Sorry, couldn't help myself posting this.

sydserge said..
cdn.revolutionise.com.au/site/w2evwdgm7fcfgpmj.pdf Interim Report on the capsize of "The Big Hairy"

Thanks for that.

The crew had the following AS qualifications; First Aid Certificates, Keelboat Instructor, National Equipment Auditor (2), Safety and Sea Survival Certificates, past Keel Boat Instructor (expired). The boat had the keel checked according to AS requirements by two different people, one in January 2023 and one in June 2023. The keel fell off and a crewman died. So yet again we see that the qualification and paperwork system is NOT doing its job. In that case why on earth is AS not changing its approach?

They are now recommending "more extensive keel inspections, such as complete removal of the keel, or non-destructive testing methods, as appropriate for the keel construction and attachment method, or use of the yacht, on a longer time period than those structural inspections done on a 24 month period in accordance with Offshore Special Regulations 3.02.2 and 3.02.3." Arguably that ignores the fact that keels on older boats almost never fall off. The number of keel losses is a disgrace but from just about every account it seems to be related to a design issue that WS and AS could easily address. Why keep on trying to paper over the cracks by demanding owners of designs that DON'T lose keels pay for inspections when the problem is restricted to boats with high-aspect bulb keels and even quite new ones owned by pros fail?

The problem arguably isn't the inspections but the basic design. Can anyone name a pre-1984 design that has lost a keel, apart from major groundings that basically destroyed the whole boat? Which one?

All AS and WS can do is to require these boats be checked when they race offshore. Many of them are already out of offshore racing so they are still a hazard - just an uncontrolled one. Why not just put penalties on these keels just as they penalised running backstays, so people accept a minor speed loss and put on safer keels that won't lead to future problems?

What Chris said is right. Aircraft operate from -20 to +55 degrees C, and with substantial stress on the wings, but the wings dont fall off. It should be possible to make/retest periodically keels that dont all off. If its a known that a keel detaching is a risk factor maybe the hull could have a mechanism to stop it inverting.

Right on p3p4p5. In my previous life I had to order the rejection of millions of dollars worth of high pressure valves for an oil terminal, when physical testing revealed that the materials for critical parts were nothing like the specs. Dunno who accepted the dodgy Chinese tender, but we had to go back to the big-name USA and European vendors and actually pay the real price for what we wanted.
If the yacht racing "industry" had to conduct formal risk assessments like we did, rigourous testing would become mandatory. It's funny how we insist on high formalised levels of safety when we work, but seem happy to accept "she'll be right" when we play.

Cheers, Graeme

It is starting to look like there is a standard and classification issue.
When ABS stopped there was no new classification system to replace it and ISO did not commence for about 6 years.
In the intervening period new keels also become more aggressive with bulb weight.
Generally, it is keels from this design period which are failing.

Interestingly, the AS report does not say who did the second sign off just a second keel was made.
Seems to be a key piece of information.

There is a real failure with these reports as AS has no powers of compulsion of witnesses.

AS should get serious and say failure to co operate is a RRS 69.

Is that a Davidson?

Chris 249 said..
Very interesting, p3 and Wagonga, and not comforting.

One thing is though that if we insist on IMOCA or other high formalised levels of safety, very few people will be able to play. And what would happen to the ex-players then? Will they sit on the couch and die of heart problems, by far our #1 killer, due to lack of exercise? Will they get into other sports that can have similar safety and QC problems with similar hazards, as cycling may?

There is arguably no really major risk in ocean racing that is costing lives, apart from the boats with high-aspect bulb keels (and perhaps getting MOB back OB). Fix them - for example by simply modifying ORC and IRC rules so that high aspect keels get rated for performance plus a penalty - and the entire sport becomes dramatically safer.

I used to have an article by Alan Andrews (?), the NA who designed the replacement keel for the original keel on the 1960s John Spencer designed ultralight 62'er Ragtime. The keel was a low-aspect bulb that was only being removed for a more efficient design.

First they used managed to remove the keel bolts. Then they sliced the dynel sheathing between keel and hull, and lifted the boat with a crane. No dice. Then they bounced it with the crane. No budging. Then they went out, got some hydraulic wedges, drove them between keel and hull, and lifted the boat off the ground. Nothing doing. Finally they drove them further AND bounced the boat up and down in the air, which finally cracked the epoxy Spencer had poured between the keelson and the top of the keel. It seemed like a classic example that we know we can build tough hull/keel joins and we did so for decades.

Why don't they just implement the performance penalty you suggest. Seems like the simplest and cheapest solution for all.