mparrish
Well-Known Member
As I'm still in the process of buying a boat in Italy via an Italian broker this list could have been useful at an earlier stage - perhaps Whitelighter may find it useful in his current dealings 
powerboat accident Southampton water (Hamble)
- Thread starter z1ppy
- Start date
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Well, every day is a school day, I reckon...Probably belongs on this list
Actually I was aware of some subtleties explained/emphasized by that list.
Aside from the "very interesting" bit, I must say.
I sometimes use it, just to mean ...ermm... very interesting.
Must remember that you might understand it's actually nonsense!
Pennpromo
Well-Known Member
Sorry for not posting earlier, all been a bit busy. Yes I was in the boat, yes we were trying to avoid the pots just North of the Hamble Point buoy. We were going fairy quickly and appear to have spun out, unfortunately the buoy which had been a few boat lengths to stbd was suddenly in our way; with serious results.
The good news is that we are all well on the road to recovery, Simon Dredge now out of hospital too.
Probably put it all down to "wrong time/ place interface" ...
Simon.
The good news is that we are all well on the road to recovery, Simon Dredge now out of hospital too.
Probably put it all down to "wrong time/ place interface" ...
Simon.
lisilou
Well-Known Member
Very glad to hear that.
L
L
henryf
Well-Known Member
At what point does it become a legal requirement to mark pots properly ?
In no other environment can I think of a situation where people are able to put people's lives at risk with no repercussions. Every one of us has seen terribly marked pots which at best disable an engine, at worst cause death.
Yes, in this instance the boat was (legally) travelling at speed but at slower speeds you are still left stricken by prop fouling drifting at the mercy of the elements, unable to turn into the wind and the waves.
As for laying pots in the middle of designated channels or passage ways....
Glad to hear you are all on the mend.
Henry
In no other environment can I think of a situation where people are able to put people's lives at risk with no repercussions. Every one of us has seen terribly marked pots which at best disable an engine, at worst cause death.
Yes, in this instance the boat was (legally) travelling at speed but at slower speeds you are still left stricken by prop fouling drifting at the mercy of the elements, unable to turn into the wind and the waves.
As for laying pots in the middle of designated channels or passage ways....
Glad to hear you are all on the mend.
Henry
Keen_Ed
Well-Known Member
ChrisJefferies
Well-Known Member
This looks like the crux of the matter to me:
TSB240
Well-Known Member
At what point does it become a legal requirement to mark pots properly ?
In no other environment can I think of a situation where people are able to put people's lives at risk with no repercussions. Every one of us has seen terribly marked pots which at best disable an engine, at worst cause death.
Yes, in this instance the boat was (legally) travelling at speed but at slower speeds you are still left stricken by prop fouling drifting at the mercy of the elements, unable to turn into the wind and the waves.
As for laying pots in the middle of designated channels or passage ways....
Glad to hear you are all on the mend.
Henry
"Marking of fishing gear
The harbour authority had issued a local notice to mariners relating to the laying and marking of fishing
gear in Southampton Water. However, the harbour authority had received legal advice that it is not able
to effectively enforce this reasonable requirement under its existing statutory powers."
"• Harbour authority powers:
• Had there been an enforceable speed limit in Southampton Water the likelihood of this
accident occurring would have been reduced.
• Had the harbour authority’s requirements for the laying and marking of fishing gear
in Southampton Water been complied with, the markers might have been seen and
recognised at an earlier stage, and the accident avoided."
ACTION TAKEN
Associated British Ports, Southampton has:
• Issued a local notice to mariners regarding safe speed in Southampton Water. (40 Knots recommended! not 84!)
• Liaised with the RYA to promulgate to powerboat operators that tests should be notified to the
harbour authority in advance and undertaken in accordance with both harbour authority and
race rules’ requirements.
• Commenced the legal process to obtain statutory powers to issue Harbour Directions to
facilitate its ability to regulate speed limits, the marking of fishing gear, et al, in its statutory
harbour area.
• Engaged with local fishermen regarding the marking of fishing gear
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Interesting reading, thanks for the link.
At risk of sounding like a smartass amateur who pretends to teach to the pros, I'm surprised by some statements I found in the report.
In fact, they clearly reveal a poor understanding of the dynamics and reasons behind the spinning of a stepped hull while turning at high speed.
First of all, they say that the boat "hooked", and they even explain the terminology in a footnote (pag.5). But the problem ain't the "hook", it's the spin!
In fact, sometimes that occurrence is described as "hook and spin", but the most typical description (because it is indeed somewhat typical, with these boats) is simply spinning.
But that's semantic, sort of.
Otoh, in the "analysis of the hook" (page 11), they say that the after the helmsman tightened the turn, "the lateral forces generated went beyond the capabilities of the hull, causing the keel to lose traction with the surface of the water and the boat to hook".
And this is plain wrong, regardless of semantic.
What happens in these conditions is NOT that the keel loses traction and this makes the boat hook - it's rather the opposite in fact, because the dynamics involved are as follows:
If during a fast turn the forward section of the keel "grabs" the water too strongly (therefore getting MORE traction, not loosing it!), it can act as if a hand brake would be pulled on the FRONT wheels of a car while turning. As a consequence, the aft section of the boat can't resist the centrifugal force anymore, and the boat goes spinning.
Maybe that's what they meant by the keel losing traction, but the boat spinning is the consequence of the hook, not its reason!
Unfortunately, the conditions that can lead to a potentially catastrophic spinning are indeed tricky to estimate/anticipated (let alone handle!), in a stepped V-hull turning at speed.
For instance, a common mistake, also because instinctively that's the first thing anyone would do, is to ease the throttle while tightening the turn.
In fact, by reducing the thrust, the boat AoA is also reduced, and that puts even more of the fwd hull section in touch with the water.
But considering what sort of chap was in command, I'm sure he was fully aware of this trick - and then some!
Otoh, reacting in a counter-intuitive way, in a fraction of a second, due to an unpredictable situation, that's easier said from a pc keyboard than done from a bolster seat.
Based on what I read, the guy had to face a very borderline boat handling condition, and took his chance, but it was a sort of "head I loose, tail I don't win" situation.
On top of that, he was handling both the wheel and the stick, which surely doesn't make life easier.
Bottom line, overall it's hard to blame him, imho. Aside from not having used the belts and asked anyone else to do the same, maybe.
TBH, I can also see why they didn't bother (let alone using helmets - suggesting that they should have while checking engines etc. is plain silly!), all considered:
Sea conditions were fair, they weren't racing against anyone (neither other boats nor the chronometer), and they were basically just out there for a sea trial.
But since the boat had harness seats, using them wouldn't have been a big deal...
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course.
At risk of sounding like a smartass amateur who pretends to teach to the pros, I'm surprised by some statements I found in the report.
In fact, they clearly reveal a poor understanding of the dynamics and reasons behind the spinning of a stepped hull while turning at high speed.
First of all, they say that the boat "hooked", and they even explain the terminology in a footnote (pag.5). But the problem ain't the "hook", it's the spin!
In fact, sometimes that occurrence is described as "hook and spin", but the most typical description (because it is indeed somewhat typical, with these boats) is simply spinning.
But that's semantic, sort of.
Otoh, in the "analysis of the hook" (page 11), they say that the after the helmsman tightened the turn, "the lateral forces generated went beyond the capabilities of the hull, causing the keel to lose traction with the surface of the water and the boat to hook".
And this is plain wrong, regardless of semantic.
What happens in these conditions is NOT that the keel loses traction and this makes the boat hook - it's rather the opposite in fact, because the dynamics involved are as follows:
If during a fast turn the forward section of the keel "grabs" the water too strongly (therefore getting MORE traction, not loosing it!), it can act as if a hand brake would be pulled on the FRONT wheels of a car while turning. As a consequence, the aft section of the boat can't resist the centrifugal force anymore, and the boat goes spinning.
Maybe that's what they meant by the keel losing traction, but the boat spinning is the consequence of the hook, not its reason!
Unfortunately, the conditions that can lead to a potentially catastrophic spinning are indeed tricky to estimate/anticipated (let alone handle!), in a stepped V-hull turning at speed.
For instance, a common mistake, also because instinctively that's the first thing anyone would do, is to ease the throttle while tightening the turn.
In fact, by reducing the thrust, the boat AoA is also reduced, and that puts even more of the fwd hull section in touch with the water.
But considering what sort of chap was in command, I'm sure he was fully aware of this trick - and then some!
Otoh, reacting in a counter-intuitive way, in a fraction of a second, due to an unpredictable situation, that's easier said from a pc keyboard than done from a bolster seat.
Based on what I read, the guy had to face a very borderline boat handling condition, and took his chance, but it was a sort of "head I loose, tail I don't win" situation.
On top of that, he was handling both the wheel and the stick, which surely doesn't make life easier.
Bottom line, overall it's hard to blame him, imho. Aside from not having used the belts and asked anyone else to do the same, maybe.
TBH, I can also see why they didn't bother (let alone using helmets - suggesting that they should have while checking engines etc. is plain silly!), all considered:
Sea conditions were fair, they weren't racing against anyone (neither other boats nor the chronometer), and they were basically just out there for a sea trial.
But since the boat had harness seats, using them wouldn't have been a big deal...
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course.
ChrisJefferies
Well-Known Member
Here's our write-up for MBY.com
http://www.mby.com/news/maib-vector-report-southampton-speed-limit-51517
Awaiting comment from ABP on how they plan to police this proposed speed limit...
http://www.mby.com/news/maib-vector-report-southampton-speed-limit-51517
Awaiting comment from ABP on how they plan to police this proposed speed limit...
prv
Well-Known Member
That one does seem surprising. Always dangerous to criticise a world you're not familiar with, but to me it seems very odd to climb into such a boat and then push the harness out of the way instead of putting it on. It's a huge chunky buckle, you couldn't just sit on it without noticing.
Dispensing with helmets seems more understandable, you only need those in an accident and people tend to assume they won't be having one of those today. But seatbelts will hold you in place and give you one less thing (holding on) to worry about even under normal conditions, so why wouldn't you?
I wonder what effect this will have on the pot-marker situation?
Pete
ChrisJefferies
Well-Known Member
Perhaps, but I can't help but wonder how hard it would have been for Peter to lift his unconscious son out of the upside down hatch if Simon had been strapped in by a five-point harness...
z1ppy
Well-Known Member
yes but would he have been unconscious if he was held in the seat as "intended"?
No criticism from my side on the actions or skill of those involved. It takes a great deal of skill to helm a boat like that and if i was to go in that boat with anyone, Peter Dredge would be pretty well up there at the top of the list in terms of those i would feel comfortable with. The cumulative years of racing experience in that boat was substantial at the time.
MapisM
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's the million$ question.
There are definitely pros and cons with belts - in fact, I know a couple of former racers who did use helmets (and life vests, obviously) but no harness, and I'm sure they could mention accidents where the result would have likely been much worse, if the crew were strapped to their seats.
Then again, both of them are from the non-canopied boats era...
My guess is that in this case they simply wanted to be less restricted.
Considering the test purpose, I suppose they had to move around a bit, reach some stuff, check some equipment, whatever.
If they would have wanted to check the hull behavior rather than "just" the engines, pretty sure they would have gone in some rough stuff, and they would have used the harness for good.
But after all, even at 100mph, in a flat sea a boat doesn't move so much more than a car on a motorway - not enough to throw a person around, surely.
Till the helmsman must steer suddenly for unexpected reasons, that is...!
PS: just curious, does anyone know what does a "recommended" limit of 40kts mean, exactly? For boats like this, 40kts is a warm-up speed, if that...
Last edited:
jfm
Well-Known Member
I agree with you Mapism and found the report disappointingly poor. It had an amateur feel about it, and its author lost track of his duties in many places and made conclusions about how the world "should" be, without proper evaluation of the consequences of what he thought "should" happen. If the speed limit were 40 knots, race boats would need to go out into more open water, with more waves, and further from rescue services. Applying full 20-20 hindsight, would that have been better here? Of course it wouldn't.
Chris J, you say in #47 that the bit you quoted is the crux of the matter but actually if you read on a few lines (yeah, nothing is numbered, so you can't cite it...) the report says that the "amateur" passengers during the boat's sponsorship rides would likely not have been able to release themselves from the seatbelts in an upturned boat, which logically means both (amateur) back seat passengers in this case would have drowned instead of both surviving. I had to scratch my head at this point. The report really is all over the place in its analysis.
Anyway, I drive an enclosed boat a planing speed, so should I and all my passengers undertake immersion escape training? That's what this report seems to say. And what's with the gratuitous mention of a connection with formula 1 on the second page? It's kind of a weak quality report through and through. An accident occurred here, unfortunately, and one person was injured but made a full recovery. We all run with scissors a bit and in this case the driver did an awesome job in identifying that someone was missing (his son, but could have been anybody) and dragging him out, CPR, and saving his life
Chris J, you say in #47 that the bit you quoted is the crux of the matter but actually if you read on a few lines (yeah, nothing is numbered, so you can't cite it...) the report says that the "amateur" passengers during the boat's sponsorship rides would likely not have been able to release themselves from the seatbelts in an upturned boat, which logically means both (amateur) back seat passengers in this case would have drowned instead of both surviving. I had to scratch my head at this point. The report really is all over the place in its analysis.
Anyway, I drive an enclosed boat a planing speed, so should I and all my passengers undertake immersion escape training? That's what this report seems to say. And what's with the gratuitous mention of a connection with formula 1 on the second page? It's kind of a weak quality report through and through. An accident occurred here, unfortunately, and one person was injured but made a full recovery. We all run with scissors a bit and in this case the driver did an awesome job in identifying that someone was missing (his son, but could have been anybody) and dragging him out, CPR, and saving his life
Latestarter1
Well-Known Member
Agree 100% that report is at best 'weak'.
My issue is that my first and only experience with a double step hull was interesting verging on frightening.
I disagree totally with use term 'Hooking' in this specific instance. We had long discussions with the project hull designer who who was adamant that a double and slightly less aggressive steps reduced the effect of the step 'venting'. The vessel was intended to be a radical but production 37 ft motor cruiser with target speeds in the 35/37 knot range and soft riding characteristics.
I was present on sea trials in the Solent and performance boxes were being ticked off nicely. We were heading for home at around 34 knots all with big smiles in a slightly confused sea when it was necessary to make hard but but certainly not violent turn which had been tried without any issues during the previous hour or so.
Due to a combination of the turn as well as confused seas the step suddenly vented creating a violent roll and vessel ended up on its beam ends momentarily, unexpected and terrifying.
Even with the engagement of a consultant from Sweden the characteristic could not be eliminated and vessel never went into production. During later sea trials it was discovered that step venting could be induced at surprisingly low speeds, but I was not present!
My issue is that my first and only experience with a double step hull was interesting verging on frightening.
I disagree totally with use term 'Hooking' in this specific instance. We had long discussions with the project hull designer who who was adamant that a double and slightly less aggressive steps reduced the effect of the step 'venting'. The vessel was intended to be a radical but production 37 ft motor cruiser with target speeds in the 35/37 knot range and soft riding characteristics.
I was present on sea trials in the Solent and performance boxes were being ticked off nicely. We were heading for home at around 34 knots all with big smiles in a slightly confused sea when it was necessary to make hard but but certainly not violent turn which had been tried without any issues during the previous hour or so.
Due to a combination of the turn as well as confused seas the step suddenly vented creating a violent roll and vessel ended up on its beam ends momentarily, unexpected and terrifying.
Even with the engagement of a consultant from Sweden the characteristic could not be eliminated and vessel never went into production. During later sea trials it was discovered that step venting could be induced at surprisingly low speeds, but I was not present!
henryf
Well-Known Member
I can't comment on a race boat but in a race car I can't imaging going out onto the track without first strapping in. As was eluded to in a previous post not wearing your harness renders it likely to go where the sun don't shine, wedge between the seat and your hips or else crush your nads. More importantly it holds you in place and lets you concentrate on the job in hand. I imagine bouncing up and down in a fast planing boat.
Finally you are always conscious of the possibility of hearing "that thud" so you want to be as protected as possible.
I don't accept that the passengers in this instance would have struggled to release the harness. It isn't rocket science, most likely a quater turn clockwise. Besides how "amateur" were the passengers ?
Please don't take my comments as criticism, merely an observation. I wasn't there and haven't raced boats.
Henry
Finally you are always conscious of the possibility of hearing "that thud" so you want to be as protected as possible.
I don't accept that the passengers in this instance would have struggled to release the harness. It isn't rocket science, most likely a quater turn clockwise. Besides how "amateur" were the passengers ?
Please don't take my comments as criticism, merely an observation. I wasn't there and haven't raced boats.
Henry
jrudge
Well-Known Member
I am conscious that several forumites know some of the people involved.
Regardless of the definition of hooking and so on, the message of the report seems clear that heading out in to Southampton Water ( which is not exactly spacious - I have only navigated it a few times ) doing 80 something knots and then failing to use any of the available or fitted safety equipment is at best unwise.
Another team asked for permission for a hi speed trial which was declined and limited to 40 knots. It would hence infer that asking permission was / is the norm for high speed runs and the view taken being don't ask and then why can't say no.
Many of us enjoy speed. I take my car on the track from time to time. But I wear a seatbelt, a crash helmet and dont take my kids. The parallels are not exact but they are similar.
At 80 knots you are likely to be something in the region of 5 to 8 times faster than most traffic in what is a busy stretch of water. I can't really see this is that wise. Cars dont race on the M1 ( often) but on a track.
Now s*** happens but there is a need for some degree of responsibility and to me this was simply ill advised with almost tragic consequences.
** Henry posted whilst i was typing the time is similar but I had not seen it when i write mine **
Regardless of the definition of hooking and so on, the message of the report seems clear that heading out in to Southampton Water ( which is not exactly spacious - I have only navigated it a few times ) doing 80 something knots and then failing to use any of the available or fitted safety equipment is at best unwise.
Another team asked for permission for a hi speed trial which was declined and limited to 40 knots. It would hence infer that asking permission was / is the norm for high speed runs and the view taken being don't ask and then why can't say no.
Many of us enjoy speed. I take my car on the track from time to time. But I wear a seatbelt, a crash helmet and dont take my kids. The parallels are not exact but they are similar.
At 80 knots you are likely to be something in the region of 5 to 8 times faster than most traffic in what is a busy stretch of water. I can't really see this is that wise. Cars dont race on the M1 ( often) but on a track.
Now s*** happens but there is a need for some degree of responsibility and to me this was simply ill advised with almost tragic consequences.
** Henry posted whilst i was typing the time is similar but I had not seen it when i write mine **
MapisM
Well-Known Member
I see what you mean, but in a sense they were not "out onto the track" in this case.
I mean, with a car you don't go on a track unless you want to drive fast - which obviously doesn't mean just pedal to the metal on a straight line, it's mostly a matter of handling.
And of course, you neither want to be pushed sideways while steering, nor to the windshield while braking.
But these guys were just out there to test the engines, ffs!
They picked a day with ideal conditions (both sea surface and visibility), and sure enough they slowed down appropriately before turning, as they did a few times before sh!t happened (see track on the report).
They had no reason to envisage a situation where being strapped in could have been useful, though eventually such situation arose, obviously.
For folks like Buzzi, who designed and builds suspended harness seats meant to make 12G forces (yep, twelve, not a typo!) bearable for the crew, going out in Lake Como to test the engines of one of his boat at 80 kts is more akin to a walk in the park than to a race track.
All that said, I agreed before that it might have been logic to strap in regardless, if nothing else because there's one event which - unlikely as it might be - can happen even in the "easiest" conditions, when going fast on a twin screws boat: a sudden failure of one engine or gearbox.
And if that happens, even in a straight line on a glass-like surface, at 80kts the helmsman doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell to avoid spinning the boat.
Then again, hindsight etc...
gjgm
Well-Known Member
MapisM; But these guys were just out there to test the engines said:
