Cheeki Rafiki boss GUILTY!

[transmitterdan]

The trial wasn't held in Australia...

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by wjhutchings

No of course the boat didn't know it is inanimate, though it may have been a factor in the keel bolts failing.

I,as a Mariner of some 50 years experience, would opine if she had been operating within 60 miles of a safe haven as per her certification and her keel bolts failed, the chances of rescuing the crew would have been incalculably better, in fact the crew may have been able to bring her in themselves. No possible in the middle of the Atlantic.

The boat fell over, so "how would a crew bring her in themselves"?

The lack of coding makes no difference, it wasn't on charter, it was a delivery trip just like you employing someone to deliver your yacht.

Pete

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by wjhutchings

during the court case it was revealed that the operators knew that some of the keel bolts had broken before the vessel left the UK for Antigua

How did you learn about this please as I have my doubts.

Pete

[poiu]

Originally Posted by Factor

In criminal Trials in Australia a guilty or not guilty verdict requires a unanimous decision. There is provision for a majority vote but that is rare, normally no unanimity means mistrial

In the UK 10 out of 12 can convict, but if the jury foreman doesn't disclose the number or if it is less than 10 then a retrial is mandated.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Kudu

Easily replaced keel bolts would be wonderful. Most are cast in, so a major expensive job on an old boat.

Could you please explain the keel bolt pocket design, and how many boat designs you know of with this feature? Is it an external recess in the keel, which is backfilled with an easily removeable material?

Interestingly, extreme racing ballasts are often bolted on too. You can remove the bulb from most Mini or Imoca boats. So the solution is neither old nor new, just one of many good options.

Casting the bolts in may be a US tradition. In Europe at times more expensive/skill requiring techniques were used. E.g. I know of older Oyster ballasts that have bolts screwed in.

I think most of the cheapo Scandinavian designs from the 60'ies and 70'ies who had slabs had this pocket design. IF's, Folkboats, old HR, OE, Amigo, Allegro, Laurins, Collin Archers, Helmsmans, Vagabonds, storfidras, to name a few.

Actually, visiting Collin Archers home and boatyard in Norway we discovered his original ballast molds were designed for the same technique. It felt good and reassuring.

When applied to lead (Scandinavian ballast were typically cast iron) the lead must be of the hardened type. I have discussed this with a friend who is a boat designer.

Looking from the outside, one can see the recess where the nut and washer are situated - it is filled with epoxy filler. We normally let this area stand out a bit to avoid looking for it if at any point you want to remove the filler and check the washer and the nut.

The bolts can be then retrieved from the top (some brute force required to break the bolt/epoxy bond) and inspected, also in the water.

This technology would not work in a First but hey my boat was designed in '67. Today with computers, scanners, carbon and lead one can build any imaginable wonder, also with inspect'able / replace'able bolts.

A long drift and apologies for that. The lives were not lost because that keel was bad. The lives were lost because someone knew the bolts required renewal and even so he allowed the boat, with broken bolts, to go. A money-driven mind is not what you want when safety is a concern.

I can send you a picture next time from the boatyard (August, probably).

Regards,
b.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Pete7

How did you learn about this please as I have my doubts.

Pete

It was on a short BBC news flash. They said that the only conviction was on the lesser charge due to inability of jury to reach unanimous decision on the more serious charges. So the court accepted the guilty finding on the charge that did not require unanimous vote. You may find the details using Google. I have not the bandwidth now to do the search.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by Pete7

The boat fell over, so "how would a crew bring her in themselves"?

The lack of coding makes no difference, it wasn't on charter, it was a delivery trip just like you employing someone to deliver your yacht.

Pete

When the boat started taking on water and they could not find the source.
They would have had less than 60 miles to sail to get to a safe haven instead of 500 700 or 1000 or the distance to the Azores.

It was not a private owner hiring a delivery skipper. Capt and crew.

It was a Sailing School and Charter company who got 2 of its employees to deliver the boat with 2 customers.

Result 4 dead company and owner of company. Guilty.

In any event as a boat owner. or anyone who hires a crew to deliver a boat.
You have a responsibility to ensure the boat is safe and up to the voyage.

If your delivery crew die because your boat breaks up. It your responsibility. Or at least it should be.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

It was on a short BBC news flash. They said that the only conviction was on the lesser charge due to inability of jury to reach unanimous decision on the more serious charges. So the court accepted the guilty finding on the charge that did not require unanimous vote. You may find the details using Google. I have not the bandwidth now to do the search.

No, the prosecutor said that the keel bolts had been broken for sometime, before the yacht left the UK.

Cheeki Rafiki yacht deaths: Douglas Innes 'a cost-cutting owner' - BBC News

That is different from the operators knowing that some of the keel bolts had broken before the vessel left the UK for Antigua.

[hamburking]

Originally Posted by wjhutchings

...during the court case it was revealed that the operators knew that some of the keel bolts had broken before the vessel left the UK for Antigua

As soon as one bolt is broken, the other remaining bolts take up the additional stress, greatly increasing their likelihood of failing as well. As soon as 2 or 3 are gone, the rest are sure to follow.

If they were aware of even a single broken keelbolt, then they are responsible for the consequences, in this instance...death.

Would ANYONE HERE go to sea with a broken keelbolt? I don't think so. Its not like you only need one and the rest are spares...you need them ALL.

[muttnik]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I really don't think the boat knew it was out of the permitted area or that the certification expired. Doubt that is a factor in the keel falling off.

The issue is not whether being out of the area for which it was coded influenced the keel falling off but whether provision of equipment mandated for commercial operation in the area the boat was in would have resulted in a less tragic outcome. The MAIB report mentions, for example the cat 0 requirement for life rafts being stowed on deck with hydrostatic release. The report also makes reference to the cat 0 requirement for hydrostatic releases on the epirb (cheeki rafiki's was manual and wasn't deployed) although notes that as Cheeki rafiki had fewer than 16 people on board this might not have applied.

[GTom]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Yet many will argue that this boat and others similarly designed are just fine for trans-ocean passages.

I understand the nuance about not using the boat in a manner consistent with its limitations. But still the design of the keel and the way that attachment is hidden from view is a flaw. Even 60 miles off shore it will still be a problem. Heck, if that boat lost its keel in 20+ meter deep water 1kM from shore several crew could have died. When the keel falls off the boat flips mast down in a second or three. There will be no time to deploy a raft or send a mayday.

But it didn't sink in seconds, not even days: Cheeki Rafiki yacht: First picture of 'missing boat' as Ben Fogle backs campaign to restart search - Mirror Online

Mayday is of course out of question, the only chance is an EPIRB.

I wonder what was the case with the PLB-s, why did they got separated from their owners??

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by GTom

But it didn't sink in seconds, not even days: Cheeki Rafiki yacht: First picture of 'missing boat' as Ben Fogle backs campaign to restart search - Mirror Online



Mayday is of course out of question, the only chance is an EPIRB.



I wonder what was the case with the PLB-s, why did they got separated from their owners??

Probably they did not get separated from their owners. The only place crew could go was into the water. No chance to sit on top of that hull in the conditions they were in. Sadly it seems the most likely case is 2 crew wound up with life jackets on but overboard. The water was so cold that rescue from the water was not possible.

[a64pilot]

I'm afraid in those conditions even an EPIRB would only have given the families something to bury, maybe.
You don't last long in cold water, maybe with a survival suit

[transmitterdan]

I agree. The crew had little chance once the keel ripped out. Thus the importance on that aspect of the design. We have hashed this in numerous threads. It's a really sad outcome that could have been prevented.

[GTom]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Probably they did not get separated from their owners. The only place crew could go was into the water. No chance to sit on top of that hull in the conditions they were in. Sadly it seems the most likely case is 2 crew wound up with life jackets on but overboard. The water was so cold that rescue from the water was not possible.

Taking water from an unknown source, I'd even sleep in a drysuit. But I know, it's easy to be smart afterwards

Btw, the story of Tony Bullimore showed, a keel-loss is not a hopeless situation even in cold water. True, he could use the capsized hull, whereas the hull of the Rafiki was as good as useless.

I also wonder where and how was the liferaft attached to the boat?