World Sailing's Special Offshore Regulation changes for grounding, keels and rudders.

[Concerto]

For those who race in offshore race, the RYA have adopted from 1 Jan 2022 the World Sailing's Special Offshore Regulation changes for classes 0 to 3. So anyone who races cross Channel or further offshore must have their boats inspected by a qualified person within 24 months of the start of the race or after a grounding, whichever is later. I could not find the details on the RYA web site but are mentioned here. RYA launches support framework after change to Offshore Special Regulations (sail-world.com)

Other new requirements have been brought into place in order to draw owners' attention to the critical safety aspects of keels following a number of high-profile incidents. Keels have been breaking off yachts for many years, with sometime catastrophic consequences. The yacht types losing keels and rudders range from cruising to high performance racing yachts and from newly built to old. This regulation is designed to require a visual inspection every two years. It is designed to capture visual signs (cracks, movement, corrosion, loose keel bolts, loose or irregular rudder bearings) that may indicate a potentially serious problem. It is expected that once noted, the owner would undertake a more detailed investigation or get it repaired.

Sensible advice for many owners of cruising boats, but let us hope insurance companies do not jump on the bandwagon and start demanding more frequent surveys.

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

Keels have fallen off an insignificant number of boats. Owners who don't organise inspections after groundings already will just leave it until their next two yearly one. This is just giving (a rumoured £350) money to what are effectively mates of the ORC for a valueless piece of paper.

 

[Sandy]

Keels have fallen off an insignificant number of boats. Owners who don't organise inspections after groundings already will just leave it until their next two yearly one. This is just giving (a rumoured £350) money to what are effectively mates of the ORC for a valueless piece of paper.

Thank goodness the aircraft industry does not take this attitude!

Items are inspected/replaced depending on time on the airframe/number of landings/number of hours in flight. All depends what comes first, so a part could be fitted the aircraft not leave the ground for 18 months and the part removed.

 

[Tranona]

Thank goodness the aircraft industry does not take this attitude!

Items are inspected/replaced depending on time on the airframe/number of landings/number of hours in flight. All depends what comes first, so a part could be fitted the aircraft not leave the ground for 18 months and the part removed.

It is a mistake to try and transfer practice in one industry to another. Aircraft components are "lifed" in terms of operational cycles as you describe because failures can be expected as a result of the stresses of their normal operation - just as you give examples.

This does not apply to yacht keels which in general do not fail because of the stress in normal use as they are both (if they are built to the standard) way over specced and rarely ever exposed to the sort of stresses in normal use that might result in undetected failure.

Almost all failures are a consequence of grounding or randomly hitting a solid object. except on rare occasions where the failure is traced to poor design or construction. The guidance makes it clear that signs of grounding are usually obvious on inspection and that regular inspection (not periodic replacement) is appropriate. The vast majority of keels remain firmly attached for the life of the boat - and as many have found even planned removal is often extremely difficult, so firmly are they attached to the hull.

 

[Sandy]

It is a mistake to try and transfer practice in one industry to another. Aircraft components are "lifed" in terms of operational cycles as you describe because failures can be expected as a result of the stresses of their normal operation - just as you give examples.

This does not apply to yacht keels which in general do not fail because of the stress in normal use as they are both (if they are built to the standard) way over specced and rarely ever exposed to the sort of stresses in normal use that might result in undetected failure.

Almost all failures are a consequence of grounding or randomly hitting a solid object. except on rare occasions where the failure is traced to poor design or construction. The guidance makes it clear that signs of grounding are usually obvious on inspection and that regular inspection (not periodic replacement) is appropriate. The vast majority of keels remain firmly attached for the life of the boat - and as many have found even planned removal is often extremely difficult, so firmly are they attached to the hull.

I've been around destructive and non-destructive testing to know that inspecting stuff is really, really useful. The example of changing aircraft components was just an example of what the flyboys need to do. Thankfully, I am no longer in business of writing standards and regulation.

 

[Tranona]

The example of changing aircraft components was just an example of what the flyboys need to do.

But still not relevant to this subject.

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

Thank goodness the aircraft industry does not take this attitude!

Items are inspected/replaced depending on time on the airframe/number of landings/number of hours in flight. All depends what comes first, so a part could be fitted the aircraft not leave the ground for 18 months and the part removed.

If the aircraft industry were running the ORC scheme they'd have inspectors trained and approved by the builders and original designers. In the event of a problem there would be a builder-approved repair. The keel would have a G meter and a sacrificial tip. (And I assume you're talking about commercial aviation, because about as many light aircraft fall apart as keels fall off)

The ORC scheme will either say that your boat's fine or it's not. Obviously you won't be allowed to race it offshore, but that's it. I was going to say you can go and race inshore, but you probably won't be able to because I'm fairly sure this will be adopted as cover-your-arse by the clubs. And if they do it you can bet that it'll come to an insurance company near you.

 

[flaming]

The ORC scheme will either say that your boat's fine or it's not. Obviously you won't be allowed to race it offshore, but that's it. I was going to say you can go and race inshore, but you probably won't be able to because I'm fairly sure this will be adopted as cover-your-arse by the clubs. And if they do it you can bet that it'll come to an insurance company near you.

Doubt it to be honest.
Every club I've ever come across uses the ISAF special regs as their "cover-your-arse" and this only applies to Cat 3 and above.
I know that there is a "yah boo sucks" to officialdom prevalent hereabouts, but for what it's worth I find the offshore special regs to be one of the most sensible "Health and Safety" regimes that I am involved with. I struggle to think of a single thing in them that isn't sensible and proportionate.


Frankly I was somewhat surprised at the outcry at the introduction of this regulation, as it is considerably less than we, as an exclusively inshore only boat, have always done.
It actually amazes me that there were boats sailing offshore that were not already doing this, and would have just needed the paperwork.

 

[anoccasionalyachtsman]

Doubt it to be honest.
Every club I've ever come across uses the ISAF special regs as their "cover-your-arse" and this only applies to Cat 3 and above.
I know that there is a "yah boo sucks" to officialdom prevalent hereabouts, but for what it's worth I find the offshore special regs to be one of the most sensible "Health and Safety" regimes that I am involved with. I struggle to think of a single thing in them that isn't sensible and proportionate.


Frankly I was somewhat surprised at the outcry at the introduction of this regulation, as it is considerably less than we, as an exclusively inshore only boat, have always done.
It actually amazes me that there were boats sailing offshore that were not already doing this, and would have just needed the paperwork.

I really hope you're right, but I know that it was being discussed by rule makers in a club that we both use. CYA being the main theme.

 

[Sandy]

If the aircraft industry were running the ORC scheme they'd have inspectors trained and approved by the builders and original designers. In the event of a problem there would be a builder-approved repair. The keel would have a G meter and a sacrificial tip. (And I assume you're talking about commercial aviation, because about as many light aircraft fall apart as keels fall off)

The ORC scheme will either say that your boat's fine or it's not. Obviously you won't be allowed to race it offshore, but that's it. I was going to say you can go and race inshore, but you probably won't be able to because I'm fairly sure this will be adopted as cover-your-arse by the clubs. And if they do it you can bet that it'll come to an insurance company near you.

It was commercial aviation I was involved with.

Hopefully, things will evolve and fully qualified 'inspectors' will eventually be part of the process.

 

[Concerto]

There is a massive difference between commercial aircraft and race boats. Commercial aircraft are manufactured by a very limited number of companies and are subjected to rigerous testing before entering service. Race boats can come from a production run but are just as likely to be one off designs and include new exotic materials. To be competative race boats are built to a minimum weight and form stability is now a high proportion of the stability rather than keel weight. The lightness of construction is adequate in most conditions met at sea, but not designed for a keel to touch bottom at high speed.

This article on keel damage to J109's is worth reading. J109 J120 stress cracking in keel hull connection This quote from Black Dog and posted on 18 March 2008 is worth reading.
I once talked to a high ranking Jboat person about the problem of building a boat that will go 12 to 15 knots, then engineering a keel that would stay on after hitting a rock at that speed. He said you have to draw a line between strength, budget and performance. The keel would have to look like one from an Island Piglet to not sustain any damage at that speed after hitting something solid. Yes they could engineer it, but no one would buy it.

Remember many race boats are sailing a lot faster than cruising boats of a similar size. Getting into double digit speeds is very common, so the keel or rudder touching something at speed is going to cause problems.

 

[awol]

This does not apply to yacht keels which in general do not fail because of the stress in normal use as they are both (if they are built to the standard) way over specced and rarely ever exposed to the sort of stresses in normal use that might result in undetected failure.

"Normal use" - if only there was a defined and measurable limit. For some "normal use" includes drying harbours and bouncing on the keel in the critical settling phase - something I'm not convinced all fin keeled yachts are designed for. Dehler had a promotional video of one of their vessels running into rocks at speed, presumably without structural damage - is this "normal use"? - in bogha infested waters such allisions are not unknown!

 

[Concerto]

Dehler had a promotional video of one of their vessels running into rocks at speed, presumably without structural damage - is this "normal use"? - in bogha infested waters such allisions are not unknown!

That Dehler video is about 30 years old and yacht design has changed radically since then. Design has entered the hull design to engineer it to be as light as possible yet try to be as stiff to take structural loads in ordinary sailing. Read the article in my post above to realise how weak some hulls have become, but remember this article is 14 years old and many designers and builders have not improved the structural strength of newer boats over the past decade.

 

[The Q]

Luckily it doesn't apply to broads boats we probably touch bottom once a week.


If you don't touch bottom, you're wasting some of the river..

 

[flaming]

this article is 14 years old and many designers and builders have not improved the structural strength of newer boats over the past decade.

To be absolutely clear, that isn't an article on a published website by a named author, it's an anonymous Sailing Anarchy forum post. To be read with exactly the same caveats as you would read posts on these forums.

I think the assumption that standards have not improved is perhaps a little wide of the mark. In a lot of ways there has been a big change in the race boat industry over the last 15 years. For a start the vast majority of the major yards, Benetau, Elan, Bavaria etc have retreated from the cruiser racer market. Beneteau have only just re-entered through their acquisition of seascape. This has meant that the market for new race boats, or cruiser racers such as they actually exist, is now principally done by smaller, low volume manufacturers. J are actually probably the largest player in the game now in terms of hulls sold per year. In general, these smaller yards are putting more effort into their boats, and the owners tend to be much more hands on with design and production. There have been countless articles about mr JPK for example, and his background in material science.

You're also right that form stability has been becoming more important, and this has some interesting side effects on keel design. Most notably the fact that about the time that post was being written, the idea IRC design was considered to be relatively narrow and have a deep, thin, fin keel with a stonking great bulb hanging off the bottom. This obviously makes the engineering of the keel more complicated and the likelihood of damage in the event of a grounding considerably higher.
By contrast the most recent designs from the likes of JPK, Sunfast, J etc all feature slab keels with much larger contact areas and overall less weight. Sure there are still designs with big bulbs hanging off skinny foils, but these tend to be at the highest performance, highest budget end of the spectrum. Which is not, really, where the problems are in terms of the ticking timebomb of keel damage that this measure is trying to get on top of. That is really in the older boats being raced hard by keen sailors but without big budgets.
For example the J120 in last year's fastnet... Older boat, sailed by keen amateurs.
Fastnet yacht taking in water

 

[Concerto]

To be absolutely clear, that isn't an article on a published website by a named author, it's an anonymous Sailing Anarchy forum post. To be read with exactly the same caveats as you would read posts on these forums.

I think the assumption that standards have not improved is perhaps a little wide of the mark. In a lot of ways there has been a big change in the race boat industry over the last 15 years. For a start the vast majority of the major yards, Benetau, Elan, Bavaria etc have retreated from the cruiser racer market. Beneteau have only just re-entered through their acquisition of seascape. This has meant that the market for new race boats, or cruiser racers such as they actually exist, is now principally done by smaller, low volume manufacturers. J are actually probably the largest player in the game now in terms of hulls sold per year. In general, these smaller yards are putting more effort into their boats, and the owners tend to be much more hands on with design and production. There have been countless articles about mr JPK for example, and his background in material science.

You're also right that form stability has been becoming more important, and this has some interesting side effects on keel design. Most notably the fact that about the time that post was being written, the idea IRC design was considered to be relatively narrow and have a deep, thin, fin keel with a stonking great bulb hanging off the bottom. This obviously makes the engineering of the keel more complicated and the likelihood of damage in the event of a grounding considerably higher.
By contrast the most recent designs from the likes of JPK, Sunfast, J etc all feature slab keels with much larger contact areas and overall less weight. Sure there are still designs with big bulbs hanging off skinny foils, but these tend to be at the highest performance, highest budget end of the spectrum. Which is not, really, where the problems are in terms of the ticking timebomb of keel damage that this measure is trying to get on top of. That is really in the older boats being raced hard by keen sailors but without big budgets.
For example the J120 in last year's fastnet... Older boat, sailed by keen amateurs.
Fastnet yacht taking in water

It is funny how the article I linked to on Sailing Anarchy is a post in the thread you have linked to about a Fastnet yacht taking in water. The photos of keel damage look so similar, definitely suggesting a weakness in the J109 and J120 classes. The J120 was introduced in 1995 and the J109 in 1999, so are quite old boats now. They will have been subjected to a lot of high stresses since built and there may also be long term problems with stressed keel stubs as the bolt on keel fixes to the stub, not the hull directly.

More information may be discovered how the glassfibre performs over the long term. As new resins have been introduced, along with vacuum bagging, new information about the long term stability of the glassfibre will continually be learnt. What may have been adequate at the time of build, may overtime become weaker due to the stress loadings. Some early glassfibre boats have been known to suffer from laminate delamination over time due to poor layup practices including excess resin which becomes brittle.

It may become a lot more technical examination than just a visual look and hammer test to check for delamination.