VOR yacht aground!!

Uricanejack said:
I respect the Skipper for his statement. He appears to be a stand up guy. It’s not uncommon for stand up guys. They take it on themselves often harder than they deserve. For many it can be tough to get back on the horse.

Others like a certain Italian blame everyone and everything else.

The truth is usually some where in between. Although the media and public like to have someone to blame. It seldom has any benefit in preventing future incidents.
Click to expand...

Interesting statement from Chris Nicolson in that longer video. To paraphrase "I'm the skipper but I can't be everywhere at once, you have to trust the guys to do the tasks allocated to them. It's one of those things that has failed"

This video
 
flaming said:
Interesting statement from Chris Nicolson in that longer video. To paraphrase "I'm the skipper but I can't be everywhere at once, you have to trust the guys to do the tasks allocated to them. It's one of those things that has failed"
Click to expand...

Yes when I fisrt saw that video it struck me that the Skipper was saying that he wasn't the only one responsible. He's admitted that as skipper he's ultimately responsible but I'm not sure that his own message has got through to him.
Astounding that they could sail towards a charted reef without realising that they were doing so.
 
flaming said:
Interesting statement from Chris Nicolson in that longer video. To paraphrase "I'm the skipper but I can't be everywhere at once, you have to trust the guys to do the tasks allocated to them. It's one of those things that has failed"

Good honest response.

What surprises me is that 15 years ago on my limited budget I had a cmap programme that could warn you of approaching shallows if you gave it the yachts draft, even if zoomed out it would warn you if your track crossed a reef. These guys had the best and latest routing/plotting systems and they were fully crewed. They were really lucky no one was seriously hurt, I remember a story of a guy who lost a whole set of teeth as he ate the winch in a grounding at in the 80's. Ocean passages you have time to check and re check and look well ahead, study the options and waypoint the areas of greatest risk. Should never have happened.
Click to expand...
 
In response to a comment about being surprised the keel is still on...
If the keel was fully canted (which it would be at those speeds) then it's possible (armchair conjecture) the first part of the boat to hit could have been a rudder, ripping off that part of the hull would also absorb some energy so making the deceleration less dramatic and that I think is why there were fewer injuries than you might expect from a keel grounding hard at that speed, which would likely have brought down the mast. I worked in failure analysis in my distant past, and the armchair conjecture was where we learned and opened up to new ideas.
 
Neil_Y said:
What surprises me is that 15 years ago on my limited budget I had a cmap programme that could warn you of approaching shallows if you gave it the yachts draft, even if zoomed out it would warn you if your track crossed a reef.
Click to expand...

Would it not be sensible to have a depth sounder switched on when planning to go close to a reef at night?
 
It's an interesting theory; maybe such boats, let alone Foiler Moths etc, should have airbags ? They could be built into the boat or one's buoyancy aid. I knew a girlfriend who already had this system, must have been a prototype.
 
Interesting piece from the navigator on the SA site "walking tall" http://sailinganarchy.com
Extract ..
Once I can get power to the boat’s laptops (if they survived) I can look further into how we didn’t see the reef on the electronic charts.I did check the area on the electronic chart before putting my head down for a rest after a very long day negotiating the tropical storm, and what I saw was depths of 42 and 80m indicated.
I can assure you that before every leg we diligently look at our route before we leave and I use both Google Earth, paper charts and other tools. However, our planned route changed just before we left, and with the focus on the start and the tricky conditions, I erroneously thought I would have enough information with me to look at the changes in our route as we went along. I was wrong. I am not trying to make any excuses – just trying to offer up some form of explanation and answer to some of your questions.
 
Last edited:
AngusMcDoon said:
The cockpit is full of displays and repeaters and if the depth sounder alarm had been on all of them would have been flashing and beeping away. There's no evidence of that in the crash video.
Click to expand...

Indeed, so I presume they didn't have a sounder on. Perhaps it only looks sensible in hindsight ... if there is deep water all the way round the reef and they thought they were many miles away then of course they wouldn't bother.
 
AngusMcDoon said:
The cockpit is full of displays and repeaters and if the depth sounder alarm had been on all of them would have been flashing and beeping away. There's no evidence of that in the crash video.
Click to expand...

Utter Bollox as usual...

Reefs are steep to with deep water either side, so a depth sounder would give no warning unless it's an unusually good, long range, forward looking one.

Charts, whether paper or electronic, are one's only hope.

As even billion-dollar submarines occasionally hit reefs, I reckon the jury should be out for quite some time on this one...
 
Last edited:
JumbleDuck said:
Would it not be sensible to have a depth sounder switched on when planning to go close to a reef at night?
Click to expand...

JD I doubt that would have helped them. Without knowing it, they were approaching the steep-to side of the reef and apparently doing 19 knots. Any depth alarm would have given a few seconds at best, and at that speed which way do you turn? The irony is that, had they known where they were, they could have borne away and carried on up the edge of the reef on a broad reach. Or at least that is what I deduce from looking at their on-board video and the race control picture of the fleet tracks. All IMHO.

Ahhh. Seajetted!
 
JumbleDuck said:
Indeed, so I presume they didn't have a sounder on. Perhaps it only looks sensible in hindsight ... if there is deep water all the way round the reef and they thought they were many miles away then of course they wouldn't bother.
Click to expand...

The seaward side of a reef comes up pretty steeply from quite a depth so an echosounder would not be a lot of use IMO.

Re: the 1st 25 seconds of the later video when they are peering over the windward side - I'm pretty sure it's the unexpected sound of the roar of water breaking on the reef to port that is causing the consternation.

Even within the quiet waters of a reef anchorage the noise can be quite unsettling (& loud).
 
Neil_Y said:
In response to a comment about being surprised the keel is still on...
If the keel was fully canted (which it would be at those speeds) then it's possible (armchair conjecture) the first part of the boat to hit could have been a rudder, ripping off that part of the hull would also absorb some energy so making the deceleration less dramatic and that I think is why there were fewer injuries than you might expect from a keel grounding hard at that speed, which would likely have brought down the mast. I worked in failure analysis in my distant past, and the armchair conjecture was where we learned and opened up to new ideas.
Click to expand...

I also that they would have lost the mast in a hard grounding. All plausible about the rudders hitting first and acting like a shock absorber.
 
Tradewinds said:
The seaward side of a reef comes up pretty steeply from quite a depth so an echosounder would not be a lot of use IMO.

Re: the 1st 25 seconds of the later video when they are peering over the windward side - I'm pretty sure it's the unexpected sound of the roar of water breaking on the reef to port that is causing the consternation.

Even within the quiet waters of a reef anchorage the noise can be quite unsettling (& loud).
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if they didn't have a forward looking sounder?
 
I've been on a lost yacht approaching the wrong side of a reef at night, terrifying! We prepared to jump and swim for it with our belongings if the stupid skipper had put us on the reef, you hear the waves and see phosphorescence but it's still 30m deep.

Quote from a professional navigator is interesting and I suspect true these days. Campbell Field

“I don’t know 100% about other software packages, but Expedition routing can route freely (i.e. with no obstacles) or can be constrained by charts, or your own marks, or your own prohibited zones. Plenty of optimal route outputs run where you would have to put the wheels down.
Ultimately, it is the user who defines how the routing output is run and results used.
“The point I’m putting forward here is that software does not make someone a navigator. First you must be a navigator, and then know and understand the strengths and limitations of the tools you have.
“When this is explained to a lot of people I meet, it is usually met with confused stares. The number of software jockeys (promoting themselves navigators) in yacht racing I have come across, who expect the answers to fall out of their computer, is astounding. Take the deck screen away from them and they couldn’t get out of the marina or find the top mark efficiently if their life depended on it.
“Vestas Wind navigator Wouter Verbraak is one of the best, and firmly falls into the category of a superb yachtsman and navigator. He is one who understands the strengths and limitations of digital tools more than most will ever do. And one of the nicest guys in the sport to boot.
“Mistakes happen. Just glad they are all safe and uninjured.”
 
Resolution said:
JD I doubt that would have helped them. Without knowing it, they were approaching the steep-to side of the reef and apparently doing 19 knots. Any depth alarm would have given a few seconds at best, and at that speed which way do you turn? The irony is that, had they known where they were, they could have borne away and carried on up the edge of the reef on a broad reach. Or at least that is what I deduce from looking at their on-board video and the race control picture of the fleet tracks. All IMHO.

Ahhh. Seajetted!
Click to expand...

Forward looking depth sounders with a 3D display of the seabed ahead out to 300m - if they choose to use it and have it configured correctly. Designed to cope with speeds that fast multis sail at, so 19 knots would be within its capabilities. The level of instrumentation is completely out of the league of what most leisure sailors use, especially the forum loon with a 22' clapped out boat with some cheap Nasa depth sounder on it. A major problem with increasingly sophisticated instrumentation is the ability of the crew to understand it and use it correctly. There gets a point where the complexity is beyond the learning ability of the operators in what may be a short time to get to know how to use it. I have direct experience of this problem as I have developed some of the software running on the instrumentation out there in the Indian Ocean on these boats. Even having written the software I sometimes struggled to remember how to use it and got lost in endless menus, so I don't know how the crew cope in the middle of the night when tired and being bounced around.

This over-complexity problem does not just affect sailing crew. It causes problems for aeroplane pilots, nuclear power plant operators, and many others as well.
 
Last edited:
Seajet said:
Utter Bollox as usual...

Reefs are steep to with deep water either side, so a depth sounder would give no warning unless it's an unusually good, long range, forward looking one.

Charts, whether paper or electronic, are one's only hope.

As even billion-dollar submarines occasionally hit reefs, I reckon the jury should be out for quite some time on this one...
Click to expand...

Andy, you know not of what you speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top