Urgent help needed to recover abandoned yacht NW Barbados

[transmitterdan]

Weaves, et. al:

I am glad they are alive and well. I am sorry they lost their boat.

In the past there have been numerous threads about mass produced boats and bad outcomes worse than this one due to critical systems failures. If pointing these issues out is interpreted as bashing on the owner or crew then how can we discuss the lessons that should be learned?

Sailing across the ocean isn't an automatic gimme. One cannot just buy a recently built boat (or old boat for that matter) and set out with expectations to have zero problems. Maybe that is the lesson. But I would hope that this and other similar tragedies could be used to improve outcomes for future crossings.

There is much wisdom in this thread. I think those who are reasonably intelligent can find it. Likewise, it is easy enough to sift the chaff from the wheat. I fear that the relatively recent cultural dictum of "do not offend" is going to make things worse for those who follow us.

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, Patmar.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

What I don't get is the tendency to blame this poor father for what may or may not be a design or manufacturing flaw, as if picking a Hanse with a nice saloon makes him negligent somehow. Most normal people who buy boats aren't surveyors or anywhere close. The sea gods rolled their dice and he crapped out, but it's not his fault. Jeez. As someone earlier wrote, when it's man vs. sea, and the sea really tries, man will lose.

Aww..!!! Come on get real and stop seeing what you want to see to be argumentative rather than what I actually was saying..
The Manufacturers are downgrading safety with cheap glitz to maintain/maximise their profits.. back before the EU we had boats built to independent Lloyds Standards.. a rigorous examination of design and construction techniques one could measure quality by.. not all builders were prepared to meet the extra expense so you had two standards to live with but.. if you wanted a 'Blue Water' boat you bought Lloyds.. if you wanted a cheap coastal cruiser you went for an unrated boat.. and the attendant problems/risks down the line.
However with CE there's only the builder who goes 'Okay.. this'll do for all waters.. this only has one cabin so we'll tag it coastal'.. nothing to do with build quality at all. Looks great on the surface then go beneath the floor and there unprotected timber and ply.. main bulkheads barely tabbed in where one can insert one's finger between the edge and the hull.. once you peel back the lining hiding the gap..
There's no way the average customer can know all this.. even someone with experience will struggle.. short of tearing the boat apart.
Its become like Bankers/Corporate pay excuse's to justify £10 million/yr pay packets for their buddies and themselves.. "If you want the best one has to be prepared to pay for it.."
But who says they're the Best.. the guy at RBS who lost his savers money.. who is backed by the guy who blew it at HSBC.. it has become a farce.
Was it Keno's fault he bought a newish Hunter where the keel nearly fell off..
Was it Bluewaters fault he bought a newish Bene who's internal rudder support caved in in a not to heavy sea that it should have coped with..
I'm saying there is no longer any independent regulatory system to measure safety standards in yacht construction.. and self regulation will always put profits ahead of safety for its customers.
AWW bought a Marque praised for its 'Blue Water' capability.. but today it seems that this 'Standard' is set by the price tag on it rather than its true capability in real 'Blue Water' conditions.
Lets face it.. today it price that talks.. once upon a time if you ate at a good restaurant you praised the quality of food.. today folks brag about how much they paid for the meal.
Another garbled Boatie post..

[boatman61]

An Addendum to my last.. and the situation is not helped much when things like Aww's, Bluewaters, Keno's and others failures occur.. owners off the same boats rally round to Pooh Pooh any criticism because they scared of losing the value of their particular 'Flawed' Marque or Model.. instead of rallying together to lobby/threaten the manufacturer of the fatally flawed goods.
Say any boats tacky and watch the response.. even though the owners know full well its an overpriced cheaply built POS.

[bob-lauriem]

Originally Posted by weavis

Simply stated and beautifully said.

Our shaft. Not bad for a 46'. There are boats that are built well.

[Sandero]

Everyone is thrilled that the family is OK. And I suppose we would all like to see them get their boat back and repair it.... if possible and resume their trip.

But we also learned (perhaps again) how incredibly difficult and unlike they outcome wished for can or will happen. It sort of defies credulity to think that a 53' yacht still floating out in the ocean west of the Caribbean basin cannot be found. But some pretty wise people have shown readers how almost impossible this is.

And the discussion got even more interesting when the build details and defects emerged. Even found can it be and does it make sense to repair this boat and put in conditions again it apparently was not designed for? What WAS it designed for (apparently not a few weeks of heavy weather conditions offshore...

Also raised is what sort of due diligence does a sailor do or need in order to take his family with young children into some potential heavy weather? Lots (several) young families have ventured off much as this one did. This is not the first one that almost ended in disaster and loss of life.

One take away is that not every boat can be used for this sort of journey... no matter how many drogues and much safety gear is on board. Core failures are almost impossible to deal with in the conditions encountered. This looks like a nice boat and a decent home to knock about on such a journey. But now we know it was what you can't see but perhaps could have known in advance which would make this not a wise choice for this family.

I wonder what sort of liability the manufacturer might have? Can it be demonstrated that the design has critical flaws? As DH wrote.... we need to have 100% confidence that the "appendages" don't fall off or break under expected conditions. Anything less is unacceptable. Bit of course to even make a legal case, the vessel needs to be located and surveyed. And I don't see that happening.

I suppose also, that insurance was either way too expensive of couldn't be obtained because the insurance companies find the risk too high. And that, if true would also be telling.

Lot of lessons here... and lots to think about.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Rudders should simply not fail, and keels should simply not fall off, period. The design task should be to practically exclude such failures. These are components which we need to be able to rely on 100%.

Manufactures of mass produced boats often compromises seaworthiness and quality for design and raw performance whilst trying to keep the cost down. In a way their approach of producing boats resembles how a developing country would go about producing a cheap car to prop up the GDP. It's a great business model for producing mobile phones and stuff like that but not for producing sailboats imo. Maybe I'm a bit harsh this morning but I'm in a good mood the refit of my boat is going well.

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Making*keel bolts, through hulls and rudder stock/tangs from titanium rather than stainless would add less than a few hundred dollars to the price of a production boat and none would sink from*corrosionproblems!

That would go a long way I think but at the same time you gotta be careful because if you make the keel very stiff you also have to make sure that the hull around it is equally stiff, if not the keel – which will be rock solid – will not flex whereas the hull around it will which means that the keel - as the result of the flexing of the hull around it - could come off anyway. A boat is holistic and you need to have a balanced approach when building it.


Edit.
I'm happy that everyone is alright that is the most important thing, everything else can be replaced, the loss of life and family members not so much. Come to think of it, I should try to spend more time with friends and family whilst we're at home over the winter months doing the refit, yeah I'm working also but I gotta make time. You never know for how long your friends and loved ones will be around.

Edit2.
I remember this one, interesting approach. Looks like this solution wouldn't stress the hull. At least the keel wont fall off on impact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGWjmboWcYc

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

Manufactures of mass produced boats often compromises seaworthiness and quality for design and raw performance whilst trying to keep the cost down. In a way their approach of producing boats resembles how a developing country would go about producing a cheap car to prop up the GDP. It's a great business model for producing mobile phones and stuff like that but not for producing sailboats imo. Maybe I'm a bit harsh this morning but I'm in a good mood the refit of my boat is going well.



That would go a long way I think but at the same time you gotta be careful because if you make the keel very stiff you also have to make sure that the hull around it is equally stiff, if not the keel – which will be rock solid – will not flex whereas the hull around it will which means that the keel - as the result of the flexing of the hull around it - could come off anyway. A boat is holistic and you need to have a balanced approach when building it.


Edit.
I'm happy that everyone is alright that is the most important thing, everything else can be replaced, the loss of life and family members not so much. Come to think of it, I should try to spend more time with friends and family whilst we're at home over the winter months doing the refit, yeah I'm working also but I gotta make time. You never know for how long your friends and loved ones will be around.

Edit2.
I remember this one, interesting approach. Looks like this solution wouldn't stress the hull. At least the keel wont fall off on impact.

Now that's some head on test..
Wonder how they test side loading and shocks..

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I do not believe that it would add a great deal to the cost of even a cheap mass produced boat, to build a really bulletproof spade rudder.

It's not really rocket science. It just takes good structural design and adequate dimensions of the elements. Look at Dashew's spade rudders for example. Make in quantities, that would not be all that terribly expensive -- what an extra thousand euros on a 300 000 euro boat?

In my opinion it's a question of priorities and attention to safety-critical details, so reflecting very badly on Hanse and other builders who have built crappy rudders on CE Class "A" boats.


Rudders should simply not fail, and keels should simply not fall off, period. The design task should be to practically exclude such failures. These are components which we need to be able to rely on 100%.

You could sit the weight of 1/2 the boat on a Dashew spade rudder, they were built very stout. In many Benni's they attached the top bearing of the spade rudder to a plywood box that was glued to the hull in order to save the additional labor costs of aligning the bearings. Several of these have failed and sunk the boat. Isn't it up to the buyer to do his due diligence and buy a boat that has been built for the purposes he plans to use it for? You can blame the companies for producing boats to lower standards but what's wrong with putting responsibility square on the shoulders of the consumer?

[Yellowtulip]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

You could sit the weight of 1/2 the boat on a Dashew spade rudder, they were built very stout. In many Benni's they attached the top bearing of the spade rudder to a plywood box that was glued to the hull in order to save the additional labor costs of aligning the bearings. Several of these have failed and sunk the boat. Isn't it up to the buyer to do his due diligence and buy a boat that has been built for the purposes he plans to use it for? You can blame the companies for producing boats to lower standards but what's wrong with putting responsibility square on the shoulders of the consumer?

The problem is that in order to do the 'due diligence' you need honest and comprehensive information. This is often very difficult to get, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. Putting some onus on manufacturers therefore is not unreasonable. Most intelligent people will take the due diligence as far as they can anyway.

[Sandero]

Originally Posted by Yellowtulip

The problem is that in order to do the 'due diligence' you need honest and comprehensive information. This is often very difficult to get, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. Putting some onus on manufacturers therefore is not unreasonable. Most intelligent people will take the due diligence as far as they can anyway.

Unless the manufacturer has gone to considerable effort to make the hull and appendages *super strong* it's hard to imagine that they would feature their build techniques or approaches.

A lot of the design approaches are essentially one off or are unique to the builder based on their past practices or perhaps what they see other makers doing. I doubt there is much real word destructive testing of these assemblies and it's more "design by the numbers" and go with that. And then real world will produce things like dropped rubbers and keels which break off at some point.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Sandero

Everyone is thrilled that the family is OK. And I suppose we would all like to see them get their boat back and repair it.... if possible and resume their trip.

But we also learned (perhaps again) how incredibly difficult and unlike they outcome wished for can or will happen. It sort of defies credulity to think that a 53' yacht still floating out in the ocean west of the Caribbean basin cannot be found. But some pretty wise people have shown readers how almost impossible this is.

And the discussion got even more interesting when the build details and defects emerged. Even found can it be and does it make sense to repair this boat and put in conditions again it apparently was not designed for? What WAS it designed for (apparently not a few weeks of heavy weather conditions offshore...

Also raised is what sort of due diligence does a sailor do or need in order to take his family with young children into some potential heavy weather? Lots (several) young families have ventured off much as this one did. This is not the first one that almost ended in disaster and loss of life.

One take away is that not every boat can be used for this sort of journey... no matter how many drogues and much safety gear is on board. Core failures are almost impossible to deal with in the conditions encountered. This looks like a nice boat and a decent home to knock about on such a journey. But now we know it was what you can't see but perhaps could have known in advance which would make this not a wise choice for this family.

I wonder what sort of liability the manufacturer might have? Can it be demonstrated that the design has critical flaws? As DH wrote.... we need to have 100% confidence that the "appendages" don't fall off or break under expected conditions. Anything less is unacceptable. Bit of course to even make a legal case, the vessel needs to be located and surveyed. And I don't see that happening.

I suppose also, that insurance was either way too expensive of couldn't be obtained because the insurance companies find the risk too high. And that, if true would also be telling.

Lot of lessons here... and lots to think about.

I'm not terribly familiar with the full CE standards but I do know that they act as a buffer for any lawsuits. For example no matter what happens to the boat, if it is found to have been built to the minimum standards you won't be able to sue the company.
That's fairly typical for any manufacturer. When the keel fell off the Beneteau 40.7 they inspected other sister boats and found that several were also reporting liner problems in the keel area and they rewrote the standards and improved them. The keel loss on the Beneteau got a huge amount of press and these large companies know how to mitigate and reduce the effects of bad press and the sailing press who depend on advertising revenue from these large companies are very careful what they write. So unless there is a lot of negative feedback the companies and the CE standards will remain as is. Every time a keel or rudder has a failure the companies automatically blame the user. People on this site that own a similar brand also chime in about hitting the bottom earlier or it couldn't happen, Yada, Yada. We are all our own worst enemy....Boatie has it figured out.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Sandero

Unless the manufacturer has gone to considerable effort to make the hull and appendages *super strong* it's hard to imagine that they would feature their build techniques or approaches.

A lot of the design approaches are essentially one off or are unique to the builder based on their past practices or perhaps what they see other makers doing. I doubt there is much real word destructive testing of these assemblies and it's more "design by the numbers" and go with that. And then real world will produce things like dropped rubbers and keels which break off at some point.

Perhaps we can get back on to the subject of the thread. Are you in a postion to help them? If not and you want to discuss the merits of boat designs and builds I suggest you start another thread.

Peter

Moderator

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Perhaps we can get back on to the subject of the thread. Are you in a postion to help them? If not and you want to discuss the merits of boat designs and builds I suggest you start another thread.

Peter

Moderator

Sorry Pete..
Kinda figured we are helping in a way by keeping the thread bumped and up in the list.. keeping folks aware that the 'Watch out for DoveII' was still ongoing..
At the same time perhaps educating/alerting newbies as to potential pitfalls/weakness in the assorted choices of boats for ocean transits they may be considering.
But.. if I'm being a pain to both the Mod's and the unfortunate owner and his family... "Ahh'll Hush Mahh Mouff.."..

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Aww..!!! Come on get real and stop seeing what you want to see to be argumentative rather than what I actually was saying..
The Manufacturers are downgrading safety with cheap glitz to maintain/maximise their profits.. back before the EU we had boats built to independent Lloyds Standards.. a rigorous examination of design and construction techniques one could measure quality by.. not all builders were prepared to meet the extra expense so you had two standards to live with but.. if you wanted a 'Blue Water' boat you bought Lloyds.. if you wanted a cheap coastal cruiser you went for an unrated boat.. and the attendant problems/risks down the line.
However with CE there's only the builder who goes 'Okay.. this'll do for all waters.. this only has one cabin so we'll tag it coastal'.. nothing to do with build quality at all. Looks great on the surface then go beneath the floor and there unprotected timber and ply.. main bulkheads barely tabbed in where one can insert one's finger between the edge and the hull.. once you peel back the lining hiding the gap..
There's no way the average customer can know all this.. even someone with experience will struggle.. short of tearing the boat apart.
Its become like Bankers/Corporate pay excuse's to justify £10 million/yr pay packets for their buddies and themselves.. "If you want the best one has to be prepared to pay for it.."
But who says they're the Best.. the guy at RBS who lost his savers money.. who is backed by the guy who blew it at HSBC.. it has become a farce.
Was it Keno's fault he bought a newish Hunter where the keel nearly fell off..
Was it Bluewaters fault he bought a newish Bene who's internal rudder support caved in in a not to heavy sea that it should have coped with..
I'm saying there is no longer any independent regulatory system to measure safety standards in yacht construction.. and self regulation will always put profits ahead of safety for its customers.
AWW bought a Marque praised for its 'Blue Water' capability.. but today it seems that this 'Standard' is set by the price tag on it rather than its true capability in real 'Blue Water' conditions.
Lets face it.. today it price that talks.. once upon a time if you ate at a good restaurant you praised the quality of food.. today folks brag about how much they paid for the meal.
Another garbled Boatie post..

This all seems spot on to me. My point was that AWW shouldn't be branded as a negligent guy for what a manufacturer may or may not have have done. We seem to be in agreement that an ordinary or even extraordinary consumer couldn't dig in and identify potential flaws. So my point still stands that we shouldn't be harsh on the victim for not insisting on a skeg rudder, etc. Thank you for your quality response!