K4309
-
Content Count
686 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by K4309
-
-
Bayesian AVS with the keel up is 73deg,
but keel down doesn't help much, AVS 88deg.
Contrast, That wouldn't even get YNZ Cat 5.
Refer YNZ safety regulations:
"Limit of Positive Stability"
Cat3 - 100deg
Cat4 - 95 deg
Cat5 - 95 deg,
And:
6.02(k) d:
For yachts complying with Category 4 and 5,
it may be demonstrated that compliance is
achieved by demonstrating a physical pulldown test in which the masthead shall be
pulled down until it touches the surface of
the water. The yacht will maintain a positive
righting moment at all times during the test
Bayesian couldn't achieve that, with an AVS of 88 deg, the mast could not reach the water in a pull down test without the boat capsizing...AVS data from the Financial Times, story quoting the Chairman of Italian Sea Group, which owns Perini Navi.
Bayesian maker says crew should have had time to rescue passengers (ft.com)
-
1 hour ago, Black Panther said:
It can't have been pushed past 90 degrees by any amount of wind. If any boat goes to that it should not sink.
The only (logical) explanation I can think of is if they left the toy garage doors open overnight. If they did do that, then the captain and crew will be up for legit criticism. Personally, I can't image a boat doing that, not with 10 crew, it's not like they don't have enough people to tidy the toys up properly, oh, and noting from that article and vid posted above, they moved out to that anchorage about 10pm local time, so not like they had a day playing at anchor and simply didn't get around to closing the garage doors.
They only other explanation is this was straight out just an Act of God. As in an extreme and very rare, very localised intense weather feature. Given the guys mate got ran down and killed by a car the day before, it sounds more like Devine intervention than anything logical.
As an aside, it is becoming fashionable for recreational yachts to have large openings near water level. Trends in Euro yacht design is to have a dinghy garage inside the transom. It would be interesting how they keep the water out of those, and what effect it has on stability if it is half full of water (half full being worse than completely full, as you get the free body effect, sloshing from side to side.
A couple of years back I had a look on a large Euro stink pot at the boat show, It's grand design feature was a 'cabana beach club' at the transom. That was a cabin with floor below water level at the transom, a large lifting hatch the beam of the boat, and like a boarding / swim platform infront. The cabin facing the swim platform had a bar and barstools etc, kind of like a swim up bar you get in tacky Merica. What I can't recall was the freeboard of all this set up. My recollection was the bar and cabin hatch wasn't much higher than the water level, maybe 1 or 2 feet. Certainly enough to get wake it from your average Rivitmo pegging it through the anchorage. I made a comment to the sales guy about it, and he mumble something about bilge pumps.
Anyway, great sales feature in a glassy calm bay or marina, a bit marginal if you think about the risk of down flooding.
Wonder if I can find the boat.
-
1 hour ago, Deep Purple said:
If it was up then someone is in a lot of trouble
I would argue that leaving the keel up at anchor should not result in a 180ft boat sinking in 2minutes flat. If that was the primary cause, then there is a fundamental design flaw, and a fundamental certification flaw.
The keel is primarily designed to provide righting moment for sailing, like with the sails up. The boat should be inherently safe with the keel in either position.
That said, I'm sure the insurance companies will be crawling all over this, and if the keel was up, the insurance co's lawyers will be asking why, given it was parked in 50m of water. The Captain will need to answer that question. But he may have a defense in pointing to the stability curves and design specs (I've forgotten the proper name for how to make sure a ship is trimmed properly and stable, like when they load ferries and what not).
I would expect that, as with all accidents, there were a number of minor and separate issues coming together in a random sequence resulting in the outcome. The old domino theory.
One of the guests reported the boat leaning over suddenly then lots of breaking glass, and having to get out of her cabin quickly, over broken glass, cutting her feet etc. The windows on those boats are supposed to be structural components effectively and are definitely not supposed to break. The would have been designed to handle green water coming over them. So if windows have broken, that may explain getting enough water into the boat to sink it. Obviously the question would be why did the windows break? Again, another design and certification question.
The boat had a beam of 11.5 m / 38 ft, but more importantly a displacement of 473 tonnes.
For it to sink in 2 minutes would need a flowrate of water entering the boat of about 4,000 l/s. There needs to be something fundamentally wrong for that to happen, even with the boat laid over flat.
-
5 minutes ago, Black Panther said:
There was one occasion passing through Gatun lake at the high point of the Panama canal. There was a large sign on shore that said No Swimming. Of course once anchored I went for a swim along with several of my crew.
Next day when the pilot turned up I asked him why there was no Swimming. His one word answer: Alligators.
In a past life I was up the back of the Amazon on a wee adventure. After having a nice cool and freshening swim in the river (The Rio Negro), our guide asked if we wanted to go Piranha fishing for the rest of the afternoon.
We were a little perplexed, as there was only one river around that we knew of, the one we were just swimming in...
It did explain why the guide discretely checked with the ladies of the group that they weren't at 'that time of the month' before going swimming though. In hindsight he did also check none of us had grazes or cuts that might bleed when we were swimming. The Guide promised we were perfectly safe as long as the Piranha couldn't smell blood. Damn jungle was so hot and humid we were drenched in sweat about 5 seconds after swimming anyway.
That same trip, for some random reason, four of us and the guide were trying to stalk a black jaguar. It seemed a bit futile to me, trying to stalk a wild cat that lives in the jungle, while we crashed along making more noise than a noisy thing in it's environment. We gave up and went back to camp after my mate got attacked by a poisonous caterpillar. Very amusing, stalking a jaguar and getting taking out by a caterpillar... To be fair, it was very big, and colourful.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Black Panther said:
So, did you go swimming?
-
45 minutes ago, LBD said:
37.98416567333028, 13.709466983699906
Paste that in Google maps and zoom in....
It is not the boat in the news, but in the marina close to where she was anchored. ( This image has been on google maps for some time, I had found it before today)
I can't find the name of that boat, but I remember reading about it. Or at least one very similar. If it is the one I was thinking of, it was a recently restored classic, or something notable anyway, sunk tied up to the quay.
Was wanting to find the details to see if it was sunk due to weather or some other sort of random problem.
You can see the masts sticking out on street view...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Nathan1000 said:
This story is full of ???. An 56 metre super yacht sinking at anchor during the celebration of the owner being acquitted from a fraud case whilst in the same weekend the co defendant gets run over while jogging.
A curious coincidence?
God works in mysterious ways?
Hired assassins getting better at covering their tracks?
There are certainly enough 'coincidences' to raise some suspicions. I can't work out how a 180ft boat can sink at anchor in a thunderstorm. Yes, I know it can get knocked down and suffer downflooding, but we are talking a 180ft superyacht, not a mullet boat.
And the neighbouring skipper reckoned it sank in 2 minutes. That is 120 seconds. You need a hell of a lot of downflooding to sink a boat that big that quickly...
-
Linking back to the original question,
Lets assume this wasn't forecast, you didn't see it coming and found yourself pinned down in a crowded anchorage on a lee shore with, what did they say? 60 knt winds and a sharp nasty sea state.
What can you do?
Other than already having the best anchor you can get, a sarca excel from Chains Ropes & Anchors, I'd let all my chain and rode out, and basically sit tight. The only other thing I can think of is having the motor running (for a couple of reasons) and having it in gear and driving forward modestly to try and reduce the risk of dragging anchor. Noting I've never been in this situation and have no idea how effective that would be. There would also be the risk of fouling the prop if you weren't careful, but the situation is generally high risk anyway. Noting if the engine is already running it gives some ability to maneuver if you do drag, or possibly to yaw out of the way if someone else is dragging past you.
I would think once in the situation any though about reducing windage is futile.
I would not try raising the anchor, due to the seastate and a fairly dangerous motion on the foredeck. That, and if you did raise anchor, you'd have to be absolutely convinced you could motor into it. By the looks of the videos, several boats motoring were getting their bow blown off, so they couldn't actually get around to motor into it. Possibly better to reverse into it, but I bet you'd take a heap of water over the stern. Possibly bugger the rudder too?
I guess overall I am genuinely bemused how so many people can get trapped on a lee shore with such a violent weather feature coming through. That links back to my earlier comment of checking the forecast. My other thought is how many of these boats were charters? Possibly a lot of people ashore when the blow came through, and being a crowded anchorage, or the classic anchoring technique of making sure the anchor is on the bottom but not much else, also led to a lot of dragging. Crowded anchorages like that normally has someone dragging in 5 knts, or chains and anchors fowled across each other like my Nan's knitting.
It certainly looks like a lot of drama, stress and confusion all in a small space and time.
-
1
-
-
Unless of course I was on a charter boat, in which case I'd take me passport, wallet and bag and head to the pub.
Then I would phone the charter company and tell them it's broken, could they send me another one?
Jokes aside, no point risking the safety of your family or crew if you don't have to.
-
I would check the forecast, even if I was on holiday...
-
1 hour ago, Bad Kitty said:
Yeah i get that, but it’s on a breaker! Flick it left & you’re out of touch. And for us it’s not a choice of being in touch or not.
It’s a choice of having 3 months in the tropics on the cat, while checking in with the office now & again, or staying at home?
If you don’t want to have a zoom call, don’t have it. I’d have starlink just for the weather.
So, 3 months here, or stay home? Mmmm?
Surely posting this photo breaches the site rules? It must be contrary to the terms and conditions?
Posting content that deliberately antagonises other site users, it's just blatant trolling now.
I mean, here I am, stuck in Auckland on a rainy grey weekend, two bored kids in the house, a very long list of boat maintenance jobs confronting me, and Bad Kitty is posting this sort of inflammatory and controversial material...
-
1
-
4
-
1
-
-
I have what I'm hoping is a simple question on VSR's, that I think I understand, but just want to make sure my understanding is correct.
We have a basic battery system on our boat, single start batt and modest house bank. We have a standard switch bank that includes an isolating switch for each battery, a parallel switch for emergencies and a VSR so that the start battery gets charged first off the alternator.
When the engine is off and the battery isolators have the batteries isolated and there is a charge source on the house batteries (solar normally, or right now a mains powered charger as we are in the shed doing work), the VSR will open, charging both batteries.
Is it normal for the VSR to open and connect both batteries when the isolator switches are isolated?
Below is the link to the BEP manual and wiring diagram.
Whilst wiring diagrams normally make my brain explode, this one looks fairly simple, and there is a direct pathway between the two batteries via the VSR. It doesn't have any isolator switches on it. So as far as I can tell, it looks normal for the VSR to 'join' the batteries, provided the voltage is high enough.
Am I missing anything?
The main thing I've got to get my head around is the concept of charging both batteries off solar, not just the house batteries. I have some small parasitic loads on the house batteries (the battery monitor mainly) so have a small solar panel for floating. I like to monitor the battery resting voltages and what not and keep on getting foxed because the VSR is open and I'm dealing with two different batteries, not one.
-
3 hours ago, Psyche said:
Prices coming down due to the economy of scale?
If North's pricing got any higher, you'd need permission from Air Traffic Control just to get a quote.
Hoping the other two brands don't go the same way.
-
13 hours ago, Winter said:
Sadly looks like Garmin have ruined the Navionics webapp
Someone please tell me that i'm missing something. There used to be a great site on https://webapp.navionics.com/ where I can just quickly measure potential routes etc
It's still available, I tried my regular Navionics link and it redirected me, here:
I am a regular user of the Navionics web map. My subscription expired but since I'm doing a refit and not sailing (or going fishing since it's winter) I didn't bother renewing it. I tend to use it when fishing for the sonar contour maps, and use it on my phone when in the yacht when pocking around rocky or lumpy bits. Far more detail than a standard chart plotter, if you need it.
Obviously use the web map for passage planning and what not.
What I cant understand is Garmin have started sending me emails saying I must update my email so I can continue receiving their emails. I just can't get my head around that, they have my email, cause they just emailed me on it. Then why would a multinational corporation threaten they wont send me sh*t if I don't do something? normally I have to do something to STOP these muppets sending me sh*t.
So what is actually going on? I thought Garmin owned Navionics anyway? Are they just bringing it all under one brand?
-
1 hour ago, Guest said:
Ok, so bare minimum. Road spikes so if the leopard seal comes back he will baulk at my open transom.
The most I've seen used is a bit of plastic net to keep the ducks off. Mind you, that is up a river where there are lots of ducks that like hoping on to open transoms.
Owha, that leopard seal, I haven't heard her being reported around Auckland for several years. Has she wondered off? got a mate? or am I just living under a rock. Has anyone else heard of or seen that leopard seal recently?
Agree with khayyam and the river dwellers, locking the boat just makes more damage when they break in. All I've ever heard stolen is fishing gear and booze. Oh, and a whole boat once, that was a bit of a major. They were trying to get home to Barrier and put petrol in it, it was a diesel launch, engine ran away, blew up and sunk. The guy rescuing them got suspicious when one of the guys was trying to swim away from the sinking boat with a very nice socket set...
If you manage to work it out, I would be interested in how to set up a cheap cellular / Internet of Things link to monitor boat stuff though, like batteries and bilge pump. The ducks nuts would be a two way system to turn my fridge on remotely, then everything will be nice and cold before I even get to the boat (for the Westhavenites, being on a mooring means I don't have shore power and don't leave the fridge on 24/7 if I'm not on the boat).
-
13 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:
Unfortch, suicide is not deemed accidental under the act, but I get your drift
There is some cover for 'self inflicted injuries', no?
I couldn't see any lump sum payments, but I got the impression there were weekly payments for dependents?
-
45 minutes ago, K4309 said:
The US navy does paint anchors of that size that colour on occasion. Some sort of status / show off / award thing for the ship. So I can see how AI got gold anchors into its head.
In saying that, I read that fact on the interweb, and now I am paranoid that fact itself was a product of AI produced content, and I've no idea what to believe anymore...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, aardvarkash10 said:
If you need an anchor, AI has you covered
The US navy does paint anchors of that size that colour on occasion. Some sort of status / show off / award thing for the ship. So I can see how AI got gold anchors into its head.
-
2 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:
It is a little known thing about ACC. IMO, they should talk more about it.
I never knew until you posted that.
And it is something I have given substantial thought to, pay moonbeams for life insurance, having two kids and an Auckland sized mortgage. In all my time investigating life insurance policies and benefits I never found out the cover from ACC for accidental death.
And it is something I feel genuinely very warming to know exists. Partner knows a lady (acquaintance) who's husband committed suicide, they either had two under 5's or an under 5 and she was pregnant - absolutely guttingly heartbreaking situation. The exact situation this ACC policy is for.
It just goes to show that we do get some things right in NZ. We can bitch and moan about all sorts of things, but some things are friggin spot on amazeballs.
-
5
-
-
12 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:
I can't understand how you're drawing the conclusion that rogue waves don't break as the water gets shallower or the boat wasn't where the evidence showed it was, or for that matter how you've concluded that the wave wasn't breaking at the time of impact, when clearly the case file suggests otherwise?
The judge concluded that it was unreasonable to expect the skipper to predict a rogue wave. That's substantially different from your assertions.
Therefore the presumption from MNZ that he should not have been in such shallow water because he wasn't prepared/ready for a Rogue wave became irrelevant as he had no requirement to predict or plan for a Rogue wave.
What will be interesting will be too see if MNZ appeal the case.
This case has set legal precedent, that as mariners/skippers we do not need to prepare, plan or consider rogue waves when cutting corners into shallower waters.
What's clear from this thread, is that based on experience several individuals disagree with that ruling.
You obviously agree with the ruling and I can respect that. But you should have a bit of respect for the people who have experience and disagree.
With respect, it would appear you are getting distracted by a very minor point- I never said the rogue wave wasn't breaking - I don't see that as particularly relevant in that a 10m high vertical wave is going to destroy anything in it's path regardless.
The assertion being made by yourself and several on here is that, allegedly, the boat was in shallow water and waves stand up, and that this increases the risk to the boat. This I agree with. BUT, that type of wave / effect IS predicable. However, it has been concluded after 4 weeks of trial with the best legal minds in the country that it wasn't that type of wave. It wasn't a shallow water wave standing up. Other ways to describe those are surf, or perhaps the best description, that is often marked on charts and has accompanying warnings, is 'overfalls'.
A rogue wave is entirely different to overfalls, and the general type of waves you can expect with strong currents and swell around headlands.
The so called experienced people on here appear to be conflating the two. They are entirely different. One type is predictable and often marked on charts*, the other type is by definition entirely unpredictable. After 10 pages of thread, we've only had one person on here say they have actually experienced a rogue wave.
* Areas with overalls are usually marked on charts and have a warning for prudent skippers. One such area is the Pandora Bank, which has this warning copied from Navionics
Mariners are advised to pass at least 2nm to seaward of the 100m depth contour when navigating in the vicinity of the Pandora Bank in adverse weather conditions.
There is no such warning Marimotu Island.
Finally, there is some hypocrisy in you telling me to have a bit of respect, that goes both ways and I've been on the receiving end of that throughout this thread.
-
12 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:
The case notes strongly suggests otherwise...
The evidence from several survivors was that a 10m high wave came in, was clearly visible in the distance, it built even higher, crested and broke, rolling and smashing the boat to pieces.
I am pretty sure that Rogue waves, crest and break, just like any other wave, when the distance to the sea bed becomes less than the height of the wave.
You don't think a 10m high wave, that is clearly visible in the distance, is not a rogue wave? given the surrounding sea state was a 2m swell and 10 knt breeze. All eyewitness descriptions clearly met the definition of a rogue wave.
Anyway, the Judge concluded it was a rogue wave, not surf, not a regular wave standing up etc, and I guess that is all that really matters.
Wonder if Maritime NZ will now ban boats from getting closer than 3nm to land? (Referencing @harrytom's expectations MNZ will re-write the rule book.
-
You guys need to look at the definition of a rogue wave. There is absolutely zero to do with shallow water. And by definition, they are entirely unpredictable.
If the boat got nailed by surf then yes, your criticism would be warranted, but it wasn't. All agreed, including the prosecution, that it was a rogue wave. Not surf. Not a breaking wave.
After that fact was established, everything else is just noise.
Rogues, called 'extreme storm waves' by scientists, are those waves which are greater than twice the size of surrounding waves, are very unpredictable, and often come unexpectedly from directions other than prevailing wind and waves.
Most reports of extreme storm waves say they look like "walls of water." They are often steep-sided with unusually deep troughs.
Since these waves are uncommon, measurements and analysis of this phenomenon is extremely rare. Exactly how and when rogue waves form is still under investigation, but there are several known causes:
Constructive interference. Extreme waves often form because swells, while traveling across the ocean, do so at different speeds and directions. As these swells pass through one another, their crests, troughs, and lengths sometimes coincide and reinforce each other. This process can form unusually large, towering waves that quickly disappear. If the swells are travelling in the same direction, these mountainous waves may last for several minutes before subsiding.
Focusing of wave energy. When waves formed by a storm develop in a water current against the normal wave direction, an interaction can take place which results in a shortening of the wave frequency. This can cause the waves to dynamically join together, forming very big 'rogue' waves. The currents where these are sometimes seen are the Gulf Stream and Agulhas current. Extreme waves developed in this fashion tend to be longer lived.
-
24 minutes ago, harrytom said:
Yes I believed Lance to be in the wrong and still do,looking at where he was and conditions,shallows wasnt the place to be.
Are you basing that on the facts, or what Maritime NZ told you?
-
6 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:
More often than you might think.
That's the justice system at work. The evidence falls where it falls, the judge or jury assess on what they hear and see in the courtroom.
This was a trial requiring " beyond reasonable doubt". That's a very high bar for a prosecution to hurdle, and rightly so. The judge had doubts, so the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
It was really a rhetorical question, given the predominant view on this forum from the majority of posters is that he is guilty as sin for gross negligence and recklessness, despite what the evidence says.
Strewth, we even have learned members stating the Judge, who sat through all of the evidence and gave it all thorough consideration, has made a ridiculous decision.
@waikiore, please tell us, how do you predict a rogue wave?
And, do you follow MNZ's rule of not going closer than 3nm to headlands? Remember that? MNZ stated Goodhew was guilty of gross negligence for rounding a headland within less than 3nm?
Sinking superyacht
in MarineTalk
Posted
Possibly cause we know how the poor brown people are dieing, just no one gives a sh*t. Strewth, half of England is throwing bricks at Cops to stop them being allowed to live next door.
We also know exactly how over 40,000 have died in Palestine, but for some strange reason the whole western world is falling over themselves to supply more weapons so some more can be killed. For some reason no-one wants to talk about that either, I suspect I'll be torn a new one for daring to even mention the genocide, but each to their own.
There is a high degree of mystery and curiosity as to how a 180ft superyacht managed to sink. Most people would think discussing that is a fairly safe topic. Especially on a sailing site. No?