SPADE Anchor Safety WARNING

[MainlySteam]

Lets see a photo of the recovered bits

I believe that the complete report includes photos. I assume they have been excluded from the copy on the Deep Blue site for file size reasons.

In my experience the MSA reports do not regurgitate the details of the investigation itself. They usually consult with many people for opinions and advice and draft copies of the report are also provided similarly, but they usually do not refer to that investigative part unless it is for the result of tests or source of definitive information (for example some time ago there was a loss here when there was a problem with fuel contamination, consultation with the oil companies on the timing of fuel deliveries was obvious in the report and the fuel shown not to responsible for the loss).

The MSA considered the 3:1 scope to be sufficient for the conditions (calm) and I have to say that I agree with them. We have regularly sat out F6 and 7, and on one occasion F9 for 36 hours with a 3:1 scope - albeit with an all chain cable.

John



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[webcraft]

We have regularly sat out F6 and 7, and on one occasion F9 for 36 hours with a 3:1 scope - albeit with an all chain cable

Just out of curiosity John, may I ask why? What were you saving the rest of your chain for?

- Nick


<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Didn't have any "rest of your chain" to save. Was in over 20m of water, approx 1 and a bit m of tide, we carry 75m of chain and our freeboard at the bow roller is 1.4m.

Much of the cruising areas we inhabit have anchorages 20 - 25m depth, 1 to 4 m of tide.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[clyst]

Brendan Check out his site again you will see he has an interest in the case ---its his boat!! Picture of him too.
Cheers , Terry

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[webcraft]

Ah . . .

That's one of the problems of a smaller boat like ours - there's just nowhere to carry enough scope to anchor in really deep water. Most of the anchorages we use are 2 - 5m with 3 - 4 m of tide, so I can usually put out plenty of scope, governed only by swinging room - but in 20m we'd be struggling in a blow without connecting some extra warp to our scope.

- Nick



<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[gjeffery]

I wonder about the conventional wisdom that minimum scope should increase linearly with depth of water.

Using chain, 3 times a depth of 3m, drawn taught, is probably far less efficient than 75m chain in catenary, albeit in a depth of 25m.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AlexL]

Yes, I should imagine investigation of the physics would result in a 2nd order function, but that would be a tad difficult to work out in your head on the foredeck at 1am wouldn't it! so I guess the 3:1 rule is better

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[broadcaster]

Hi,

If there is a design fault with a product, normally a pattern of failures will emerge. This could be spaced over time due to the different ways a product is used, but it will create a pattern.

Unless there have been a series of problems like this, then a one off event without definitive proof cannot be automatically be defined as a design fault.

Seems to be jumping the gun a bit without some testing.

Andy



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Birdseye]

Re: a grudge or alterntative agenda

" so come on diederik, who are you and why are you so keen to tell us spades are no good? "

Could it be because his anchor failed and his boat then went ashore??

He may well have an agenda, but then I bet you would have in the circumstances. If you have an arrogant French company refusing to respond at all to a problem, what do you do? You try and stir up the sh*t to the point where they do come to the table.

An anchor is a piece of basic safety kit. If you have one of the correct size for your boat then it simple should not fail. Never. Just like the brakes on your car shouldnt fail - and never do.

So to m mind, if the nut and bolt cannot be 100% guaranteed for use by the mechanically inept, there should be no nut and bolt. You cannot expect every customer to have engineering qualifications.

<hr width=100% size=1>this post is a personal opinion, and you should not base your actions on it.

 

[petery]

Only a year ago, if any post contained the word 'anchor', 'Hylas', the designer of the Spade anchor would always post a few promotional words about 'his' anchor.

I bought one!

It would be interesting to hear from him again.

btw the official MSA report states that the Spade anchor is 'made in Tunisia for a UK firm' - I believe it's a French product. The MSA obviously didn't do much research on the anchor themselves!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Yes lesser scopes are suitable in deeper water and the formula for catenarys shows that to be so (is a relationship between chain weight, depth and the width of the catenary so roughly speaking as depth decreases chain weight and width ie scope need to be increased).

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Accident reports work that way they identify what happened and make a recommendation that would stop the same event repeating. The manufacturer of the product is quite at liberty to take whatever steps he wishes, including testing to prove his product and ignoring the accident report (as long as a breach of the law was not the cause of the accident). What we can all expect is that the manufacturer openly takes some positive action.

It would seem to me from the Spade anchor site that they have no intention of making their own open investigation into the cause of the accident, in fact their words on the accident are worryingly defensive and if they took the same approach with a domestic consumer item, for example, the consumer advocates would be extremely scathing of them. Have you ever seen the likes of the Spade internet sites reaction to an accident with a consumer item - I suspect not?

The fact is that the anchor lost the plough part at some time and that cannot be disputed. The report makes a recommendation as to how that risk can be lessened for the future. There are only 2 reasons that the anchor problem could have happened and those are that the plough part was removed for some fraudulent purpose before it was depolyed (for which no evidence was found) or there was some failure either in the anchor's maintenance or construction - in most other fields both the lifetime maintainability and construction of the product are the concerns of the manufacturer. Spade seem to think differently and their internet site shows their dismissive approach.

John



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hylas]

FROM THE DESIGNER..

I have been reading this thread with a lot of interest.. I have nothing to add, but if you have any question, I will be pleased to answer them..

- “The MSA considered the 3:1 scope to be sufficient for the conditions (calm) and I have to say that I agree with them”
- YES this is quite right for an all chain rode, but in the case of Deep Blue it was a mixed rope and chain rode and in this case, the minimal scope should be 5:1 or safer 7:1

-“ in cases like this it seems a fair bet that it's someone trying to put a company out of business or similar intentions.”
“this post is obviously designed either to damage the company in question or to put pressure on them to pay some sort of compensation.”
Yes, this is absolutely the case..


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: FROM THE DESIGNER..

Hi Alain

Thanks for showing up, kudos for that.

On the 3:1 scope (they actually had a bit more) the conditions are described as light variable winds in 8 m of water and that they anchored to make repairs to the tricolour. I have no personal experience of Spirits Bay but it is a recognised shelter and so I assume the holding is good (in fact a couple of months ago a heavy lift ship carrying some boats for one of my clients anchored in there for shelter). I would have thought that 10m of chain and rest rope was satisfactory for that - I suspect we have all done that for a short stop.

On the compensation matter, I could, of course not comment. But I would say (and my previous post written concurrently to your own gives the gist) that you have asked for the adverse publicity that you are getting. Lots of lessons to learn from consumer product failures and accidents and how they are handled. Who knows, maybe there was fraud and you cannot say that (but the MSA suspected no evidence of that and the boat is described as being very well equipped, usually a pointer away from fraud) but again consumer product manufacturers have learnt how to bite the bullet on that.

While I never had a personal preference for the Spade anchor (not dismissive, mind you) I would be wary of buying one now, purely because of the words and the attitude on the Spade internet site - you would not find that approach on any reputable consumer product's site in the event of an accident with its product or as a result of a product recall.

The anchor may be fine, but, in my opinion, the case has been badly handled from the limited view I have had of it.

Again, thanks for showing up and regards

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

French or British. I suspect that all that happened is that they would have followed the supply chain to NZ and maybe that originated in Britain (well Jersey anyway /forums/images/icons/smile.gif).

Hardly seems important - you grabbing at straws maybe /forums/images/icons/frown.gif.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[peterb]

There was a period (about 10 years ago?) during which the RYA teaching on shorebased courses was for a scope of 12 times the square root of the depth (in metres). This gave a better approximation to the length required in a catenary. The problem, of course, was that most people don't carry around square root tables in their head. Nevertheless, it can give a reasonable approximation.

In the case you quote, with a depth from stemhead of about 25 m, the formula requires a scope of 60 m. So your 75 m would have been well on the safe side.

For most practical depths you can get a good approximation by using 10 m plus 3 times the depth. This gives:

Depth . . . RYA formula . . . Approximation

. 1 . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . 13
. 4 . . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . . 22
. 9 . . . . . . . . 36 . . . . . . . . . . 37

but from there on the approximation goes a bit crazy:

.16 . . . . . . . . 48 . . . . . . . . . . 58
.25 . . . . . . . . 60 . . . . . . . . . . 85
.36 . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . . . . .118

Even the RYA formula goes crazy at great depths; in 144 m of water it suggests a 144 m scope!

(Sorry about the dots, the system ignores multiple spaces)


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[webcraft]

John,

Have you ever seen a Spade? If you had assembled one I think you would see why a lot of people are incredulous. Spade have modified the bolt as a result of the enquiry, although they didn't see any need to. I don't really see what else you expect them to do.

Your assertion that in most other fields both the lifetime maintainability and construction of the product are the concerns of the manufacturer doesn't really bear examination . . . lifetime warranties are rather rare, in the marine industry as much as anywhere else.

I agree with the poster who said that if there was a problem then it would have occurred more than once.

I don't see why you think the company has behaved badly - they have investigated and published their conclusions honestly, conducting a robust defense of their product in the process.

They have demonstrated in public that the anchor will not only hold and remain in one piece when set with NO bolt in place, but will still remain in one piece when it is broken out. I would define this as 'testing to prove their product'.

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

So, what would you have put in the accident report? That the bolt did not come out but the end of the anchor still fell off?

The fact is that it happened, what more can I say?

I was not talking about lifetime warranties. Planes, cars and toasters do not have lifetime warranties, but if there is an accident threatening life or property during the product's service life then the manufacturer has a lifetime interest.

I do not have any vested interest and I have never had anything against Spade anchors except that I would personally prefer to use an anchor which does not use fasteners (most do not) but I find the responses and defensiveness on this loss intriguing and perhaps a lesson to those likely to be faced with the same.

Anyway, am off to the boat shortly for a cold weekend /forums/images/icons/frown.gif.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[broadcaster]

Hi,

They were defensive, but they did carry out the recomendation for a simple modification (see their website) although they felt there was no need to.

I think this shows a responsible attitude to the incident, despite this being a one off failure so far. If I was a manufacturer of a product and were fully confident in it's performance then I would defend any accusation that the product was at fault. As I mentioned a single failure where the circumstances surrounding the failure cannot be assured does not warrant a huge investigation. In my view the number of anchors in use and the time they have been in use also goes a long way to warrant their attitude. There have also been a huge number of tests by independant magazines indicating the performance of the Spade.

If you look at the facts, the cause of the accident was attributed to the bolt coming loose, because the accident investigators considered this to be the only possibility. However the manufactures have pointed out several very important factors which have not been considered. The most likely being that the nut was not fully done up.

This type of report can really harm a business and I can understand why they are defensive. The anchor was designed and tested to operate with this type of nut/bolt configuration and to carry out further tests would be pointless as it has already been confirmed. The only parameter which cannot be confirmed is whether the "nyloc" nut was done up sufficiently as per the specifications, this has now been taken care of by adding a pin through the bolt to retain the nut.

Can't see the argument, what else can they do !!!!

Andy



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Keith]

Re: FROM THE DESIGNER..

well westmarine in the US haven't withdrawn them from their online catalogue and randy repass the owner of westmarine has one as his primary anchor on his new boat, if there was a design flaw with the anchor it would have shown up well befor now and i don't think west marine would still be selling them........keith

<hr width=100% size=1>