Yacht Justice Sinks

[VO5]

Let's see...

(1) Force 7 is Moderate Gale and disregarding wind speed of between 25 to 28 Knots, the wave height in open water is usually 13 1/2 feet and in shallow water the probable wave height could be 19 feet upwards.

(2) Sailing at night in complete darkness.

(3) At LW.

(4) "Just enough water to clear the bottom" - but what about the wave sequences and heights ?

(5) An alternative route available in open water but slightly longer.

(6) The channel very narrow.

I am not making any further comment, just that these facts alone stand out.

It is just a great shame that a boat is lost, but at least the skipper and crew were rescued, so thats a plus.

 

[Pye_End]

According to the Sheerness website the wind was steady at 30mph - upper end of a F6. No gusts.

I have been down that channel in similar conditions, and consderably worse in a 26ft with no qualms about the decision to do it. In a 40ft the conditions would have been no problem at all. The waves are nothing like 13ft as the sands break them up. In fact on a strong NE that area can be virtually flat. Even when you pop out the end it is not too bad on that tack.

What did him was the depth. With full main on that boat he will have been going fast.

The decision to sail was fine. His route was not.

 

[Pye_End]

So up goes all of our insurances - indirectly! Not having been there, but it really does sound like a bloody stupid plan - at low springs! Lea shore and F7 NE.............

Surely all insurance claims are accidents (unless fraudulent), and by definition unavoidable.

Not a really a lee shore - the wind was NE. Cracking (but cold) sail more like in a steady F6.

 

[Mrs Sea Mist II]

It would be interesting to know how the insurance claim goes.

 

[sailorman]

It would be interesting to know how the insurance claim goes.

Why, it was a simple cock-up.
if you crash your car & its your fault they pay.
as long as its not fraudulent no prob
whats your angle then

 

[Otter]

I have been down that channel in similar conditions, and consderably worse in a 26ft with no qualms about the decision to do it. In a 40ft the conditions would have been no problem at all. The waves are nothing like 13ft as the sands break them up. In fact on a strong NE that area can be virtually flat. Even when you pop out the end it is not too bad on that tack.

I hated the Gat at the end of that channel. Been through it numerous times in flat calm and blowing but always spooked me with that narrow little gap between the buoys, a sharp turn and naff all room for error at LW. Wife loved it, thought it was straightforward and simple

 

[Mrs Sea Mist II]

Why, it was a simple cock-up.
if you crash your car & its your fault they pay.
as long as its not fraudulent no prob
whats your angle then

I don't have an angle as such and I certainly have no knowledge of claims such as this. Just interested to know if they'll just pay up. Call me cynical I suppose.

 

[lw395]

I wasn't referring to the keel damage, what I found surprising was the huge hole in the side.

I'm not that surprised. It is after all a fairly racy boat. Sandwich construction is stiff in normal use, has a certain reserve of strength, but beyond a certain point it fails spectacularly. A single skin might have superficially fared better by being able to bend further before totally failing.

There is no escape from the fact that when in contact with both the sea and the ground, boats are fragile, light, fast ones generally more so.

I guess I was lucky that time I clipped one of the chines south of the Wight (Round the Island Race, I'd already been on the away-from-shore tack for several minutes...Doing about 7kts.), so I won't join the queue to criticise the skipper.

 

[Mrs Sea Mist II]

Taken from a description of what is generally covered by boat insurance:

Physical damage coverage generally pays for repairs to your boat that are
necessary as a result of damage caused by a wide range of perils. The best policies provide "all risk" coverage, which means that if the cause of loss is not specifically excluded, it is covered. Typical causes of loss that are covered include: weather-related perils such as wind, rain, hail, lightning and wave action; fire; loss or damage caused by theft or vandalism; and collisions with docks, submerged or floating objects or other boats.

Does this mean a 'cock up' is covered?

 

[sailorman]

Taken from a description of what is generally covered by boat insurance:

Physical damage coverage generally pays for repairs to your boat that are
necessary as a result of damage caused by a wide range of perils. The best policies provide "all risk" coverage, which means that if the cause of loss is not specifically excluded, it is covered. Typical causes of loss that are covered include: weather-related perils such as wind, rain, hail, lightning and wave action; fire; loss or damage caused by theft or vandalism; and collisions with docks, submerged or floating objects or other boats.

Does this mean a 'cock up' is covered?

Yes
the clue being "All Risk"

 

[Mrs Sea Mist II]

Yes
the clue being "All Risk"

Will it affect his no claims?

 

[Cantata]

I wasn't referring to the keel damage, what I found surprising was the huge hole in the side.

It spent several hours, on its side, pounding up and down on a breakwater.

 

[Cantata]

......I have been down that channel in similar conditions, and consderably worse in a 26ft with no qualms about the decision to do it. .....

I'd agree that I'd probably have done it at or near HW, but even then most certainly not in the dark thank you very much, and I don't really believe that you would either.
As you say, it was the depth wot got 'im. Not helped by the fact that the gutway is really narrow - imagine a corridor 200m long whose walls you cannot see, with one pair of buoys 2/3rds the way along it, all else in darkness, and you get the picture.
Assuming the MAIB do look at this, I'm a bit concerned that Trinity House might decide to take the buoys away altogether as they have hinted they might. That would render the gutway impassable in anything but very benign conditions IMHO, and we're all be using the Copperas Channel to the S of here instead. Unbuoyed but much wider. We have talked to TH about the two routes and they will, I hope, consult before making any drastic changes.

 

[Pye_End]

I'd agree that I'd probably have done it at or near HW, but even then most certainly not in the dark thank you very much, and I don't really believe that you would either.
As you say, it was the depth wot got 'im. Not helped by the fact that the gutway is really narrow - imagine a corridor 200m long whose walls you cannot see, with one pair of buoys 2/3rds the way along it, all else in darkness, and you get the picture.
Assuming the MAIB do look at this, I'm a bit concerned that Trinity House might decide to take the buoys away altogether as they have hinted they might. That would render the gutway impassable in anything but very benign conditions IMHO, and we're all be using the Copperas Channel to the S of here instead. Unbuoyed but much wider. We have talked to TH about the two routes and they will, I hope, consult before making any drastic changes.

I've done it many times down there in the dark and singlehanded, and several times in bad weather (ie in the dark and singlehanded and bad weather) and wouldn't have thought twice about it (apart from the temperature!). But then again I know that I can get over the bar at low water, so just tend to turn off the echo sounder when it looks a bit concerning!

Having said that, the first time I did it in the dark after they changed the lights to LED's I nearly went aground to the south. The wind was SSW area - moderate - so tried to stay to windward to avoid the sands themselves, but because of the brightness of the light went a bit too far. Was waiting till the gap opened up a bit between the lights before allowing the drift downwind. I find it very hard to get a feel for how far off you are with them as you can see them for miles. With the old marks you knew that as soon as you could pick them out you were reasonably close! Because of the wind I wasn't navigating very well (wasn't worried at the time as I thought I knew that area all too well!), and found about an inch under the keel when I wasn't expecting it. Not a problem now with a plotter, and it was one of those moments that convinces you of their use!

Did you get a look at the boat? Was there an exterior mounted chart plotter? Did he have paper charts - ie from the navigational information he was using how obvious was it that it was shallow there? My other question would be how tired were they?

My chart, which is not very detailed, shows pretty shallow depths as you come out of the Copperas Channel - as shallow as the current gat or worse. Maybe these have deepened with the flows tending to go round this side, or maybe my chart is not detailed enough. Don't suppose you have any recent detailed charts of this area - presumably they sounded the whole area when moving the marks?

 

[sailorman]

Will it affect his no claims?

possibly + his excess

 

[dratsea]

I've done it many times down there in the dark and singlehanded, and several times in bad weather (ie in the dark and singlehanded and bad weather) and wouldn't have thought twice about it (apart from the temperature!). But then again I know that I can get over the bar at low water, so just tend to turn off the echo sounder when it looks a bit concerning!

Having said that, the first time I did it in the dark after they changed the lights to LED's I nearly went aground to the south. The wind was SSW area - moderate - so tried to stay to windward to avoid the sands themselves, but because of the brightness of the light went a bit too far. Was waiting till the gap opened up a bit between the lights before allowing the drift downwind. I find it very hard to get a feel for how far off you are with them as you can see them for miles. With the old marks you knew that as soon as you could pick them out you were reasonably close! Because of the wind I wasn't navigating very well (wasn't worried at the time as I thought I knew that area all too well!), and found about an inch under the keel when I wasn't expecting it. Not a problem now with a plotter, and it was one of those moments that convinces you of their use!

I am impressed. Done it 50+ times (edit: at low water) and only run aground 3 times, all three times in last 2 years (all in daylight and after the buoys were lit by night), but have always left the echo on, and it was always indicative and helpful to my steering. Not been, nor would wish to be, aground in NE7 on westerly course and given that my last passage was in August 2009 I cannot speak for present situation but on basis on the last 15 years, I would not advise anyone attempting this passage at LW springs to turn off the echo sounder.

 

[LONG_KEELER]

Having been the forumite on the spot, with as much local knowledge as anyone round here, met the skipper and crew and also one of the lifeboat crew, it's more interesting than usual to read all the forum comments!
Now then...
You are in Ramsgate, wanting to get to St.Kats. You want to get there for the 1300 HW locking-in. It's blowing hard from the NE and bitterly cold. You have one, very inexperienced crewman.
You could stay put, or plan a well-buoyed route in deep water through the Princes Channel, or you could use the (very) slightly shorter 'Overland Route' as it's known locally, inside the Margate Hook Sand, past Reculver, and on across the shallows to the Nore.
You have chosen the latter.
It's 0500 on Jan 31st, it's pitch dark, blowing 6-7 from the NE and you are flying (he at least had the full main up) westwards along the N.Kent coast in a very fast boat. You are approaching the shallowest section of the route. You are aiming for a very narrow swatchway which, as charted, at LW 'should' just about have enough water to get you through. And it's LW.
You approach the narrow gap between the buoys on a beam reach doing, what, at least 8 knots perhaps, probably more. In the darkness you lose the best line between the buoys (or perhaps you didn't even know what the best line is).
The yacht strikes and stops. You realise you are in big trouble. You call a Mayday.
The lifeboat arrives, plus a helicopter. It's still pitch dark. The wind is howling, the waves are crashing on the sands around you. Your beautiful boat, that you've only had for four weeks, is jarring on the sands with each passing wave. Somehow the lads on the AWLB get a line aboard and take the strain but suddenly you realise water is pouring into your boat. Seconds later, she capsizes, you are both in the sea. Later the lifeboatman described this moment to me as 'very dodgy indeed', with just a small hint of massive understatement.
The helo crew are onto the situation, and somehow they get you and your crew lifted off the stbd quarter of the capsized boat. Still pitch dark! Still freezing cold!
The lifeboat crew can't really do anything to save your boat without putting themselves and their own boat in grave danger in the shallows, so it's left to fend for itself.
You and your crew are alive and unhurt.
It's only a boat.

Excellent report Cantata.

I just wonder if they just put too much pressure on themselves to get to a certain place in a certain time.

It's something I'm sure we have all done but learned our lesson without having to pay a price like this.

 

[Pye_End]

I am impressed. Done it 50+ times (edit: at low water) and only run aground 3 times, all three times in last 2 years (all in daylight and after the buoys were lit by night), but have always left the echo on, and it was always indicative and helpful to my steering. Not been, nor would wish to be, aground in NE7 on westerly course and given that my last passage was in August 2009 I cannot speak for present situation but on basis on the last 15 years, I would not advise anyone attempting this passage at LW springs to turn off the echo sounder.

Yes ok but if you are the boat I am thinking of you have rather more under the water than me! LWS for me I still have nearly 2ft under the keel (or at least did last time I did it). Its only when there are significant waves that I have a problem, and then it is time to leave a bit later, or go round the outside. My comments were aimed at flatter water than the conditions you describe. Concerning the usefulness of the sounder to work out where to go - I've never managed to find deeper water straying from my course, so always presumed that there was no narrow channel to find, just sort of U shaped bottom, but would be quite interested it there is a 'best way'.

 

[Spyro]

It spent several hours, on its side, pounding up and down on a breakwater.

I know that but I'm comparing it to this boat which spent several weeks on its side in the middle of winter. The salvage team had to remove the keel to drag it off the rocks. They plugged the bolt holes and towed it back to harbour.

 

[Cantata]

I know that but I'm comparing it to this boat which spent several weeks on its side in the middle of winter. The salvage team had to remove the keel to drag it off the rocks. They plugged the bolt holes and towed it back to harbour.

This here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6i0udkBGFE shows how the damage was done, which might answer your doubts.