What happens when your mast hits an opening bridge

[GILow]

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

Ever play with a pile of coathangers? .

It's tragic when parents can't afford Lego for their children.

[a64pilot]

I don't think I can remember a time I disagreed with Uncivilized, but here goes.
First it's a bad idea to hit a bridge, period and I cannot imagine an instance where you can chose to hit it sideways and not head on, but can't not hit it.
However I believe that depending on how high the bridge was that if you hit it sideways, a mono may just heel over and the mast bang every girder as it went through, but the loads may be less cause the boat could heel over, straight on she can just squat, and real soon the loads are going to get real high cause she can only squat a little where she can heel quite a lot.
Pure silly discussion, sort of like is it better if Mike Tyson hits you in the face or the abdomen, either way it's gonna be bad.
Oh and isn't the rig stronger and meant to take side loads? Not many loads from straight ahead when under sail? I would assume the rig is weakest taking a load from straight ahead?

[Cadence]

Meaning nothing derogatory, after going back to the OP having to hire a captain, good or bad to get down a small section of the ditch. They are in no way ready for doing a circumnavigation.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I don't think I can remember a time I disagreed with Uncivilized, but here goes.
First it's a bad idea to hit a bridge, period and I cannot imagine an instance where you can chose to hit it sideways and not head on, but can't not hit it.
However I believe that depending on how high the bridge was that if you hit it sideways, a mono may just heel over and the mast bang every girder as it went through, but the loads may be less cause the boat could heel over, straight on she can just squat, and real soon the loads are going to get real high cause she can only squat a little where she can heel quite a lot.
Pure silly discussion, sort of like is it better if Mike Tyson hits you in the face or the abdomen, either way it's gonna be bad.
Oh and isn't the rig stronger and meant to take side loads? Not many loads from straight ahead when under sail? I would assume the rig is weakest taking a load from straight ahead?

No rigs are typically far stronger for-aft than they are side to side, but you don't want strength here, because no rig isn't stronger than the bridge it is going to hit, if you are relying on strength alone you need your rig to break the bridge, before it breaks and I just don't see that ever happening.

What you want is the ability to disparate energy, or flex off, or just move out of the way, so a side strike while on the masts 'weak' axis is more likely to survive because a monohull, or even a cat can heel to dissipate some of the force.

Frankly I think 999/1000 if you hit a bridge you are going to buy a new mast anyway so I don't think it I should a distinction with a difference, but technically it might help.

[Hudson Force]

I have a friend with a Hunter 30 that hit the Jacksonville Main Street Bridge about ten years ago when he failed to realize that he did not have adequate clearance. His experience only required a replacement of the top of his roller furling system, anchor light and radio antennae. He was not first aware that he had struck the bridge. His first concern was wondering why water was flooding onto the aft of his cockpit!

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by SV DestinyAscen

Not sure why you guys are giving boatman a hard time he's just telling it as it is as part of industry custom andpractice .

You can't compare across industries andjurisdictions.

As a reminder of how insurance works, you distribute the risk pool across as many as possible and calculate the risk and expected payout + profit margin. Delivery business by its nature is difficult to assess the risk because there's question re boat, experience of crew, weather and few "participants" - sure you can get a policy written up if you are willing to pay for it, but how many owners do?

Funny how the anti-regulation freedom types are the ones dissing what is essentially a small tradesman when it is suddenly their boat loss being imagined. Ha.

Mr. Destiny,

Over the past 3-4 months I've only responded to posts made by your friend one time, that being post #84 on this thread. The moderators recommended that I ignore his constant trolling of my posts, claiming he'd eventually tire and go away.

Maybe if some of the freelance yacht delivery persons would purchase some personal liability insurance, their business would be a little more successful? It certainly wouldn't hurt. IMHO

[SV DestinyAscen]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Mr. Destiny,

Over the past 3-4 months I've only responded to posts made by your friend one time, that being post #84 on this thread. The moderators recommended that I ignore his constant trolling of my posts, claiming he'd eventually tire and go away.

Maybe if some of the freelance yacht delivery persons would purchase some personal liability insurance, maybe their business would be a little more successful? It certainly wouldn't hurt. IMHO

We aren't friends and I don't know your back story or his. My point was chiefly that the industry custom is one where the delivery captain does not maintain personal liability insurance because 1) it isn't really a insurable pool and 2) lack of legislative or regulatory action at multiple levels and 3) you guys were giving him a hard time for how the world is.

As I said in this thread, I agree with you that the captain is at fault. I think he should be liable from whatever personal assets he has. However at the same time I don't expect him to have additional insurance beyond what the owners had.

Im sure there could be comparative advantage to someone able to demonstrate bond in excess of five million dollars and personal liability insurance. They exist in terrestrial trades.

But good luck finding that norm in the nautical industry. In most cases and history, it's the profession that's being victimized by boat owners.

[darylat8750]

If delivery skippers are depending on the protection afforded by being named insured on the owner policy I suggest reading the policy carefully. On many airplane policies a named pilot would be covered for instruction given but not for a delivery.

[J Clark H356]

About 30 years ago, I was in an LLC with 4 other guys and we had a plane together. Two of the LLC members had no pilot's license and had to hire a pilot to fly them. We had their pilot listed as a named insured. He did a stupid thing like this guy who hit the bridge and ran our plane out of fuel, crashed and totaled the plane. He was clearly negligent in that he ran out of fuel. That is a no no in the flying business. He was an ex Air Force F4 pilot with about 12,000 hours - very well qualified, but he made a big mistake. We got paid for our plane and then our insurance company went after him and won a judgement. He lost all his assets and had to declare bankruptcy.

There are similarities here, so you delivery captains should be careful when you are listed on the Owner's policy. The Owner's policy is to protect the Owner, not you.

[JPA Cate]

There are unknown numbers of potential cruisers out there in internet land. Let this be a caution to you. A "dream" is not enough. It is not sacred and free of violation. It is merely a fantasy.

Do pay attention to those who have written that you need to gain experience. Lessons are *okay*, and may be a good beginning, but, if you want to go offshore, you really will have more fun and enjoyment if you build up to it, not just dash for it.

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, tatomaceda.

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I don't think I can remember a time I disagreed with Uncivilized, but here goes.
First it's a bad idea to hit a bridge, period and I cannot imagine an instance where you can chose to hit it sideways and not head on, but can't not hit it.
However I believe that depending on how high the bridge was that if you hit it sideways, a mono may just heel over and the mast bang every girder as it went through, but the loads may be less cause the boat could heel over, straight on she can just squat, and real soon the loads are going to get real high cause she can only squat a little where she can heel quite a lot.
Pure silly discussion, sort of like is it better if Mike Tyson hits you in the face or the abdomen, either way it's gonna be bad.
Oh and isn't the rig stronger and meant to take side loads? Not many loads from straight ahead when under sail? I would assume the rig is weakest taking a load from straight ahead?

Ah... It doesn't work that way. For the sake of the exercise, use your preferred search engine on the term "Boats hitting bridges" and, when the page opens, click on the images option. You'll see what's so... It's not nice.

[a64pilot]

I still have to think from a logical perspective that a rig is designed for side loads.
Only fore or aft loads I can think of is when sailing down wind?
Then the average sloop for instance has only one forestay, but usually three side stays?
My Cutter of course has two forestays.
Like I said its only a interesting exercise, there is no time that I can see where you will have the choice as to how your going to hit a bridge.
I understand, Googling boat hits bridge is similar to Googling airplane crash, there will be very few good outcomes

[Davidhoy]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Meaning nothing derogatory, after going back to the OP having to hire a captain, good or bad to get down a small section of the ditch. They are in no way ready for doing a circumnavigation.

Why is everyone bashing this couple as not being ready for a circumnavigation?!? Clearly they know that, after all they hired a "captain" to help them get down the coast so they can learn as they go. A circumnavigation is not a singular event, it's an accumulation of lots of smaller voyages, each giving the opportunity to learn and be better prepared for the next. If you wait until you know everything, you'll be waiting forever. That's what armchair sailors do...

-David

[a64pilot]

Because at their obvious level stating they are off on a Circumnavigation is foolish, it is like a 16 yr old coming out of the DMV with their new license in hand and saying, "I'm off for the Indy 500 now"