Studland Eco moorings will cost you this year

Lucky Duck said:
Based on my observations of Thursday night that limit was being ignored by a significant minority of the moored boats
Click to expand...

Which, of course, does make one wonder about the moorings reliability even within the weight constraints if they are likely to have been over strained by previous visitors. I think the question has been asked before but I can't recall the answer. If one was using one of these moorings (within spec) and it failed, who is liable?
 
PWLS08 said:
Which, of course, does make one wonder about the moorings reliability even within the weight constraints if they are likely to have been over strained by previous visitors. I think the question has been asked before but I can't recall the answer. If one was using one of these moorings (within spec) and it failed, who is liable?
Click to expand...
I think I could guess. Did you see the Wandering Hillbilly's Aquila 54 that pulled a BVI ball out?

 
ISTM that if you provide a service to the public, you have a duty of care to those using the service. If I was on a commercial mooring I'd paid for and woke up on the rocks, I'd have no hesitation in making a claim.

OTOH, I wouldn't be too worried there. I doubt many big boats would want to be in Studland in a blow with much better shelter easily available, so even a 20-ton boat shouldn't be an issue
 
Stemar said:
ISTM that if you provide a service to the public, you have a duty of care to those using the service. If I was on a commercial mooring I'd paid for and woke up on the rocks, I'd have no hesitation in making a claim.

OTOH, I wouldn't be too worried there. I doubt many big boats would want to be in Studland in a blow with much better shelter easily available, so even a 20-ton boat shouldn't be an issue
Click to expand...
I've been in Studland when a SW'ly was blowing. Bay is very sheltered from the sea point of view but the wind can be there and therefore loading on the moorings.
 
Eco moorings have one big weakness. The helical screw bottom attachment. If that is overloaded or eroded out, it fails suddenly, catastrophically, and without warning. It may have been checked the day before. An uprooted sinker at least slows the rate of drift.
 
oldharry said:
Eco moorings have one big weakness. The helical screw bottom attachment. If that is overloaded or eroded out, it fails suddenly, catastrophically, and without warning. It may have been checked the day before. An uprooted sinker at least slows the rate of drift.
Click to expand...

Exactly, hence why the person upthread who was moored up to one and it was secure may well have been deluding themselves, until if fails it's going to feel secure but it emphatically may not be.
 
Stemar said:
ISTM that if you provide a service to the public, you have a duty of care to those using the service. If I was on a commercial mooring I'd paid for and woke up on the rocks, I'd have no hesitation in making a claim.

OTOH, I wouldn't be too worried there. I doubt many big boats would want to be in Studland in a blow with much better shelter easily available, so even a 20-ton boat shouldn't be an issue
Click to expand...
Studland was (is) an anchorage of refuge to escape strong south westerlies.
 
oldharry said:
Sounds like there's a case for asking MMO to ensure provision for what by modern standards is a fairly normally size and weight of yacht, on safety grounds in this recognised refuge.
Click to expand...
Surely a bigger boat can simply anchor outside the (voluntary) no anchoring zone. According to the chart there is a massive area at suitable depths.
 
Boathook said:
People like swimming from their boats in the summer. Further out is not really a great place for people to swim from their boat due to increased wash, waves and wind.
Click to expand...
The quote I responded to stated - ā€œon safety grounds in this recognised refugeā€. Hardly a time to go swimming in that event.

But even for swimming, if you choose a big boat you are limiting your options on many bays and harbours. That is a choice.
Big boats tend to have big tenders so can use that to go closer in before going for a swim, if not happy to swim where anchored. Doesnā€™t seem a big issue.
 
dunedin said:
Surely a bigger boat can simply anchor outside the (voluntary) no anchoring zone. According to the chart there is a massive area at suitable depths.
Click to expand...
but it is not as sheltered

People on big or small boats who sensibly rely on the security of their own anchor are now denied better shelter and the rest that comes with that.
There have been reports on this and other channels to that effect.
This puts mariners at more risk, not less.
 
Lodestone said:
but it is not as sheltered

People on big or small boats who sensibly rely on the security of their own anchor are now denied better shelter and the rest that comes with that.
There have been reports on this and other channels to that effect.
This puts mariners at more risk, not less.
Click to expand...
Letā€™s not be over dramatic. Are you really going to tell me that a seaworthy 55 footer would be ā€œput at riskā€ by anchoring 50-100m further out? Due to depth most couldnā€™t stay overnight close to the shore. And the shape of the VNAZ looks like the spot near the 2.6m sounding (UKHO Poole Bay Chart) is no further out than previously.
 
dunedin said:
Letā€™s not be over dramatic. Are you really going to tell me that a seaworthy 55 footer would be ā€œput at riskā€ by anchoring 50-100m further out? Due to depth most couldnā€™t stay overnight close to the shore. And the shapIt
Click to expand...
It depends entirely on the situaton and we're talking about any vessel regardless of size who wishes to take ownership of their own safety. There are safer areas of the bay previously available now denied. I would be surprised for any mariner to vote for less safety.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top