Fishy anchoring situation

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by mr-canada

.....

I've been doing my digging. From what I can tell so far is the following:
- Mariners must do their best to assist a vessel in distress if it will not put them in any danger
- Anchoring is part of the Right to Navigation, provided that ........

No one has a duty to assist your vessel that you left unattended at anchor except you. There is a moral and legal duty to assist seafarer​s who are in danger. Its about people not vessels.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by mr-canada

I've been doing my digging. From what I can tell so far is the following:
- Mariners must do their best to assist a vessel in distress if it will not put them in any danger
- Anchoring is part of the Right to Navigation, provided that it is for a reasonable time and on reasonable grounds, that the boat can move under it's own power under motor or sail

As in your BC Court of Appeals citing with approval of this ruling?
There is a common law right to navigation which includes the incidental right to anchor… This is not a right to anchor or moor permanently but it must be exercised reasonably as determined by the circumstances at the time of anchoring such as the weather, loading or unloading of the vessel, or the need for repairs to the vessel. The right to anchor therefore contemplates the right to do so for a reasonable time, for a reasonable purpose.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Your example of the tenacious holding power of a Fortress' is not relevant to this discussion. This is a case where even high holding is necessarily required. It just needs to hold the boat in reversing conditions reliably with no one there to watch it. Danforth style anchors are not held in high regard as to their ability to consistently reset when tidal currents and/or winds cause a reversing of pull. I have no issue with attended anchoring in these conditions with a single Danforth style anchor. For unattended you need a Bahaimian Moor. This was a very common way to anchor a boat in the days of using Danforth as primary anchors. And yes, other anchor styles do reset more reliably than a Fortress. They just won't have the other advantages of a Fortress' like light weight and high holding to weight/size power.

Actually, I believe that the examples I used with the USCG 87-ft patrol boat and the boaters who have relied on a Fortress to save their boats during hurricane conditions were very relevant, since in both examples reversing pull directions occurred.

Here's another example from the Sailing Foundation tests in 1995 when they conducted straight, 90°, and 180° pull tests and the Fortress FX-37 held to the 4,000+ pound maximum in ALL THREE DIRECTIONS.



Afterwards they made this comment in their test report summary:

"The Fortress set so deep that the rode had to be hauled in to 1:1 and significant power applied to rode by the 83,000-pound tug to break it free. It is doubtful that a sailboat would have windlass power to break it out. Perhaps large primary winches or a rising tide might be adequate. However, it is also doubtful that a sailboat could have set the anchor that deep in less than a full hurricane."


I certainly agree with you regarding the value of a Bahamian mooring since again, no anchor will dependably reset 100% of the time during wind and tidal shifts.

Our late company founder was a very adventurous, lifelong boater who once took a boat 1,000 miles up the Amazon, he crossed the Atlantic several times, and he completed a circumnavigation in his early 70s.

He stated that "once an anchor breaks free from a sea bottom, it is oftentimes no longer an anchor....it's a massive ball with no remaining sharp edges in which to re-penetrate into the sea bottom.....and in this circumstance, re-setting is not possible."

This is one of the reasons why we note in our "Safe Anchoring Guide" literature that if you are expecting a wind or tidal shift (particularly in storm conditions), then its a good idea to set two anchors for maximum safety.

[valhalla360]

The park employee not only has no requirement to go out and do anything to your boat, he may not be allowed to do anything. If he adjusts your anchor and then the boat winds up on the rocks he and/or the park may be held responsible. There is a good chance employee rules prohibit it. The fact that you are 4hrs away and missing work is irrelevant. If you want someone to be responsible for the boat, pay someone to take care of it.

Being a govt agency, they may have put out a contract and someone figured they could tow the boat a long way and charge a lot of money for that long tow. Also if you couldn't get into the local marina, they probably don't have room for derelict boats. Plus if it sounds like an expensive tow, most people will get down there and move the boat. If it was blocking access to a mooring, they probably could have had it towed immediately.

Yes, anchors may hold for a few days and then on the turn of a tide can come free. So far I see no reason to think people are out to get you. All the talk about you selected the area for it's "known" holding is nice but doesn't prove anything.

[Stu Jackson]

For a few weeks the tides were pretty mellow. Then came a new moon. BAM, the tidal differences went from a 3 foot difference to a 3 meter difference and on Friday night there was over a 12 foot difference here on the island.

Those "changes" may have contributed to your "how come it didn't happen when I was on the boat?" issue/confusion.

[Delancey]

"My guess is someone was zipping out in a boat early in the morning knowing I was gone, pulled up the anchor and then just dropped it in a heap, likely to make me think that the holding was bad so I'd no longer be in their view"

If I have the location right, on google maps it looks like there are almost a dozen houses with a view of the anchorage at Plumpers Cove. Are you suggesting a conspiracy? Just to make you think the holding was bad? Really?

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Here's another example from the Sailing Foundation tests in 1995 when they conducted straight, 90°, and 180° pull tests and the Fortress FX-37

Brian, when doubts about the resetting ability of Fortress anchors are raised in forum posts ,you have frequently quoted this particular test as evidence that the Fortress anchor copes with a change in direction of pull. My understanding is that the Fortress anchor shank bent during the first veering done as part of this test. It is not unusual for anchors to bend in these rather extreme tests, but the damage meant that only one veering test was conducted on the Fortress. On other anchors the veering test was repeated 5-8 times, which in my view is still not enough to test for a characteristic that may occur erratically.

Danforth/Fortress anchors frequently rotate in an acceptable manner, but in my opinion occasionally rotate very poorly in conditions where other anchors maintain a far better grip on the substrate as they swivel.

I don't think this single veer, that was part of the test shows anything useful. It would take many trials to establish statistically significant findings.

You can read the complete test here, but it was quite an old test that did not include any of the modern designs, so it is of limited value anyway:

http://www.ussailing.org/wp-content/...or%20study.pdf

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by Larry Florida

Why anchor in a place where some Canadian twat can hassle you, move on.

I gave up after reading about half of the original post and haven't bothered with the rest. Your answer is the best one. No need for firearms or hiding on the boat all night. Move the boat, be done with it.

[Fortress]

Noelex, I know that it is customary for you to dismiss any evidence which challenges and/or disproves your opinion of our product and others as well which you don't favor. I get it. When I see an anchoring thread with the performance of the Fortress being mentioned, I can almost set my watch to when you will chime in with your "wind shift fail" comments.

In this example, does the fact that the shank bent under such extreme loads (which none of the much heavier steel anchors were even close to achieving), and so only one test was conducted, totally negate the findings?

Are you also familiar with the Practical Sailor Reset Tests, in which they noted under the headline "The Fortress reset best, simply swiveling and re-aligning itself" ?


Are the images that you post (and I don't recall a single one of a Fortress, only our smallest Guardian 2 lb model) in idyllic sand bottoms somehow a more indicative or scientific example of our product's potential performance?

Sorry, but I don't think so. I also don't think that anchors which are simply laying on a sea bottom tell you much about how they perform, since so little is known about how much of a load was applied to them during setting or by wind force from the boat, or the amount of scope being used, which are both obviously factors which can affect performance.


My views are primarily based on the comments and opinions from actual Fortress customers during the past 20 years, and not anecdotal comments or underwater images of other Danforth anchor-types on pristine sand bottoms, or extremely rare instances where a Fortress failed during a wind shift because it was undersized for the boat and anchoring conditions.

Regarding the new generation anchors not being included in the Sailing Foundation tests, do you have any performance data, whether in controlled or even in "real world" boating circumstances, where they held to 4,000 lbs of load while being pulled from multiple directions?

Please let me know when you do. I also know that you are a huge Mantus proponent and the owner of their monstrous 125 lb model, to which you unfairly compare the performance of other much smaller anchors with your images.


Right now I would be concerned with the weld cracking on the fluke of that anchor, as evidenced by the image on anchoring threads.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Actually, I believe that the examples I used with the USCG 87-ft patrol boat and the boaters who have relied on a Fortress to save their boats during hurricane conditions were very relevant, since in both examples reversing pull directions occurred.

Here's another example from the Sailing Foundation tests in 1995 when they conducted straight, 90°, and 180° pull tests and the Fortress FX-37 held to the 4,000+ pound maximum in ALL THREE DIRECTIONS.



Afterwards they made this comment in their test report summary:

"The Fortress set so deep that the rode had to be hauled in to 1:1 and significant power applied to rode by the 83,000-pound tug to break it free. It is doubtful that a sailboat would have windlass power to break it out. Perhaps large primary winches or a rising tide might be adequate. However, it is also doubtful that a sailboat could have set the anchor that deep in less than a full hurricane."


I certainly agree with you regarding the value of a Bahamian mooring since again, no anchor will dependably reset 100% of the time during wind and tidal shifts.

Our late company founder was a very adventurous, lifelong boater who once took a boat 1,000 miles up the Amazon, he crossed the Atlantic several times, and he completed a circumnavigation in his early 70s.

He stated that "once an anchor breaks free from a sea bottom, it is oftentimes no longer an anchor....it's a massive ball with no remaining sharp edges in which to re-penetrate into the sea bottom.....and in this circumstance, re-setting is not possible."

This is one of the reasons why we note in our "Safe Anchoring Guide" literature that if you are expecting a wind or tidal shift (particularly in storm conditions), then its a good idea to set two anchors for maximum safety.

You are presenting data that implies sure, no problem use the single anchor in an unattended anchoring situation with switching currents. Then you conclude with a warning to not do that, but to use two anchors.
I have seen Danforth style anchors with their rodes hungup on the slot between the flukes and the shaft after current changes. When this happens, all bets are off. I am a big fan of Fortress' anchors, just so you use them appropriately. The OP anchoring is not appropriate and is contradicted by your advice above.

[Fortress]

Paul,

Thanks for being a big fan of our product. My point was to show that the Fortress is not more likely to break free during reversing pull directions, even after it's been torture-tested under heavy loads, and after those circumstances, retrieval is likely to be the issue.

My advice had been consistent as well in stating that two anchors should be set for maximum safety if wind or tidal shifts are expected, and that advice applies to all anchors.

Since Fortress has consistently outperformed Danforth-style anchors in various pull tests around the world, is it not possible that the Fortress would outperform the Danforth-types in reversing currents as well?

Certainly the deeper-burying capability of the Fortress will minimize the possibility that the chain could ever get wrapped around the stock (narrow round rod) and foul the anchor.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Paul,

Thanks for being a big fan of our product. My point was to show that the Fortress is not more likely to break free during reversing pull directions, even after it's been torture-tested under heavy loads, and after those circumstances, retrieval is likely to be the issue.

My advice had been consistent as well in stating that two anchors should be set for maximum safety if wind or tidal shifts are expected, and that advice applies to all anchors.

Since Fortress has consistently outperformed Danforth-style anchors in various pull tests around the world, is it not possible that the Fortress would outperform the Danforth-types in reversing currents as well?

Certainly the deeper-burying capability of the Fortress will minimize the possibility that the chain could ever get wrapped around the stock (narrow round rod) and foul the anchor.

The tests you posted are not really relevant for my use. The point is not what the holding power is after a 180 reset. The issue is the possibility of a failure to reset. I do believe that my large Spade has a higher probability of resetting after a 180 turn than my large Fortress. The Spade does not have the opportunity to capture the rode when it is dragged over the anchor in a quick reversal. The Spade may take awhile to reset for a variety of reasons (like any anchor,), but it will grab if the water doesn't get too deep first. The Danforth style anchor will not reset if the chain or rode gets jammed into the fluke slot. Granted this is not a common occurrence, but it is a specific risk of this style anchor. My comments here were limited to the OP situation which is unattended anchoring, over multiple days, in an area of reversing tides. If the OP had a large Spade or Mantus style anchor I probably would have ignored the thread. Not that I think leaving your boat unattended at anchor for extended periods is a good thing or risk free.

Just did a count on my boat. I have two Spade, three Fortress and one small Danforth dinghy anchors.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Noelex, I know that it is customary for you to dismiss any evidence which challenges and/or disproves your opinion of our product and others as well which you don't favor.

Brian, you have posted this table several times on different forums to support the contention that a Fortress rotates well. If you really think the results of a single rotation are conclusive, at least point out this limitation so that others can judge for themselves. A link to the full test rather than just posting the tables would help make the true picture clearer to members, and show that bending of the Fortress prevented the test being conducted more than once.

I have seen Fortress anchors rotating underwater and my observations indicate the rotational performance is poor compared to many other designs. It concerns me that people are using these anchors in ways such as the OP has reported.

Fortress themselves seem to acknowledge this limitation in their literature. They are the only anchor manufacturer, as far as I am aware, that recommend that users set two anchors in conditions where there is a possibility of a significant change in direction of pull. Unfortunately, posts on this forum especially when they come from the manufacturer's representative, reduce the importance of this advice by asserting that Fortress anchors rotate as well as all other anchors.

Fortress anchors are fantastic in the right application. I own both a Fortress and Guardian anchor. But it is important for users to be aware of the limitations of this anchor design.

The OP of this thread is using a Fortress as a primary anchor and they are leaving the boat unattended for long periods in a situation where there are common reversals in the direction of pull. I think my comments are relevant and I make no apologies. It is unfortunate when an anchor manufacturer chooses to attack members voicing an alternative point of view rather than focussing on the real issue.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Paul L

The tests you posted are not really relevant for my use. The point is not what the holding power is after a 180 reset. The issue is the possibility of a failure to reset. I do believe that my large Spade has a higher probability of resetting after a 180 turn than my large Fortress. The Spade does not have the opportunity to capture the rode when it is dragged over the anchor in a quick reversal. The Spade may take awhile to reset for a variety of reasons (like any anchor,), but it will grab if the water doesn't get too deep first. The Danforth style anchor will not reset if the chain or rode gets jammed into the fluke slot. Granted this is not a common occurrence, but it is a specific risk of this style anchor. My comments here were limited to the OP situation which is unattended anchoring, over multiple days, in an area of reversing tides. If the OP had a large Spade or Mantus style anchor I probably would have ignored the thread. Not that I think leaving your boat unattended at anchor for extended periods is a good thing or risk free.

Just did a count on my boat. I have two Spade, three Fortress and one small Danforth dinghy anchors.

Paul, the Spade is a superb anchor and you certainly have an impressive arsenal of anchors!

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Brian, you have posted this table several times on different forums to support the contention that a Fortress rotates well. If you really think the results of a single rotation are conclusive, at least point out this limitation so that others can judge for themselves. A link to the full test rather than just posting the tables would help make the true picture clearer to members, and show that bending of the Fortress prevented the test being conducted more than once.

I have seen Fortress anchors rotating underwater and my observations indicate the rotational performance is poor compared to many other designs. It concerns me that people are using these anchors in ways such as the OP has reported.

Fortress themselves seem to acknowledge this limitation in their literature. They are the only anchor manufacturer, as far as I am aware, that recommend that users set two anchors in conditions where there is a possibility of a significant change in direction of pull. Unfortunately, posts on this forum especially when they come from the manufacturer's representative, reduce the importance of this advice by asserting that Fortress anchors rotate as well as all other anchors.

Fortress anchors are fantastic in the right application. I own both a Fortress and Guardian anchor. But it is important for users to be aware of the limitations of this anchor design.

The OP of this thread is using a Fortress as a primary anchor and they are leaving the boat unattended for long periods in a situation where there are common reversals in the direction of pull. I think my comments are relevant and I make no apologies. It is unfortunate when an anchor manufacturer chooses to attack members voicing an alternative point of view rather than focussing on the real issue.

Noelex, if we go back to what the OP wrote, he stated that the anchor held fine UNTIL he left the boat, after which he was immediately contacted and he found that to be very peculiar.

However, you disregarded this fact and immediately went into your "Fortress fail" diatribe, even though it was not clear that the anchor had actually failed.

And I will restate this fact which I have observed over the past several years: You dismiss and ignore evidence that runs contrary to your opinion.

In the case of the Sailing Foundation, you ignored the fact that this 20+ lb Fortress anchor held to 4,000 lbs in all three pull directions and an 80,000 lbs test boat had trouble breaking the anchor free, and instead you only focused on the shank bending and that it was one test.

If I follow your logic, then I guess we should just totally dismiss that impressive holding power result and not count it?


Additionally, your observations and opinions of anchor behavior are limited to pristine clear waters and largely sand bottoms.

Let me ask you: If any anchor does not turn as well as others during directional pull changes, but it still has a larger surface area that is buried into the sea bottom, and it still remains well-engaged into the bottom, then does rotating capability really matter?


Also, it fair to suggest that the Fortress' deeper-burying capability makes it better than other anchors during wind or tidal shifts in softer soils than in the hard sand you see, which in turn would change your general overall opinion of the Fortress' wind and tidal shift performance in those soils?


And finally, yes we are the only anchor manufacturer who suggests that two anchors should be used when a wind and tidal shift is expected. Could this possibly be due to the extensive real world and testing experience of our late founder, along with his deep and responsible concern for the maximum safety of boaters while anchoring?

[mayday12]

While in THIS CASE (hint hint) suggesting someone anchor using 2 anchors, where 99.9% of the people only use one, will just create a large fuster cluck - especially where we are talking about someone planning on leaving it unattended in a very popular anchorage, with reversing tides and wind affected.