Solo sailor, 66, lost after his stricken yacht was hit by a violent storm

lenseman

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 Jun 2006
Messages
7,077
Location
South East Coast - United Kingdom
www.dswmarineengineering.com
Solo sailor, 66, lost after his stricken yacht was hit by a violent storm is recovered after 78 days lost at sea.

Stig Lundvall found 350 miles off South Africa's coast. He had left the UK on January 30 to sail to Australia

A sailor has been rescued after he spent 78 days lost at sea during a disaster-hit solo voyage from Britain to Australia, it emerged today.

Stig Lundvall, 66, was found drifting in the Indian Ocean near South Africa last week, almost three months after a violent storm in January during which his 26ft yacht's mast was destroyed.

The Swedish sailor spent more than 11 weeks stranded at sea without communications following the mishap, which happened on January 30 as he attempted to sail from Falmouth in Cornwall to Australia.
Enlarge After 80 days alone at sea in a yacht with a broken mast, 66-year-old Swedish yachtsman Stig Lundvall was rescued by a Greek ship.

The rescued boatman told of his relief after he was spotted last Tuesday by a Greek ship as floated around 350 miles off South Africa's coastline.

In an interview with the country's Cape Times newspaper, Mr Lundvall said he was down to his last 10 litres of drinking water and had just one emergency flare on board when he spotted the lights of the ship in the distance.

He said: 'I had to wait until the last moment. At first I thought the ship didn't see me because it was still passing by.

'But it was a big ship and it is slow to stop. Then I saw it had stopped. It was a good feeling.'

Mr Lundvall described how he became stranded on his yacht following a violent thunder storm which smashed his mast.

He told the Cape Times he believed he was around 450 nautical miles from South Africa when the freak weather left him without power or communications. Stig had just 10 litres of water left and only one more emergency flare when he saw the lights of a ship in the distance

Stig's boat was hit by a violent storm which smashed his mast off the coast off South Africa

He said: 'It was a very heavy storm that blew up quite quickly in the middle of the night, actually at 3am.

'I was awake because it was impossible to sleep because of the noise.

'I thought it was raining, but it was the spray from the waves against the boat.'

The sailor said he was stranded for several days without any power after his mast was damaged before he eventually managed to rig up an emergency sail. The sailor knew the ship would never see his tiny craft a nautical mile away on the dark night sea. He was not even sure it would see his flare

The temporary structure helped him get more control of his yacht but he was still unable to navigate properly.

He added: 'With that I could do a little bit of sailing. It took me one or two weeks to get a course but mainly it was just the currents that took me.'

Mr Lundvall said last week's encounter with the Greek ship was the third time since the accident that a boat had sailed within sight of his stricken yacht.

He had left the UK in early January with three emergency flares on board but used two of them in the hope the earlier boast would rescue him.

On both occasions the vessels had failed to spot his signals, leaving him with just one final chance of being rescued.

The brave sailor described how he waited until the last moment last week as the ship passed in the distance before setting off the flare.

The Greek vessel then turned around and picked him up.

Following the rescue Mr Lundvall, from the town of Vasteras west of Stockholm, was taken to the eastern South African port of Richard's Bay.

He later flew to Cape Town and has since returned to Sweden.

He told the Cape Times that during his ordeal he had lost around three stone (20kg) in weight - most of which was muscle.
Stig said he was stranded for several days without any power after his mast was damaged before he eventually managed to rig up an emergency sail

The experienced sailor said he managed to stay alive only by rationing his food and by collecting rain water in buckets on deck.

He added: 'I am skin and bone. Normally I am 85kg and I was 65kg when I got on to the ship.

'I am very weak still, I will need to build my strength again and my balance is not so good. I can look drunk when I walk.'

The newspaper reported that Mr Lundvall had been on a solo voyage to Australia when his Marieholm yacht Sea Star was immobilised by the storm.

One of the sailor's worried friends contacted South African marine rescuers in February after he failed to arrive in port on schedule.

A spokesman for the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre in Cape Town today confirmed the organisation led a three-month search for the missing yacht.

After six weeks they alerted their colleagues in Britain, Australia and New Zealand after failing to find Mr Lundvall.

The spokesman confirmed he was eventually brought back to dry land on April 17, 78 days after his ordeal began.

Mr Lundvall was today recovering at home in Sweden.

Asked whether he would sail again, he replied: 'Oh yes. But not long distance. Never again across oceans.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...recovered-78-days-lost-sea.html#ixzz1t626w2TQ
 
Great news, especially that he was clever enough to have taken at least three :eek: flares with him on this epic voyage and had exactly one left at the critical moment.

The Daily Mail's (atrociously padded-out, abortion of schoolboy journalism) article doesn't however mention whether he was carrying an EPIRB - which is independent of the boat's electrical and electronic systems.
 
So, if you only had three flares, would you:

1. Fire off all three at the first boat you saw, knowing that it would be days or weeks before you saw another vessel; or

2. Fire off one and keep the other two in reserve?

It would take a very patient or supreme optimist to go with option two.
 
Not criticising this sailor as I am pleased that we still have the freedom to set out and do what he attempted but I wonder how others would answer the following:-

EPIRBS with GPS now down to £350 would you sail an ocean without one?
 
So, if you only had three flares, would you:

1. Fire off all three at the first boat you saw, knowing that it would be days or weeks before you saw another vessel; or

2. Fire off one and keep the other two in reserve?

It would take a very patient or supreme optimist to go with option two.

In option 1 how do you know it will be days or weeks?

Probably 2. for me
 
Not criticising this sailor as I am pleased that we still have the freedom to set out and do what he attempted but I wonder how others would answer the following:-

EPIRBS with GPS now down to £350 would you sail an ocean without one?

I wouldnt sail an ocean without a satphone in a waterproof bag, or if I couldnt afford one a SPOT.

Interesting that people are quite prepared to do so without any of this. Thats the only choice if you cant afford anything.

On the other hand, these are the same people that are quite happy for soemone else to pay for a rescue.

Not sure I agree with that attitude.
 
Do the constant references to losing his mast and therefore having no power refer to him losing sail power? Why would he lose engine power when he lost his mast? Could he not rig up a temporary VHF aerial when he lost his mast or did he not have a VHF?

:confused:

Richard
 
In option 1 how do you know it will be days or weeks?

... we are told that, in 78 days, he saw just three ships. So, I have assumed a sighting on average every three weeks. Now, he might have seen one ship very shortly after the dismasting and, having let off just one flare, thought "never mind, there will be another along tomorrow." On the other hand he might not.

Presumably, if the 78 days were representative of the density of traffic in that area, then he would have known that before the incident because the waters then would also have been empty. I think that knowledge would make me more likely to let off all my flares at the first ship I saw.
 
... we are told that, in 78 days, he saw just three ships. So, I have assumed a sighting on average every three weeks. Now, he might have seen one ship very shortly after the dismasting and, having let off just one flare, thought "never mind, there will be another along tomorrow." On the other hand he might not.

Presumably, if the 78 days were representative of the density of traffic in that area, then he would have known that before the incident because the waters then would also have been empty. I think that knowledge would make me more likely to let off all my flares at the first ship I saw.

You are right, but that wasnt the question.

The question was, if you had 3 fires would you fire them at the first ship you saw. It want referring to this particular incident.
 
You are right, but that wasnt the question.

The question was, if you had 3 fires would you fire them at the first ship you saw. It want referring to this particular incident.


No, they could be an unfriendly git and pretend not to see you, Far better to have a pop at three captains. IMO
 
You are right, but that wasnt the question.

The question was, if you had 3 fires would you fire them at the first ship you saw. It want referring to this particular incident.

... Where is a "pedant" smiley when you want one! ;)

Ok, can I qualify the earlier question?

If you were in his situation (and all other reliable means of communication - VHF, EPIRB, satphone, etc - were unavailable to you) would you ......
 
EPIRBS with GPS now down to £350 would you sail an ocean without one?

Under £300 if you shop around... If it lasts 10 years with a replacement battery after 5, that's under £40pa. A small price to avoid such an ordeal...

I am very glad his last flare was seen.
 
Don't know of anybody that would reject free rescue if it were offered and needed.

Yes, but if there were no free rescues available, would we be as likely to launch off solo without better comms equipment!

A Swedish bloke sails from England and the South Africans end up spending months looking for him. Paid for by South African taxes.

Can you just imagine one of their politicians asking for a budget increase to allow for the cost of searching for foreign sailors?

Fortunately we are geographically not in a place that lots of yachtsmen seem to get lost in when circumnavigating.
 
Do the constant references to losing his mast and therefore having no power refer to him losing sail power? Why would he lose engine power when he lost his mast? Could he not rig up a temporary VHF aerial when he lost his mast or did he not have a VHF?

:confused:

Richard

VHF only has a short range (say 20 miles) and it is unlikely that any ship will be keeping VHF watch 300 miles off shore. So not much point even rying really.

Engine? It's unlikely he would have fuel for 300 odd miles, especially bearing in mind that he couldn't afford an EPIRB. He may only have had an outboard to get in & out of port.

The article says he managed to set up a jury rig but had difficulty maintaining the required course with it.

I think he did everything about right, including rationing himslef on food water & flares!
 
Yes, but if there were no free rescues available, would we be as likely to launch off solo without better comms equipment!

A Swedish bloke sails from England and the South Africans end up spending months looking for him. Paid for by South African taxes.

Can you just imagine one of their politicians asking for a budget increase to allow for the cost of searching for foreign sailors?

Fortunately we are geographically not in a place that lots of yachtsmen seem to get lost in when circumnavigating.

Presumably you are talking about search costs rather than rescue costs.

It is a matter of self preservation to take an EPIRB on such a trip as much as anything else, and a personal choice for many. I havn't seen anything to suggest that an expensive search was something he expected or wanted. Most people these days may choose to have one for such a trip, but if you don't want to risk being a burden on any sea rescue services - ever - then there is one sure way. It is also a great cure for seasickness.
 
Top