Tragic Accident

The original report on here (i.e. YBW.com) was confusing because, although the headline announced that the boat had rolled over and sunk, the report made it clear that it had turned turtle but was still afloat and salvage operations were under way - though the RNLI had not been able to attach a tow line.

A case of dodgy subbing, I suspect.
 
Re: Questions to be asked again

I have absolutely no knowledge of the structure of yachts but would have thought if the keel had hit an underwater object the rearward force and the twisting effect on the keel would have damaged the area just behind where the keel attaches?
 
Re: Questions to be asked again

Good point,and in the photo there did not appear to be any obvious sign of damage to the hull just behind the keel.
It will be interesting to see what the enquiry decides was the cause of the keel just 'falling off' (we can only assume that is what happened) while the boat was sailing along quietly in what were reported to be fairly calm conditions.
 
Re: Questions to be asked again

[ QUOTE ]
As posted elsewhere, the structural standard likely to be required by RCD is ISO 12215-5 (personally I doubt that the racing exemption would apply to a boat being offered for general use).

Only thing is, this standard hasn't been agreed yet. When it is agreed, it might not be all it needs to be. Fairly damning ABS paper here .

Andy

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true while many codes for buildings have developed most have stood the test of time but early USA codes notoriously underestimated shear forces in reinforced concrete and when a early code in ther UK called BS114 was replaced by a new code called CP110 it was still OK to design to the old code for years except flat reinforced concrete slabs where they discovered that the safety margin was a lot less than intended.

For steel the collapse of a couple of suspension bridges in the 60's led to a review of the codes for flat plates and the introduction of the additional "Morrison Commitee Rules" before final being replaced by a new Bridge Design Code.

I would imagine that fatigue calcs are a large unknown in yacht design at present.
 
Re: Questions to be asked again

I read with interest the comments about Hooligan V, there is much speculation about the cause of the keel seperation. I do not know why the keel failed. I can state that no groundings occured in the previous twelve months to the best of my knowledge. Many have commented about showing respect for friends and familes of victim/survivors. as one of the survivors I think it is reasonable for yachtsmen and women to want to find out what happened. One contributor mentioned the seamanship involved in surviving such an incident. I can tell you the hull was inverted in about five seconds. I can also tell you that there were four people in the cockpit, unusual at 03.20 am, another was in his sleeping bag below. He survived. I do not know what caused the fatality. I will only add that I intend to sail in future with a manualy operated life jacket, I do not wish to be restricted by one that inflates itself. On this occasion I was not wearing one.
The water temperature was 10C, we were in the water at least half an hour before we cut the liferaft free.
 
Re: Questions to be asked again

Great input, and it will be highly regarded that you have joined the forum to aid the discussion.

You will have a lot of questions from interested people. If those questions push things too far, please say so.

It must be a difficult time for you.

Brendan
 
Re: Questions to be asked again

I'd echo Brendan's comments, and thank you for joining the discussion.

A news item here on the East Anglian Daily Times website quoted "a source close to the crew of the yacht" suggesting that impact with debris was a distinct possibility, and the report mentions traces of red paint being found on Hooligan's hull by salvage crews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top