Terrible news from Clipper

Last edited:
I have netting on my forward guardrails, to catch the hanked headsails; it still seems to catch humans too though I'm careful to avoid shock-chord in case it fires them back over the windward side.
 
co256 said:
New information concerning the tether failure aboard Clipper yacht Great Britain and Northern Ireland...

https://www.facebook.com/sailorgirlHQ/videos/1596230007087424/?type=2&theater
Click to expand...

Thanks . Yes a very informative interview with RKJ - and a link to Yachts and Yachting site for those not using facebook
http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/news/200564/A-safety-message-for-sailors-this-Christmas

So in summary it appears that two crew initially went overboard, both tethered. One got back on immediately, and crew started recovering the second person when the tether clip failed. Failed due to being pulled sideways as up against a deck cleat.

What staggers me is that there doesn’t seem to have been any routine industry testing of tether straps with side loading. Breaking station quoted as 2000kg straight on, but just 200kg side on.
After previous fatalities where the clip pulled sideways and detached, there was the change to the locking mechanism. But I had always assumed that the clips were now tested for side loading and breaking or coming detached.

It seems that there are no clips currently available to Clipper with better side strength, so had to make tactical workaround to avoid the cleat catching on the hooks.

Sounds like a bit of a safety failure in the gear suppliers (and perhaps lesser to Clipper for not doing own testing) in not designing for side loading, a clearly foreseeable situation?
 
I don't imagine it's particularly hard to go right over the top of guardrails, netting and all, on a foredeck that is rising and falling several meters with waves travelling well into double figures over them. Netting of course does make it extra difficult to get back on deck again...... The long and the short of it is that there are going to be pros and cons to everything we do on a boat and it's a case of finding an acceptable compromise. As RKJ said in that interview they are pushing boundaries and as a result likely to come up with these challenges before the average Joe, and ultimately we could all benefit from that. I'm just grateful we still just about live in a society where people can be free to push boundaries, it seems to me that there an awful lot of individuals out there intent on stopping that from happening.
 
It should be remembered that the chap who died (Simon) had been bounced off the foredeck by a big wave in a previous leg of the race and he was stopped from going overboard by his tether and the guardrails. In fact he was injured by the event and was put on light duties for a few days. So the safety system did work on that occasion.
 
dunedin said:
Thanks . Yes a very informative interview with RKJ - and a link to Yachts and Yachting site for those not using facebook
http://www.yachtsandyachting.com/news/200564/A-safety-message-for-sailors-this-Christmas

Failed due to being pulled sideways as up against a deck cleat...........
Click to expand...

I will be checking my clips against my fixed clip on points in the cockpit, I suspect it could easily happen against them in which case I think a short strop to a ring may be needed to keep the clip clear.
 
Full marks to RKJ for a very straightforward explanation of what went wrong and broke. There will be improved versions of the tether as a result, from which we will ultimately benefit. I hate my double action hooks, which take ages to get open and then hooked on.
Mind you, I have no intention of being up on the foredeck in those sort of conditions, so hopefully short tethers will not be needed!
Peter
 
dunedin said:
What staggers me is that there doesn’t seem to have been any routine industry testing of tether straps with side loading. Breaking station quoted as 2000kg straight on, but just 200kg side on.
Click to expand...

There is. There are (I use them, rated 8 KN side load). But this is NOT in the ISO 12401 standard that most marine tethers are built to.

The ISO standard requires only a drop test of the carabiner with the tether. There are no strength testing requirements for the carabiners themselves.

Also remember that RKJ was guessing. No one saw exactly what happened, nor did he imply that they did. The exact failure mode is still uncertain. This, of course, is why carabiners must be not just strong, but robust in all directions, including the gate.

Practical Sailor will have something out on this next month.
 
It is a reflection on 'the industry' that it takes loss of life to engender an investigation that results in improvement to safety equipment. It equally should not be the media, in this case America's Practical Sailor (and maybe other publications), that undertakes an investigation. The industry (and whoever sets the standards) should be more pro-active - especially if, as Thinwater states, there are better options out there.

It is a further reflection on the industry that when there is some pro-active investigation and a weakness is found a very common response (from the industry and sometimes the users) is 'but no-one has died (or the weakness has not caused damage), why should we (they) improve, after all it does meet standards', even if these standards are minimalist - or words to that effect.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
Neeves said:
It is a reflection on 'the industry' that it takes loss of life to engender an investigation that results in improvement to safety equipment.
Click to expand...

No mate, that's a reflection on human nature. Why would we go looking for solutions to problems we are not aware exist? How many other "failures" such as this are you aware of?
 
Triassic said:
No mate, that's a reflection on human nature. Why would we go looking for solutions to problems we are not aware exist? How many other "failures" such as this are you aware of?
Click to expand...

I disagree. This is why engineers review designs, and this weakness would have been obvious from a distance. Engineers are are responsible for reviewing related standards, and side loading, along with a test method, is specified in a related standard. The standard exists because failures resulting from odd angles and twists are, in fact, quite common in other fall-related uses (industry and climbing).

I have two broken carabiners I keep on my mantel from rock climbing falls, reminders of what can go wrong. Both failures were caused by odd loadings (neither resulted in injury because I had back-up gear). I've been climbing for many years, have taken untold thousands of falls, and as a result, the failure of this carabiner type was not a surprise to me, not at all.

No, I would not expect sailors to be intimately familiar with falls, impact, and equipment design, but I would expect the engineer to either be familiar or to do the research. That is what identifies him as a professional.
 
Last edited:
Triassic said:
No mate, that's a reflection on human nature. Why would we go looking for solutions to problems we are not aware exist? How many other "failures" such as this are you aware of?
Click to expand...

A man died - if that is not good enough reason I cannot think of one better.

The use now of netting on the lifelines, on Clipper yachts, was in response to a perceived earlier problem.

Specifications of safety equipment was upgraded subsequent to loss of life on the Fastnet and then separately on the Sydney Hobart. Yachts that were considered safe for specific safety Categories, Cat, 1, Cat 2 etc - are now excluded. These changes are based on hindsight - I wonder how many lives could have been saved with some foresight. 18 died on the Fastnet, 15 sailors and three of the rescuers, on the Sydney Hobart (including Glyn Charles whose tethers failed) 6 died.

In the Clipper incident other industries/applications have higher standards than yachting - don't you wonder why a 'tether' has different specifications, why sailing has lower standards. Why is a rock climber's life worth 'more' than a yachtsman? - why do they have better 'tethers'. I don't expect you, no disrespect, to have the answer - I do expect the organisations who set specifications for yachting equipment and who define safety equipment for use on yachts to know. It would be interesting in the official enquiry if they are asked about the disparity and what their answers will be.

Jonathan
 
Triassic said:
No mate, that's a reflection on human nature. Why would we go looking for solutions to problems we are not aware exist? How many other "failures" such as this are you aware of?
Click to expand...

Humm must strongly disagree with your statement; its the reasoning that councils and Govts trot out when a say - rail crash happens, a tram comes off the rails, a speeding motorist collides with a party of school children etc etc its not happened before, or yet, so must be OK so no need to spend any money correcting it, urg {:-(#

Quite often when others eyes see whats happened its bleeding obvious that the risks were too high and eventually an incident was going to happen, often with fatalities.

Unfortunately its a design or manufacture fault that's often the problem, or in the case of Transport by Road and Rail or Tracks is a wrongful desire to speed up the system a bit, often a bit too much

Might suggest that just maybe a simple answer to the Harness clips is to have two fitted, working in opposite directions, who knows, until enough research has been done ?
 
Can someone/anyone translate these loads quoted in kg (mass) to a force? It seems an odd way to rate such items to me.
 
As a result of information on Attainable Adventure Cruising web site, I am moving my jackstays inboard; the objective being to prevent folks who fall from actually going over the side. There are challenges to overcome on my boat but with a bit of thought it should not be too difficult to achieve. I think if we are going to talk about safety tether hooks and engineering foresight, then you really need to look at the system as a whole.

You have to be a member to read most the articles https://www.morganscloud.com/members/ The information they offer on jackstays, tethers, etc is in their Online Book 'Person Overboard Prevention'.

It's interesting to note the development of safety harness and lines and stuff that goes with it for preventing MOB: locking tether hooks, built in harnesses, integrated lifejacket harness, rope to tape (both jackstays and tethers), netting, toe rails, tri-hook tethers, standards and specifications. Yet there is little mention of positioning of jackstays.

As Attainable Adventure Cruising makes money from memberships, I would like to add that my association is only as a member and I have no other interest beyond that.
 
I have patent pending on a totally unique type of lifeline / tether that will ensure safety by a much greater degree than any lifeline to date.

I have used two preferred embodiments, sailing solo for two years. It is a great piece of kit with features offering unique and superior safety benefits. I even have a UK manufacturer in mind that already make the parts.

I have emailed two people at Clipper and received one reply stating he has left Clipper and the other email recipient has not replied. I cannot find Sir Robin's email address. I am very risk adverse when it comes to money otherwise I would have spent £2k on the patent and started a publicity campaign (in reality that means paying a company about £15K to do it), although this would sell itself I believe, especially in light of recent tragedies.

I don't have £17k to risk (even though I think the risk is small). Being made redundant can make one a little careful with money. To file a patent and gain a priority date is free (or simply pay a patent attorney a couple of hundred to file a good description) and I now have 12 months from date of priority to find a backer.

So at least someone has looked into designing a better device before this incident.

But ideas and even prototypes don't make money.

It's not what you know but who you know.

I also thought of the transparent side panels in hoods of jackets. HenriLloyd do not own the patent. If they think they do, litigation would easily go against them; I have all the paperwork. Note Helly Hansen (now owners of Musto) now offer similar peripheral vision type hoods.

Anyone want to partner up? Probably not... May have to end up in the public domain as 'open-source' knowledge to prevent others gaining a patent if they think of it at a later date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top