SPADE Anchor Safety WARNING

[diederik]

Your SPADE anchor may be unsafe.

Mechanical failure of a SPADE Anchor was found
by the Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand to have directly caused the
loss of the yacht "Deep Blue".

Some simple modifications can make a Spade Anchor safe. Please warn your
fellow mariners who may own such an anchor. Instructions for anchor modification, and the Maritime Safety Authority report, in the URL below.

http://www.geocities.com/spade_anchor_test

The required modifications really are very simple, and critical for safe
boating.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

OK, show me the bit that says that the Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand says that failure of the spade directly caused the loss of the yacht. I've seen several reports, and none of them were that specific. There have been many posts on this subject, and some of them even suggest the owner of the yacht might have used the plastic lock nuts on several occasions, when most know that they are one time use?

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[Its_Only_Money]

No, I think the loss of the yacht was down to the jammed halyard. Or maybe the tricolour bulb. Or maybe the failure to keep adequate anchor watch for dragging....or.....or....

Bit too simplistic to blame a single piece of gear failure under those arduous conditions IMHO.

<hr width=100% size=1>Rgds

Simon

 

[KevB]

I recon the owner of "deep blue" is just an ambulance chaser, seems the boat wasn't insured and he is claiming $60,000 for a 27 year old boat he only paid $7000 for.

Borrowed Nirvana

 

[MainlySteam]

Here is the bit that says that. From the report the whole of the "Cause" of the loss section reads (the human, environmental and technical factors are given in tick selection type tables):

CAUSE

Human Factors - Nil

Environmental Factors - Nil (contrary to what some posters are saying the conditions in the anchorage were claimed to be calm)

Technical Factors - Mechanical Failure

4.1 The anchor failed when the bolt securing the two parts of the anchor fell out. It is concluded that this was due to the nut coming unscrewed.

Not saying they are correct (in fact I have a sad reputation in the MSA for disagreeing with them over investigations with which I have been associated) but given that the anchor cable and stock were recovered sans the bolted on bit of the anchor it would seem to be difficult to contradict them in this instance.

Regards

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rich_F]

It seems hard co conclude that "this was due to the nut coming unscrewed" unless there is conclusive evidence that the nut was screwed on in the first place. I wonder if such evidence was available?

Another satisfied Spade owner,

Rich

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Hell you Spade owners are a defensive lot (just like the Spade internet site - FAQ section is all defending against the views of others as if they had not a good thing to say about themselves instead).

If you read what I quoted from the report you will see that no judgement was made at all about WHEN the nut came unscrewed nor how it came unscrewed. They could not determine that.

Thought I would never be defending the MSA as they don't like me very much, but my goodness what a lot of twaddle some are saying on here (including PBO forum) about the loss.

John



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gludy]

I am not a spade owner but can fully appreciate the position taken by the company and 'spade' owners.

Given that its a two part anchor and the parts parted it could be totally down to how the parts were put together - there is no evidence that could pay the blame down to the manufacturer or the type of anchor.

The company has to defend itself from such poorly constructed conclusions.

<hr width=100% size=1>Paul

 

[Observer]

To be fair, I don't see these remarks as defensive but a legitimate defence against criticism. I know next to nothing about the spade anchor (although quite a lot more than I did before I started reading this thread and the links). I can fairly say I have no axe to grind. My observations on what I have read are as follows:

1. It appears to be undisputed that the bolt holding the two parts of the anchor together is NOT load bearing (that is stated in the MSA report).

2. With no load on the bolt (and therefore the securing nut) it's hard to see how any nut, far less a nyloc one (even if previously used), properly tightened, could have come undone in the space of a few hours in 'calm' conditions.

3. If the nut didn't come undone, there are only two alternatives: (i) it wasn't properly secured (or wasn't even present when the anchor was set; or (ii) the bolt sheared.

4. Given (as above) that the bolt is not load bearing, it seems unlikely that the bolt sheared because of the load on the anchor.

5. That leaves either: (i) the nut wasn't there (or almost hanging off the thread of the bolt) - possible and, if true, no fault of the anchor; or (more likely hypothesis?) (ii) the bolt sheared on the impact of the anchor on the seabed when it was dropped; the setting of the anchor was not fully verified; so only the chain and stock was actually holding the yacht and this allowed the yacht to ground; or (iii) (perhaps even more likely) the bolt itself had fallen out before the anchor was set or perhaps was there but the nut wasn't and the impact of the anchor cause the bolt to fall out?

As Conan Doyle wrote: "when the impossible has been eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true".





<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Observer on 13/08/2004 17:19 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Its_Only_Money]

Hmmm - and the fitting of the bolt (or not, or not correctly) is a potential "human factor" is it not???

<hr width=100% size=1>Rgds

Simon

 

[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..

<hr width=100% size=1>