The next yachting disaster

[Black Panther 1,589]

In 1979 the fastnet

In 1979, it was the climax of the five-race Admiral's Cup competition, as it had been since 1957. A worse-than-expected storm on the third day of the race wreaked havoc on the 303 yachts that started the biennial race, resulting in 19 fatalities (15 yachtsmen and four spectators).

In 1998 the sy Hobart 

 

The 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race was the 54th annual running of the "blue water classic" Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race. It was hosted by the Cruising Yacht Club of Australia based in Sydney, New South Wales. It was the most disastrous in the race's history, with the loss of six lives and five yachts.

 

And our own one

 

In 1994, four sailors lost their lives and at least four cruising boats were destroyed when what has become notoriously known as the 'Queen's Birthday Storm', between November 20-30, hit a regatta fleet unexpectedly. The conditions were similar to the recent incident as to wind strength and wave height.

 

 

And others.

My question: is the next one overdue or are they a thing of the past?

 

 

Got to admit the upcoming rally around NZ seems a possible candidate. ( Disclaimer: I don't know any of the boats or people entered and really hope I'm wrong)

 

 

 

 

[aardvarkash10 960]

Random events.  By definition, there is no such thing as overdue for a random event.

[LBD 128]

Aha... but are we expecting any unforeseen circumstances?

[Clipper 343]

With better forecasting, these disasters seem less likely to happen?

[Jon 360]

2 hours ago, Clipper said:

With better forecasting, these disasters seem less likely to happen?

Plus boats and crews in organised events tend to be much better prepared

But saying that there will be another 

Weather is a mix of pattern and chaos.

[Black Panther 1,589]

That's an interesting one. IMHO too many people are counting on this. " we have a route planner so we will avoid  bad weather". True, until it isn't. 

 

[Black Panther 1,589]

1 minute ago, Jon said:

Plus boats and crews in organised events tend to be much better prepared

Not sure I agree with that, but I have have no direct experience of a rally other than my natural inclination is to avoid them. Anecdotally I seem to meet a lot of newbies who think going in a group makes them safer.

[Clipper 343]

Another thought is the IMHO over the top safety requirements of some events. They add cost, complexity, no safety and even worse, give the competitors a false sense of security.

I've often wondered what people would take (me included) if we had to take responsibly for out own safety and there were no rules around it.
Id ditch a few things, but not too many

[K4309 262]

12 hours ago, Black Panther said:

In 1979 the fastnet

In 1979, it was the climax of the five-race Admiral's Cup competition, as it had been since 1957. A worse-than-expected storm on the third day of the race wreaked havoc on the 303 yachts that started the biennial race, resulting in 19 fatalities (15 yachtsmen and four spectators).

In 1998 the sy Hobart 

 

To answer your question, I'll tell a little tail:

I raced in the 2007 Fastnet. I was navigator so attended the safety briefing with the skipper. The weather situation and weather map was identical to the 1979 weather map. There was a weather map of the '79 event inside the front cover of the book "Fastnet Force 10". They put the '07 weather map up on a screen in the briefing and the hairs stood up on the back of my neck - very freaky.

The start was delayed by 25 hours. 1 day plus 1 hour to match the tide through the Needles Channel. At the time it was glassy calm and smoking hot, so much consternation amongst the fleet.

At race start the wind was starting to build. Basically shat out by the time the fleet was at the Needles. Wind continued to build in the English Channel from the west, so right on the nose. Very steep sea state built. Boats started having trouble all along the English coast.

Our liferaft had a hydrostatic activator on it. It was mounted at the stern. We were taking so much water over the boat that the liferaft self deployed. I was driving, but couldn't slow the boat fast enough. The painter parted and we lost the liferaft. Several nearby boats saw our liferaft deploy and issued mayday relays, which was embarrassing as f*ck. Because we then did not comply with the safety regulations (by not having a liferaft) we were obliged to retire.

Of the 330 boats that started, I think about 30 ish finished. All boats that retired did so in the English Channel and could get into ports in England or France easily. The boats that did make it into the Irish sea finished, and collect armfuls of silverware.

Given the weather system was identical to the '79 event, the fundamental difference was delaying the start, so all boats got nailed in the English Channel and could get to port. That was bought about by vastly improved weather forecasting between '79 and '07. There were also multiple layers of improved safety requirements, crew training, boat inspections and qualifying races. These were all learning points from the '79 tragedy.

So in that example, a repeat of '79 was avoided due to learning points from '79 and improved weather forecasting. Brought about no doubt by 1,000's of weather satellites we have now that didn't exist back then.

[Addem 95]

Bad stuff still happens. Essence is a recent example. It's the sea state that is still unpredictable. 

[K4309 262]

9 minutes ago, Addem said:

Bad stuff still happens. Essence is a recent example. It's the sea state that is still unpredictable. 

I think the big difference is between mass-casualty events and individual boat events.

You can never say never, but I would posit that the risk / probability of a major mass casualty event is markedly reduced due to modern weather forecasting and current safety standards, crew training and boat construction standards etc.

[Addem 95]

3 hours ago, K4309 said:

I think the big difference is between mass-casualty events and individual boat events.

You can never say never, but I would posit that the risk / probability of a major mass casualty event is markedly reduced due to modern weather forecasting and current safety standards, crew training and boat construction standards etc.

Agreed. 

[marinheiro 352]

4 hours ago, Addem said:

Bad stuff still happens. Essence is a recent example. It's the sea state that is still unpredictable. 

It does still happen, but there is alot of info/support out there to help mitigate the risk. When Essence left Fiji, the forecasts were showing they were likely to run into crap when they got close to the coast of NZ and sadly they did.

7 weeks ago I was intending to leave Noumea when the forecast predicted a good weather pattern for the passage to NZ. But at the same time there was a little low forming up in the Solomons. I use Bruce Buckley and he advised he was concerned it could form into a cyclone and recommended leaving 2 days earlier than we planned, even with less than ideal conditions. We followed this advice and arrived in NZ 2 days in front of what became Cyclone Lola.

[John B 106]

^  We cleared in that friday morning after a midnight arrival from Fiji, Essence was lost on the monday . We use Bruce as well but actually left a day in advance of his recommended departure , sucked up the pain for that first two days too. But I'm glad we did and had a little in the bank.  NV had left before us but had to return with broken gear, So I think they ended up leaving about the same time as Essence, maybe a day later ?. But they stopped and idled around roughly Norfolk latitude and let it go through below them. I was impressed by that seamanship.

I never did discover why they ( Essence) left when they did but imagined it was a crew delay or clearance delay.. weekend stuff.

[eruptn 95]

The next step, https://www.livesaildie.com/helmets-yeah-or-nah-the-survey-results-are-in/

[Psyche 633]

13 hours ago, eruptn said:

The next step, https://www.livesaildie.com/helmets-yeah-or-nah-the-survey-results-are-in/

This is a good discussion, plenty of people have had hits by the boom but I would not support helmets being made compulsory for keelboats but I can understand why it should be mandated be in certain events/age groups and classes. Thinking back to my boom interactions (and another skippers recent hit where he fractured a neck vertebrae), its not the boom itself but the mainsheet that's got me a couple of times and a helmet wouldn't have helped as I was struck on the neck. 

 

[Clipper 343]

For sure they are a good idea on high speed boats, but i would give up racing rather than wear a helmet on a slow old family cruiser like mine. Happy to wear a helmet if i was lucky enough to be on a foiler though, but for crashes, not booms. 

 

[marinheiro 352]

19 hours ago, John B said:

I never did discover why they ( Essence) left when they did but imagined it was a crew delay or clearance delay.. weekend stuff.

Crew delay. Also I believe their Iridium GO was not working, it had been problematic all season so they were probably not receiving any updates other than what they might have received on SSB (can't remember if they had one)

Sailing to the timetable set by crew members unfortunately sees more than a few yachts venturing out into conditions they really should not.

[K4309 262]

2 hours ago, Psyche said:

This is a good discussion, plenty of people have had hits by the boom but I would not support helmets being made compulsory for keelboats but I can understand why it should be mandated be in certain events/age groups and classes. Thinking back to my boom interactions (and another skippers recent hit where he fractured a neck vertebrae), its not the boom itself but the mainsheet that's got me a couple of times and a helmet wouldn't have helped as I was struck on the neck. 

 

Helmets don't need to be compulsory, but who actually carries one or two on a keeler?

Now we are aware of the risk of the boom and consequence of head-knocks, it is only logical to give some thought to mitigating that risk. The obvious is behaviour (keeping your head down), but having a helmet onboard gives you the opportunity to put one on when conditions are getting hairy. Maybe deep running in the dark in a nasty sea-way.

That and for particular jobs like climbing the mast underway.

We are required to carry lifejackets and have the responsibility to work out when to put them on, at times of heightened risk etc. We are getting injuries and fatalities from head knocks, the logical extension is to start carrying helmets onboard, and put them on at times of heightened risk. I'd argue if you are racing and in a situation where you can crash gybe, helmets should be considered.

[Clipper 343]

Id argue that is situations where a crash gybe is a possibility, a helmsman putting on a helmet is more likely to cause one.

Safety is not just about PPE, its about managing situations. When it gets wet or icy when driving, you don't put on a helmet, you slow down. Perhaps managing the boat different is a safer option?

I do agree a helmet for going up the rig on a rough day is a bloody good idea