Orca attack

Thresher said:
The boat goes down nose first. I would have expected that if the rudder stock was ripped out and water was entering from the stern then the stern would start to go down. That's strange.
Click to expand...

Not really. These modern boats that carry almost maximum beam all the way to the transom have a lot of buoyancy aft, whereas the bow has much lower volume.

I have a Sun Odyssey 349. The doors to the aft cabins seal very well (they have a weather strip type seal all the way around).
If the doors to the two aft cabins and the hatches and vents were shut it would create quite a reserve of buoyancy aft.

The bow meanwhile has the windlass, anchor chain and a 210 litre water tank (which until the inflooding water reaches its top would weigh the bow down.
 
Frogmogman said:
Not really. These modern boats that carry almost maximum beam all the way to the transom have a lot of buoyancy aft, whereas the bow has much lower volume.

I have a Sun Odyssey 349. The doors to the aft cabins seal very well (they have a weather strip type seal all the way around).
If the doors to the two aft cabins and the hatches and vents were shut it would create quite a reserve of buoyancy aft.

The bow meanwhile has the windlass, anchor chain and a 210 litre water tank (which until the inflooding water reaches its top would weigh the bow down.
Click to expand...
But normally the water is coming in from the stern in these attacks. Its normally the rudder that gets damaged. :)
 
Without an a rudder...no control...you stuff the next wave...all the water in the boat runs forward....
Watch the video, it was flat calm.

I would agree with both of you normally but:-
Maybe if you read the post I was commenting on (frogmogmans) you'll see why I said what I said.
Here it is. Relevant bit is in italics and bold..

"Not really. These modern boats that carry almost maximum beam all the way to the transom have a lot of buoyancy aft, whereas the bow has much lower volume.

I have a Sun Odyssey 349. The doors to the aft cabins seal very well (they have a weather strip type seal all the way around).
If the doors to the two aft cabins and the hatches and vents were shut it would create quite a reserve of buoyancy aft.

The bow meanwhile has the windlass, anchor chain and a 210 litre water tank (which until the inflooding water reaches its top would weigh the bow down."
 
The internal volume of water, even as low as 1m3, is a ton sloshing around and wide stern boats and will have a lot more cubes. Cabin doors, sealed hatches, windows all get knocked out as tons of water moves around. In the book Total Loss this is mentioned a few times, for various scenarios e.g. the danger of floating sole boards, the damage to bulkheads, the difficulty to stay upright or in one place down below in a flooded boat. The USA Navy commented that all off Cheeki Rafikee's hull windows had been washed out. Also the Ancona 460 that sunk due to a damaged rudder stock, and was filmed, mid Atlantic, sank more or less level, with a slight stern down list as the gunwales went below. The video suggests an initial bows down list, but difficult to tell. The British family that were rescued in the south Atlantic by the RN a few years ago, they started taking water in thorough the rudder stock, IIRC, which was sealed behind a water tight bulked. The bulkhead failed, but the boat sat fairly level in the water as it sank. Unless specifically designed for these loads, aft cabin doors, hatches and vents, will not resist the relentless forces as water sloshes around.
 
How many of us do not regularly practice sailing with no rudder (flip up rudders)
I for one am guilty.

I am guessing that whom ever comes up with a solution to protect rudders will do very well financially.

Maybe something like in JAWS that makes a high pitched noise under water!!!
 
littledancersadhu said:
How many of us do not regularly practice sailing with no rudder (flip up rudders)
I for one am guilty.

I am guessing that whom ever comes up with a solution to protect rudders will do very well financially.

Maybe something like in JAWS that makes a high pitched noise under water!!!
Click to expand...
I doubt that there have been any flip up rudder boats attacked ie 16 to 24foot LOA it's boats in the 30 foot plus LOA that have fallen prey to ORCA because they sail in waters rarely frequented by small vessels.
Great Whites are also the prey of Orcas which are the marine apex predator.
 
littledancersadhu said:
How many of us do not regularly practice sailing with no rudder (flip up rudders)
I for one am guilty.

I am guessing that whom ever comes up with a solution to protect rudders will do very well financially.

Maybe something like in JAWS that makes a high pitched noise under water!!!
Click to expand...

littledancersadhu said:
Great Whites are also the prey of Orcas which are the marine apex predator.
Click to expand...
There’s your answer….don’t get an all white boat
 
littledancersadhu said:
How many of us do not regularly practice sailing with no rudder (flip up rudders)
I for one am guilty.
Click to expand...
For the Newport to Bermuda Race, each yacht is required to have, and practice with, a system for steering the boat if the rudder is lost.

All boats are inspected before the race, and this is one of the things they inspect for.

A second rudder, if it can be fitted somehow is probably the best, but it can't easily be done on most boats.

So many boats use some kind of a drogue system; one or two of them deployed with bridles that can be adjusted.

I have practiced it on a 45ft boat, and it works pretty well, at least in moderate winds and flat-ish water...

Of course, in the last N2B race, the boat that lost its rudder sank (a J/122), so maybe the focus should be shifted to not sinking if the rudder is lost.
 
There is more buoyancy in the wide stern, the keel (and centre of mass) is in the middle, and there is less buoyancy in the bow. Without any additional ballast (in the form of tons of seawater) the boat floats level due to the distribution of tanks, engine etc.

As the water starts to come in, it will head for the deepest part of the bilge, which in most AWBs is where the keel bolts are, regardless of doors etc, it is going through the channels and holes in the grid structure as it is designed to do. The design assumes any water ingress, regardless of entry point, must flow to the deepest point of the bilge to allow the bilge pumps to do their stuff.

So water initially accumulates in the bilge to allow the bilge pumps to pump it out (that is why the bilge pump pick-ups are located there).

As the volume of water increases, and the bilge pumps fail to remove it, the bow (with less buoyancy) sinks more than the stern. The boat is no longer level, and the water shifts towards the bow as it is now lower than the bilge, so the boat sinks nose-first due to the buoyancy difference between bow and stern.

... that is how I would envisage the mechanics of a bow first sinking.
 
LEGALITY OF FIRECRACKERS
----—------------------------------------------
Recently a Portuguese lawyer posted in a Portuguese Facebook group an explanation regarding the legality of using small explosives (seal bombs) to end an Orca attack on a sailboat.

Seal bombs (or similar) are used to protect Orcas driving them away from oil spills and have been used with success to drive orcas away when they are attacking sailboats, but the legality of their use has been questioned by ecologists and governments have a dubious interpretation regarding the legality of using them.

With almost 10 boats sunk by Orcas, many more saved narrowly, several hundreds with broken rudders and about 1000 sailboats attacked, it seems to me that the subject is relevant, because it concerns not only the ones that sail in Portugal, Spain, Morocco and France, but also all that want to enter or go out of the Mediterranean sea.

So, here is what João Bleck Vasconcelos Sá says about the legality of using small explosives to drive orcas away when a boat is attacked:

"As I've always advocated, liberally small explosives, at the very least (to drive Orcas away when they are attacking your boat).

Many people have asked me about the captain's duty to protect the ship and crew! As a lawyer, I can help by saying:

The captain of a vessel is not only responsible for the technical navigation of the vessel: he is the ultimate guarantor of the safety of human life, the vessel, and its cargo. His role carries legal weight far beyond navigation itself, involving criminal, civil, and administrative liabilities that cross national borders.

In Iberian waters, where vessels sail under various flags (Portugal, Spain, Poland, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany), the central question arises: which law applies, and to what extent does the captain's obligation to act in cases of danger extend?

1- Flag State Rule and Coastal Jurisdiction
Article 91 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) establishes that every vessel must sail under the flag of a single State and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas.
This means that the captain is primarily bound by the obligations of the flag State (Portugal, Spain, France, Poland, etc.). However, in territorial waters (up to 12 nautical miles), the jurisdiction of the coastal State also applies, particularly in matters of safety of navigation, environmental protection, and public order...

2- Legal Framework in Selected European Countries:

• Portugal: Portuguese legislation on recreational navigation and, subsidiarily, the professional maritime regime apply, imposing on the captain the duty to employ all means to protect the crew, cargo, and vessel. The Penal Code (Art. 10, § 2) classifies the captain as a guarantor, punishing failure to do so. Article 32 enshrines self-defense, allowing a proportionate response.

• Spain: The "Commercial Code" (Art. 612) and the "Law of Ports and Merchant Marinas" (Art. 86) establish the captain as the highest authority on board. The Spanish Penal Code (Art. 195) punishes failure to provide assistance. Self-defense is provided for in Art. 20.

• Poland: The "Kodeks morski" (Maritime Code) and the "Kodeks Karny" (Penal Code) impose on the captain the duty to protect the crew and the vessel. Self-defense is provided for in Article 25 KK.

• France: The "Code des Transports" and the "Code Penal" (Article 223-6) require the captain to ensure safety and provide assistance. Self-defense is recognized in Article 122-5.

• United Kingdom: The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) regulations impose on the captain a duty of care. Self-defense arises from common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967.

• Sweden: The "Sjölagen" (Maritime Code) obliges the captain to take all necessary safety measures. Self-defense is governed by Chapter 24 of the "Brottsbalken" (Penal Code).

• Denmark: The Danish Merchant Shipping Act assigns full responsibility to the captain for the crew. Failure to provide assistance is punishable under Section 13 of the Penal Code, which also regulates self-defense.

• Netherlands: The "Burgerlijk Wetboek" (Book of Maritime Law) regulates maritime law and imposes a duty of safety on the captain. The "Wetboek van Strafrecht" (Arts. 307 and 450) criminalizes negligence and failure to provide assistance. Self-defense is recognized in Art. 41.

• Germany: The "Handelsgesetzbuch" (HGB) and the "Seemannsgesetz" (Seemannsgesetz) place the captain as the highest authority on board. § 323c of the "Strafgesetzbuch" (StGB) punishes failure to provide assistance. Self-defense is regulated in § 32 of the StGB.

3. Self-Defense at Sea
In all these countries, self-defense is recognized as a ground of justification:

• Portugal (Art. 32 of the Penal Code), Spain (Art. 20 of the Penal Code), France (Art. 122-5 of the Penal Code), Poland (Art. 25 of the Penal Code), the United Kingdom (common law), Sweden (Chapter 24 of the Penal Code), Denmark (Art. 13 of the Penal Code), the Netherlands (Art. 41 of the Penal Code), and Germany (§ 32 of the Penal Code).
This means that the captain may resort to necessary and proportionate means to repel an unlawful attack—be it piracy, sabotage, or any other imminent threat to the crew or vessel, including threats from wild animals.

4. The Primacy of Human Life and Vessel Safety
Maritime law and criminal law converge on an essential principle: human life and vessel safety are paramount legal values, prevailing over other interests when they conflict.
In extreme situations, such as rudder strikes by killer whales, the captain may be compelled to resort to measures that, under normal circumstances, would constitute administrative, environmental, or even minor criminal offenses.
For example, the use of fireworks or small acoustic signaling devices to deter killer whales.

• As a rule, such use may constitute an environmental violation or the illicit use of pyrotechnics. • However, in the face of an imminent attack that threatens human life and the integrity of the vessel, such conduct may be legally classified as a necessary and proportionate act of self-defense (Art. 32 of the Portuguese Penal Code; Art. 20 of the Spanish Penal Code; § 32 of the German Penal Code; Art. 41 of the Dutch Penal Code, etc.).
• Case law and doctrine also recognize the state of necessity (Art. 34 of the Portuguese Penal Code; Art. 20.5 of the Spanish Penal Code), which excludes unlawfulness when a lesser legal interest is sacrificed to save another of greater value—such as human life.
International law reinforces this hierarchy:
• Article 98 of UNCLOS imposes on all captains the absolute duty to protect human life at sea;
• The SOLAS Convention (1974) enshrines the safeguarding of life as a supreme priority.

Thus, the occasional and proportionate use of otherwise illegal means is fully justified when the immediate defense of the crew and the ship is at stake."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top