Sandee said..

julesmoto said..
.
The report is probably wrong but it said that they had to clamber back onto the hull of the boat to raise the alarm. If so no one was wearing a personal e-pirb. Maybe life jackets offshore should be mandated to include personal e-pirbs. Keel loss usually gives no time to grab the boats e- pirb on the way out if you are below.

I certainly have one in my life jacket but then I don't usually wear the life jacket. Mind you I don't sail a yacht with a ridiculous keel like that.

It is so easy nowadays to take some responsibility for our own safety with the availability and affordability of personal safety devices.
Personal epirbs (PLB's) are quite tiny and can be attached to an inflatable PFD, which can then be worn as a matter of course whenever we go sailing; a simple habit which doesn't affect comfort or impede mobility.
Everyone should really consider doing this, without needing legislation to enforce it.

I do agree that there should be standards that all new boat constructions should have to meet, and some means of policing boat-builders so they can't cheat on those standards. But. how to ensure that there are no unseen flaws in an older keel /hull is a much more difficult question.

Is a personal EPIRB really taking responsibility? All it will do is possibly ensure that someone else will have to come out to save us.

Personally I find an inflatable PFD does affect comfort dramatically. I hate the bloody things.

There are standards for offshore racing boats and there have been standards for many years.

It's not hard to check for flaws in an older hull/keel because it's easy to build them so that they don't fall off if you have proper root dimensions. How many J/35s, Defiance 30s, East Coast 31s, Contessa 32s, Cole 43s, S&S 34s, Folkboats and similar boats have dropped keels? I can't think of a single one. There was one Viking 30 that may have suffered keel damage and therefore sunk in a Cat 3 race off Fremantle in about 1987, after I think hitting an object. There may have been an Ericson 46 or two that had issues in the USA around 1976. I mention these to show that I'm not unaware of the sinkings that have occurred and that my memory of these things is pretty good - but until short-root chord keels became popular about 1988, with a sudden rash of keel losses (Planet X, Drum, etc) they just didn't fall off and even on old boats they aren't falling off.

This isn't an attack on modern boats, which are fantastic. It's an attack on one specific thing that we have allowed to kill over 30 sailors.

THREADPOLICE said..

Trek said..
Quoting road toll figures say 1968 - 2014, directly from Wikipedia ATSB - per head of population. Dramatically lower. Thanks to Government intervention and vehicle safety standards.

1968 there were 28.2 road accident fatalities per 100000 population
2014 there were 4.91 road accident fatalities per 100000 population

Source Australian Transport Safety Bureau Report 2018

Again, despite billions spent, MORE people died.

I thought 4.91 deaths per 100,000 was massively less than 28.2 deaths per 100,000 not MORE. Please explain!

Chris 249 said..

cammd said..

Chris 249 said..

Sandee said..

julesmoto said..
.
The report is probably wrong but it said that they had to clamber back onto the hull of the boat to raise the alarm. If so no one was wearing a personal e-pirb. Maybe life jackets offshore should be mandated to include personal e-pirbs. Keel loss usually gives no time to grab the boats e- pirb on the way out if you are below.

I certainly have one in my life jacket but then I don't usually wear the life jacket. Mind you I don't sail a yacht with a ridiculous keel like that.

It is so easy nowadays to take some responsibility for our own safety with the availability and affordability of personal safety devices.
Personal epirbs (PLB's) are quite tiny and can be attached to an inflatable PFD, which can then be worn as a matter of course whenever we go sailing; a simple habit which doesn't affect comfort or impede mobility.
Everyone should really consider doing this, without needing legislation to enforce it.

I do agree that there should be standards that all new boat constructions should have to meet, and some means of policing boat-builders so they can't cheat on those standards. But. how to ensure that there are no unseen flaws in an older keel /hull is a much more difficult question.

Is a personal EPIRB really taking responsibility? All it will do is possibly ensure that someone else will have to come out to save us.

Personally I find an inflatable PFD does affect comfort dramatically. I hate the bloody things.

There are standards for offshore racing boats and there have been standards for many years.

It's not hard to check for flaws in an older hull/keel because it's easy to build them so that they don't fall off if you have proper root dimensions. How many J/35s, Defiance 30s, East Coast 31s, Contessa 32s, Cole 43s, S&S 34s, Folkboats and similar boats have dropped keels? I can't think of a single one. There was one Viking 30 that may have suffered keel damage and therefore sunk in a Cat 3 race off Fremantle in about 1987, after I think hitting an object. There may have been an Ericson 46 or two that had issues in the USA around 1976. I mention these to show that I'm not unaware of the sinkings that have occurred and that my memory of these things is pretty good - but until short-root chord keels became popular about 1988, with a sudden rash of keel losses (Planet X, Drum, etc) they just didn't fall off and even on old boats they aren't falling off.

This isn't an attack on modern boats, which are fantastic. It's an attack on one specific thing that we have allowed to kill over 30 sailors.

I agree with everything you said except for the last sentence, a lot of modern boats are not fantastic, its not just one specific thing, however long the chord root of a keel is it has to be attached to a solid hull. Its not just high aspect keels on racing boats that are failing.

I think a lot of modern boats are designed and built poorly despite meeting CE standards, which I expect are heavily influenced by the big production builders who are beholden to the big charter companies who rent boats to people in the MED. Hence big boxy floating apartments, built to a price and designed to entertain at anchor and be durable enough to last the length of a depreciation schedule.

Fair point; yes, the modern lack of care for keel (and other) structures will effect boats with longer root chords too.

One weird thing is that even in the 1890s, they could build extreme high aspect bulb keels that didn't fall off;



Those boats didn't last too long but I've found no record of them losing a keel, despite the fact that they were light even by the standard of modern sportsboats and normally sailed in the Solent where bumping the bottom is common.

At least the front edge has a bit of a rake to it which would help and with that amount of free board I doubt the boat would ever have gone out in choppy conditions anyway.
Bet you anything it had a lot more internal bracing than they have these days.

Trek said..

THREADPOLICE said..

Trek said..
Quoting road toll figures say 1968 - 2014, directly from Wikipedia ATSB - per head of population. Dramatically lower. Thanks to Government intervention and vehicle safety standards.

1968 there were 28.2 road accident fatalities per 100000 population
2014 there were 4.91 road accident fatalities per 100000 population

Source Australian Transport Safety Bureau Report 2018

Again, despite billions spent, MORE people died.

I thought 4.91 deaths per 100,000 was massively less than 28.2 deaths per 100,000 not MORE. Please explain!

It doesn't get any simpler.
MORE people died on Australian roads in 2023 than in 2022.

THREADPOLICE said..

Trek said..

THREADPOLICE said..

Trek said..
Quoting road toll figures say 1968 - 2014, directly from Wikipedia ATSB - per head of population. Dramatically lower. Thanks to Government intervention and vehicle safety standards.

1968 there were 28.2 road accident fatalities per 100000 population
2014 there were 4.91 road accident fatalities per 100000 population

Source Australian Transport Safety Bureau Report 2018

Again, despite billions spent, MORE people died.

I thought 4.91 deaths per 100,000 was massively less than 28.2 deaths per 100,000 not MORE. Please explain!

It doesn't get any simpler.
MORE people died on Australian roads in 2023 than in 2022

Thanks for bold font its easier to read. Use all caps too. That would be even better.

2023 road toll compared to 2022 increased by 0.001%. You are right. 0.001% is more. As you know its calculated per 100000.

You didnt answer my question.

I want to know how 4.91 deaths per 100000 is more than 28.2 deaths per 100000 according to you.

Please answer.

By the way what kind of sailing boat do you own, you joined 2015 but your profile is blank.

Anyway getting back to something useful and on point it looks like this historical event twenty years ago might also be a keel loss situation although the hull design doesn't look like one of the usual suspects. Anyone know anything more?

D3 said..

THREADPOLICE said..

Trek said..

THREADPOLICE said..

Trek said..

THREADPOLICE said..

Trek said..
Quoting road toll figures say 1968 - 2014, directly from Wikipedia ATSB - per head of population. Dramatically lower. Thanks to Government intervention and vehicle safety standards.

1968 there were 28.2 road accident fatalities per 100000 population
2014 there were 4.91 road accident fatalities per 100000 population

Source Australian Transport Safety Bureau Report 2018

Again, despite billions spent, MORE people died.

I thought 4.91 deaths per 100,000 was massively less than 28.2 deaths per 100,000 not MORE. Please explain!

It doesn't get any simpler.
MORE people died on Australian roads in 2023 than in 2022

Thanks for bold font its easier to read. Use all caps too. That would be even better.

2023 road toll compared to 2022 increased by 0.001%. You are right. 0.001% is more. As you know its calculated per 100000.

You didnt answer my question.

I want to know how 4.91 deaths per 100000 is more than 28.2 deaths per 100000 according to you.

Please answer.

By the way what kind of sailing boat do you own, you joined 2015 but your profile is blank.

The government wants zero road fatalities. They can't achieve this despite billions of dollars having been spent. So the suggestion that has been made here about the government intervening on yacht keels is ridiculous.

"1,266 people tragically lost their lives on Australian roads in 2023, marking a 7.3 per cent increase from the 12-month period ending December 2022. The rate of annual road fatalities per 100,000 people currently stands at 4.8, which is a 4.8 per cent year-on-year increase."

Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economic

I don't care for the per 100,000 because my point was MORE died after MORE money was spent. However since you mentioned it, it would appear you are also wrong on that.

Well maybe if you'd just said that.

I did.

It's often argued that faster yachts are safer owing to the fact you can reach a sheltered harbour quicker. It appears that perhaps we've reached a crossroad in that old argument, with lighter faster compromising vessel integrity

cammd said..

really? I would think the accuracy of instant navigational information and the ability to access weather predictions and communicate anywhere anytime have provided huge improvements to safety.

That's before we talk about Epirbs, AIS, modern radar, low light cameras, modern sonar, modern anchors, life rafts, drogues etc etc. As a cruiser planning to go long range voyaging the safety must be 10 50 or 100 times better than 50 years ago.

That said safety will always come down to good seamanship no matter how good the equipment is, I guess a part of good seamanship is selecting the right equipment for the mission.

Much of what you've listed here just makes life easier with maybe a secondary effect being safety. Some things like EPIRBS and life rafts only keep you safe after the fact. I think D3 is saying that safety in yacht design hasn't improved greatly over the past 50 years and going by the comments on this thread most of you would have to agree with him.

As for the comparison with the car debate. There are more and more cars on the road every year. Cars are getting safer but more powerful and there re more and more inexperienced drivers on the road or drivers from other countries that are not use to our distances or conditions. So of course the number of deaths on the roads increase and thats why they measure these things on a standard metric such as per 1000. D3 and THETHREADPOLICE are talking different metrics but again, I think most of can see that.

Trek said..

By the way what kind of sailing boat do you own, you joined 2015 but your profile is blank.

It's not a prerequisite to own a sailing boat you participate in these forums. We have helped many newbies over the years. I was a member for 5 years before my first post, got shot down by a respected (and current) member and was another few years before I came back. So lets be tolerant of everyone...

Side by side for sale, one boat with a "Sea worthiness Certificate" stating the keel wont break if you hit something and the other boat saying "good luck" I know which one would sell the most.

Toph said..

Trek said..

By the way what kind of sailing boat do you own, you joined 2015 but your profile is blank.

It's not a prerequisite to own a sailing boat you participate in these forums.

It's ok. I do own a yacht & I've been ocean (coastal) racing for 21yrs so far.

shaggybaxter said..

cammd said..

Many people choose twin rudders positioned in the most vulnerable place on the boat as an example. I am not so sure sea worthiness out sells perceived performance or internal volume.

Agree with the sentiment, just not so sure about your example Cammd.
I'm not sure if dual rudders is such an issue. I had dual rudders and hit a whale, a tree and some ancillary floaty things, none of which even seriously abraded the rudders. Often, the windward rudder is mostly out of the water, even downwhill and being much stubbier (4' on a 40'er) than a single blade they dont add much to your underwater profile. Dual means you have some redundancy by default. Being a bt stubby, they are easy to drop out (even at sea) and often give you more options implementing emergency steering.

A better example toward safety is things like a watertight bulkhead between rudder post and the cabin and ease of recovery from rudder damage/ rigging emergency rudders.

Am with you on the point of your post though. I do agree a large percentage of humans will get suckered by bling at the expense of seaworthiness.

You do make goods points regarding watertight bulkheads and system redundancies etc being good examples of increased safety via design.

I thought my last post might be a little controversial, its all about compromise I guess. If you want big internal volume aft or planing downwind performance your going to need twin rudders. If you want a rudder protected by a keel or sked your going to have to live without the above volume or performance. What is suitable or not depends on what you want to do and where you want to go.

shaggybaxter said..

cammd said..

shaggybaxter said..

cammd said..

Many people choose twin rudders positioned in the most vulnerable place on the boat as an example. I am not so sure sea worthiness out sells perceived performance or internal volume.

Agree with the sentiment, just not so sure about your example Cammd.
I'm not sure if dual rudders is such an issue. I had dual rudders and hit a whale, a tree and some ancillary floaty things, none of which even seriously abraded the rudders. Often, the windward rudder is mostly out of the water, even downwhill and being much stubbier (4' on a 40'er) than a single blade they dont add much to your underwater profile. Dual means you have some redundancy by default. Being a bt stubby, they are easy to drop out (even at sea) and often give you more options implementing emergency steering.

A better example toward safety is things like a watertight bulkhead between rudder post and the cabin and ease of recovery from rudder damage/ rigging emergency rudders.

Am with you on the point of your post though. I do agree a large percentage of humans will get suckered by bling at the expense of seaworthiness.

I thought my last post might be a little controversial, its all about compromise I guess. You want big internal volume aft or planing downwind performance your going to need twin rudders. If you want a rudder protected by a keel or sked your going to have to live without the above volume or performance. What is suitable or not depends on what you want to do and where you want to go.

And good on you, controversy from differing opinions is awesome.
Sailing is a self regulating sport, I believe that debate and diverse opinions should be respected, listened to and valued.
Cheers!
SB

Hopefully it stays self regulating, the concern is to many cries for more regulation will result in increased cost.

I wanted to enter the M2O, my boat doesn't have the required paperwork and certification, the cost to obtain that compliance was probably equivalent to an annual cruising budget. Not worth it for one race so I withdrew. What is annoying is I know the boat is up to challenge in terms of seaworthiness (not speed), probably more so than many of the entrants but getting the paperwork to prove it is too expensive.

If that sort of compliance requirement comes through to non racers it will push many people out of sailing keel boats, with no added safety. Having a keel and rudder inspection is no guarantee you wont lose a keel or rudder.

cammd said..

shaggybaxter said..

cammd said..

shaggybaxter said..

cammd said..

Many people choose twin rudders positioned in the most vulnerable place on the boat as an example. I am not so sure sea worthiness out sells perceived performance or internal volume.

Agree with the sentiment, just not so sure about your example Cammd.
I'm not sure if dual rudders is such an issue. I had dual rudders and hit a whale, a tree and some ancillary floaty things, none of which even seriously abraded the rudders. Often, the windward rudder is mostly out of the water, even downwhill and being much stubbier (4' on a 40'er) than a single blade they dont add much to your underwater profile. Dual means you have some redundancy by default. Being a bt stubby, they are easy to drop out (even at sea) and often give you more options implementing emergency steering.

A better example toward safety is things like a watertight bulkhead between rudder post and the cabin and ease of recovery from rudder damage/ rigging emergency rudders.

Am with you on the point of your post though. I do agree a large percentage of humans will get suckered by bling at the expense of seaworthiness.

I thought my last post might be a little controversial, its all about compromise I guess. You want big internal volume aft or planing downwind performance your going to need twin rudders. If you want a rudder protected by a keel or sked your going to have to live without the above volume or performance. What is suitable or not depends on what you want to do and where you want to go.

And good on you, controversy from differing opinions is awesome.
Sailing is a self regulating sport, I believe that debate and diverse opinions should be respected, listened to and valued.
Cheers!
SB

Hopefully it stays self regulating, the concern is to many cries for more regulation will result in increased cost.

I wanted to enter the M2O, my boat doesn't have the required paperwork and certification, the cost to obtain that compliance was probably equivalent to an annual cruising budget. Not worth it for one race so I withdrew. What is annoying is I know the boat is up to challenge in terms of seaworthiness (not speed), probably more so than many of the entrants but getting the paperwork to prove it is too expensive.

If that sort of compliance requirement comes through to non racers it will push many people out of sailing keel boats, with no added safety. Having a keel and rudder inspection is no guarantee you wont lose a keel or rudder.

Interesting you say that your boat would be up to the task but didn't have the paperwork.

I attended a presentation at RBYC a few years ago by a gentleman who completed the M2O.

It could be argued that although he met all the paperwork requirements, his boat was not actually up to the task.

Despite all the necessary paperwork and inspections, his vessel still suffered unnoticed but significant damage just leaving Melbourne that necessitated a stop in Sydney for emergency haulout and repairs.
He didn't hit anything other than water, but his race could have ended before he even exited the Rip.

D3 said..

cammd said..

D3 said..

What we're saying is that compared to other modes of transport (road, rail, commercial maritime), sailing has had very little improvement in the way of vessel safety over the past 50 years.

really? I would think the accuracy of instant navigational information and the ability to access weather predictions and communicate anywhere anytime have provided huge improvements to safety.

That's before we talk about Epirbs, AIS, modern radar, low light cameras, modern sonar, modern anchors, life rafts, drogues etc etc. As a cruiser planning to go long range voyaging the safety must be 10 50 or 100 times better than 50 years ago.

That said safety will always come down to good seamanship no matter how good the equipment is, I guess a part of good seamanship is selecting the right equipment for the mission.

As mentioned above, a lot of that list is all about helping once a catastrophe had occurred.

Yacht sailing has indeed benefited from GMDSS, and other safety systems implemented in the commercial maritime space. I think of a lot of that stuff as equivalent to PPE in the Hazard reduction triangle, I think we also need to try harder to prevent catastrophe.

I wonder what the difference between CAT 1 for offshore racing a Domestic Commercial Vessel survey requirements are?

You can't really equate the two.
Cat 1 is better structurally, but Commercial survey has requirement to save the ship after incident like watertight bulkheads with pumping stations, fire suppression, engine vent closures etc
Stability is a more difficult question but gently Cat 1 has much higher AVS at 115.

This is different to sailing school boats in survey which are different again but generally follow Cat 2 with exceptions (must also carry non inflatable PFDs) under their operations exemption.