance or not.
The video clip appears to show the “Punta Mayor’”s engines running and her propellers set to astern up to the moment of impact, after which her propellers were moved to ahead and they responded normally.
I find it difficult to believe that there was a real problem with the combinator control and I think it much more likely that the helmsman of the “Punta Mayor” was “lacking situational awareness”, to use the modern term. If the pitch combinator had really been stuck, I think the helmsman would have thrown the wheel over rather than backing down in a straight line towards an expensive yacht.
However, the Spanish Government will have to be sued in their own courts and I think that the judge will not have much difficulty in concluding that they have the right to limit their liability in line with the tonnage of their elderly (built 1984, and due for replacement) rescue vessel, to a figure far below that of the cost of repairs to the “Eleonora E”.
So what happens now?
My guess is that the schooner will be raised ( i’m amused to note that in one of the clips someone wearing a hard hat and an LJ and the T shirt of the local towage and salvage contractor is watching the accident!) and that her insurers will offer to pay a Constructive Total Loss.
Not because she cannot be repaired - she can be and she probably will be - she has a steel hull and dealing with that is no big issue. Crop, fair, and renew as required to Class Society requirements under the supervision of the Class Surveyor.
The wetted internals and equipment are the problem and whilst these can be dealt with if they are kept away from air and then very carefully rinsed in fresh water before being dried the owner is a yacht owner and he may be difficult to deal with so the underwriters are more likely to pay a CTL and opt for a quiet life.
I’m sure she will be repaired, but maybe for a new owner.
I don’t know if this vessel carries commercial insurance or not.
The video clip appears to show the “Punta Mayor’”s engines running and her propellers set to astern up to the moment of impact, after which her propellers were moved to ahead and they responded normally.
I find it difficult to believe that there was a real problem with the combinator control and I think it much more likely that the helmsman of the “Punta Mayor” was “lacking situational awareness”, to use the modern term. If the pitch combinator had really been stuck, I think the helmsman would have thrown the wheel over rather than backing down in a straight line towards an expensive yacht.
However, the Spanish Government will have to be sued in their own courts and I think that the judge will not have much difficulty in concluding that they have the right to limit their liability in line with the tonnage of their elderly (built 1984, and due for replacement) rescue vessel, to a figure far below that of the cost of repairs to the “Eleonora E”.
So what happens now?
My guess is that the schooner will be raised ( i’m amused to note that in one of the clips someone wearing a hard hat and an LJ and the T shirt of the local towage and salvage contractor is watching the accident!) and that her insurers will offer to pay a Constructive Total Loss.
Not because she cannot be repaired - she can be and she probably will be - she has a steel hull and dealing with that is no big issue. Crop, fair, and renew as required to Class Society requirements under the supervision of the Class Surveyor.
The wetted internals and equipment are the problem and whilst these can be dealt with if they are kept away from air and then very carefully rinsed in fresh water before being dried the owner is a yacht owner and he may be difficult to deal with so the underwriters are more likely to pay a CTL and opt for a quiet life.
I’m sure she will be repaired, but maybe for a new owner.
Last edited:
graham
Well-known member
They should have bought a set of wooden bungs from the chandlers like I did.
Not sure the largest one would have filled that hole though!
Not sure the largest one would have filled that hole though!
Daydream believer
Well-known member
I have to admit that i failed French GCE mocks so miserably, that it was not considered worthwhile my taking the actual exam. Hence my translation skills rely on shouting louder in English. But for the reverse, it would not help, even if you did type that in capitals. So perhaps if you translated it for me please as Google has never been any friend of mine,--- before you suggest otherwise
newtothis
Well-known member
It's listed with Britannia for P&I.
dunedin
Well-known member
Regarding the insurance / liability, isn’t it a bit like the old statement about banks …… hit a €10,000 yacht and the yacht owner has a problem, hit a €10,000,000 yacht (plus perhaps the same again for onboard artworks) and you have a problem, as the sort of people that own such big yachts are generally pretty well prepared and experienced to pursue you in court.
PS. My son who has been race crew on a similar boat pointed out the art works typically on board may be much more valuable than the yacht, even at that level of superyacht price
PS. My son who has been race crew on a similar boat pointed out the art works typically on board may be much more valuable than the yacht, even at that level of superyacht price
Daydream believer
Well-known member
PBO would have solved the problem with a sail spread over the hole & tightened. An east coast sailor would just fill it with mud.
Wansworth
Well-known member
I don’t recall the skipper of any of the coasters I worked on checked ahead andAstearn beforeuntieing
ean_p
Well-known member
That ariel view is such a sad image Kukri, its almost like seeing a body floating in the water......
dunedin
Well-known member
+1
And seeing the photo of the whole, I am doubly relieved that nobody died in the accident, as imagine a lot of the crew (and guests?) would be below decks at the time. Without the strong steel hull, they might have been entirely crushed against the harbour wall.
Kukri
Well-known member
Thanks! I now remember that Spain is one of their stamping grounds. The “Castillo de Bellver” comes to mind.
Last edited:
Bajansailor
Well-known member
The general arrangement drawing below is posted on the advertisement offering Eleonora for sale.
It looks like she 'only' has two main watertight bulkheads, one between the forepeak and the crew accommodation, and one between the lazzarette and the owner's cabin. I doubt that the doors shown in the passageway in the guest accommodation are fully watertight as such.
In the video clip in the OP we can see somebody on deck just after - I think if I was one of the crew down below when that tug smashed into Eleonora my immediate reaction would be to try to get out and leave the vessel as fast as possible.
Notice that in the video Eleonora is already noticeably lower in the water just after the accident - and when you see the size of the hole in the photos posted by Kukri above you can see why.
I am sure that she sank very quickly - even a salvage pump from a tug would be hard pressed to cope with the water coming through that enormous hole, especially when you consider the substantial floodable length amidships in way of where the hole is.
It is very fortunate that we are not seeing any reports of crew casualties.
Eleonora's Insurers will be pretty much obligated to pay out, although I am sure that it will take a while, as a loss adjuster will be appointed, and all the fine details will be thrashed out and discussed in detail.
And the cost of salvaging Eleonora is going to be pretty substantial as well.
If the tug has only limited insurance cover, then Eleonora's Insurer's could perhaps seize her - but that is not much use really, as I doubt that she is worth an awful lot really. And if they seize her, then they are responsible for her until she is sold.
bedouin
Well-known member
Given she was up for sale anyway I imagine the owner will be every happy to take total loss and walk away.
Interesting who would take the job of repairing it on. Not going to be cheap to repair it to a reasonable standard
Interesting who would take the job of repairing it on. Not going to be cheap to repair it to a reasonable standard
Kukri
Well-known member
Thank you for that informative post.
Newtothis has established (his post 28) that the rescue tug has full P&I cover with the Britannia P&I Club, who are rock solid. Whether her “RDC” (“Running Down Clause”) cover is, in the modern manner, all with the P&I Club, or whether 3/4 of it is, as is traditional, with her Hull and Machinery insurers, we cannot tell, but I think it’s almost certain that the insurances are all good and that the Britannia P&I Club will be posting security for the claim of the owner of the yacht.
We can probably assume that the rescue tug is to blame for the collision*.
This leaves open the question of whether the rescue tug’s owners - the Kingdom of Spain - can limit their liability, and that in turn depends on whether the owner (the King of Spain, and his servants and agents) was at fault for the accident. In other words, whether the reported failure of the bridge control system for the propellers really happened and if it did whether that was due to poor or incorrect maintenance of the system.
In any event the insurers of the yacht will be writing a cheque in the first instance, and to illustrate the scale of the likely damage here are some broker’s pictures of the interior of the “Eléonora E” which make better sense when viewed with the accommodation drawing that Martin has posted.
* There are to my knowledge two cases where a ship hit a bridge and the bridge was found alone to blame.
ashtead
Well-known member
Beautiful yacht, my daughter told me this evening as she had a tour round her when berthed-alongside in San Remo .
Bajansailor
Well-known member
That is excellent news re how Britannia will / should be posting security for this claim.
I think this means that the Kingdom of Spain is liable if the failure of the bridge control system did happen (?)
But then if it is due to poor maintenance (rather than a failure that nobody could have reasonably anticipated to happen) - will there be forensics at work to investigate all this very closely?
If they find that it is indeed due to 'poor maintenance', where do the vessel engineers stand here - I would hope that the Kingdom of Spain would not (be able to) then cheerfully 'throw them under the bus' for this (?)
And if 'they' prove that it was a lack of situational awareness by the person on the helm at the time, and that there were no faults as such with the machinery, would the poor helmsperson be thrown under the bus instead?
I was pleased to see (in the limited supply of interior photos of the advertisement for Eleonora) that all of the art work on display appeared to be sensible prints / photos of boats, rather than million $$ Picassos
The photos also suggest that the overhead in the accommodation has timber deck beams - I would have thought that she would have a steel main deck and framing rather than being of composite construction, or is there a 'proper' steel structure behind all this timber?
I am baffled by this - how did they decide that it was the fault of the bridge?
This reminds me of the story currently doing the rounds (as noted by @ean_p in post #22 above) re the lady who sued her boyfriend's car insurance company because she contracted an STD in the car - I don't see how it could be the car's fault.
Car insurer Geico may have to pay $5m after woman contracts STI in a vehicle
I think this means that the Kingdom of Spain is liable if the failure of the bridge control system did happen (?)
But then if it is due to poor maintenance (rather than a failure that nobody could have reasonably anticipated to happen) - will there be forensics at work to investigate all this very closely?
If they find that it is indeed due to 'poor maintenance', where do the vessel engineers stand here - I would hope that the Kingdom of Spain would not (be able to) then cheerfully 'throw them under the bus' for this (?)
And if 'they' prove that it was a lack of situational awareness by the person on the helm at the time, and that there were no faults as such with the machinery, would the poor helmsperson be thrown under the bus instead?
I was pleased to see (in the limited supply of interior photos of the advertisement for Eleonora) that all of the art work on display appeared to be sensible prints / photos of boats, rather than million $$ Picassos
The photos also suggest that the overhead in the accommodation has timber deck beams - I would have thought that she would have a steel main deck and framing rather than being of composite construction, or is there a 'proper' steel structure behind all this timber?
I am baffled by this - how did they decide that it was the fault of the bridge?
This reminds me of the story currently doing the rounds (as noted by @ean_p in post #22 above) re the lady who sued her boyfriend's car insurance company because she contracted an STD in the car - I don't see how it could be the car's fault.
Car insurer Geico may have to pay $5m after woman contracts STI in a vehicle
Last edited:
Giblets
Well-known member
There are probably no written instructions in the vehicles handbook or insurance documents not to carry out sexual acts in said vehicle in case you contract an STI. The Yanks are always on the lookout for a quick buck!