It is the real world mistakes we have made which form much of the basis for how we do things. For example, the constant worry about 22 hull penetrations in our uninsured fiberglass 50 footer 32 years ago led to a compulsive drive to eliminate these in our own designs. It has been a dozen years since we have kissed anything hard below surface. No more. Today we did a really good job of it.
Let us set the scene for you. We are coming into a pretty little bay, with a few cruising sailboats anchored, chatting with newly arrive daughter Sarah and friend Vera. It is overcast, so we do not have good underwater visibility.
We note the two buoys, and all the yachts anchored to one side, and assume the buoys indicate an anchorage area, but do not check.
There is a slight question in the helmsman’s mind about this buoy, but rather than check the chart – we do have paper – or the RCC Piloting guide book – he continues slowly forward watching the depthfinder.
And then kabang, and pieces of stabilizer float to the surface.
What we know now is this is a south cardinal buoy, but it does not look that way to us. Or, put another way, we did not recognize it as indicating a problem to its south side – which it does.
The guide book clearly calls out the rocks.
The poor quality Maptech electronic charts sort of indicate a problem, but we missed the danger signs and were instead watching the depthfinder.
We back off the rock easily, anchor, and collect our now embarrassed wits.
Mistakes made, all of which we no better than to commit:
- Failed to carefully read and reread the pilot book data.
- Not wearing polarized sunglasses which would have aided underwater viewing.
- Did not deploy and scan with sonar, normally standard for us if we are at all nervous.
- Took the fact that there were a bunch of anchored sailboats to indicate sufficient depth (they all draw more water than do we).
- Did not stop and assess things when the unusual tbuoys came into play.
- Finally, we were chatting and only paying partial attention coming into a new anchorage.
Thats the bad news. Now the benefits. To begin with, we are fine structurally. No leaks (the keel leading edge took a real whack but aside from paint damage is fine). The stabilizer shaft appears OK as the fiberglass fin broke away from its stainless insert. If we can find a replacement fin in a timely manner it is a simple job to install once we are hauled out.
We are currently a single stabilizer vessel. We’ll adjust the control algorithms for this and begin testing motion. We assume our fin area is correct but now we will have a chance to see how things go with half the area. You ever know, we might be able to save some drag.
A word to our friends at NAIAD about the fin engineering and construction. This is a really poor way (in our opinion) to build these foils. There is a core of unreenforced high density foam, or maybe it is resin and microspheres. Whatever, as you can see here it is brittle. The fiberglass laminate is the white line inside of the pink. It looks like a layer of matt and 24 ounce woven roving. The pink is fairing we added during sea trials to try and clean up what was a terribly distorted foil shape.
Here is our suggestion. Assume these foils are going to hit things. Use a flexible foam, like Airex, which will absorb energy and localize damage. Match this with a resin system that has good flex characteristics, with a suitable reenforcement system. This way you could ding the foil on a rock, but not be faced with the hassle of hauling and replacing.
One more benefit.
We’ve got some new Australian cruising friends.
Posted by Steve Dashew (August 29, 2010)
August 29th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
You think how many people ding their car, just takes one small lapse of judgement, sorry you had some bad luck.
We had the same happen in the Philippines, sun ahead, no polarized sunglasses, lazy to check the chart etc….., had to haul in Subic Bay, south of Manilla.
Looks a pain in the ass to replicate quickly.
August 29th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
When this happened to me, I questioned whether if we only still had paper charts for navigation, whether mistakes like this would be made. You would have been forced to memorize the local depths for anchoring and seen the local hazards on the charts, all of us now become nonchalant, just glancing at the computer monitor, what do you think?
August 29th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
A good reason to build future fins in aluminium? Or do you think it best to build them to be sacrificial?
August 30th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Thanks for the comments:
Answers to questions…
1-Aluminum fins would transmit too much load to the stainless shafts.
2-NAIAD supplies the fins on all their systems.
3-Re whether or not we were more careful in the olden days, pre electronic charts, for us the answer is no. We are usually very careful – because small lapses can create a hassle.
4-Regarding the markings, our impression is that the bay runs more east and west than north south and that the anchorage lay essentially to the south.
August 29th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
I would have sworn that was a west cardinal buoy…. and, were it not for the fact that my boat can (barely) run in 0.5 m, I suspect I’d have ended up on the same rock.
That sonar may be a pricey beast, but I keep hearing stories like this and it does make me want to get one…..
August 30th, 2010 at 7:44 am
An unfortunate moment for sure…………pleased to hear it wasn’t worse……..Rudder, etc.
Curious to know if the same company makes the foils for the 64. Very surprised to learn how
they were fabricated.
August 30th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Bummer. And you picked the ugliest cala on Majorca. When we made our landfall there with Astra our Deerfoot 63 we were very disappointed and thought that Majorca was going to be terrible. Then we went around the corner to Andratx and found the beauty we expected. Palma is nice too and you will find all the facilities you need there.
Best
Mike
August 30th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Please check the print, YBY, from top to bottom, is a West cardinal buoy, being safe to pass on the west side of the buoy and the obstruction, danger, is on the East side of the buoy and it is not safe to pass on the east side of the Buoy. What is confusing are the Lack of Arrow markers that should be with points to the middle.
\/
/\.
Interesting foil construction. Very Sacrificial! How very boring for you guys.
August 30th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Steve,
Sorry to learn of this (mis)fortunate occurrence. The most useful revelation for me is how you will turn it around to your benefit, basically a big learning experience. I need to learn that myself and I really appreciate your frankness and “ability to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.”
My first “incident” also had a lucky outcome. I hit a rock with my keel and when the yard examined the stringers and longitudinals they found them rotten. Jeanneau says they were only a form and were expected to rot. However my surveyor did not accept that explanation so had new stringers and longitudinals installed in the rebuild that will never rot. So I ended up with a much stronger boat at the expense of the insurance company.
Since that occurrence I am now using multiple plotters, gps systems from a variety of sources so I can compare charts to see which one shows the most conservative route. There is a lot of information on each chart and the reviewing the presentation from one source to another can at least alert the navigator to hidden dangers.
August 31st, 2010 at 8:45 am
Steve, I was really surprised to find out that you had to “refrabricate” the fins. Wing and fin design shape and technology has been around…well since the wright brothers. Did you have to fair the fins on the 64? How does the manufacturer leave such an important detail out of the final product?
Sorry for the misfortune…but all are safe and that’s the most important thing…
Scott
August 31st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Hi Scott:
There molds were old and distorted. They say they have made new molds since. The smaller fins on the 64 were cleaner in shape.
August 31st, 2010 at 10:12 am
•Failed to carefully read and reread the pilot book data.
•Not wearing polarized sunglasses which would have aided underwater viewing.
•Did not deploy and scan with sonar, normally standard for us if we are at all nervous.
•Took the fact that there were a bunch of anchored sailboats to indicate sufficient depth (they all draw more water than do we).
•Did not stop and assess things when the unusual tbuoys came into play.
•Finally, we were chatting and only paying partial attention coming into a new anchorage.
The real question is why? Whats are easy to identify in hindsight. Something was operating (or not operating) at the “attention selection” level which caused these items to be on the “doesn’t fit the model of “needs current attention””. I really wish I knew how that works in the mind. How do we chose what needs current attention? I’ve tried everything I know of including check lists and automatic alarms, but there is a mental mechanism operating which over rides all that escapes me.
Glad you’re minimally damaged and able to continue.
John
PS got some questions about design philosophy of the hull. Is there a thread on that subject?
August 31st, 2010 at 12:26 pm
John:
Bottom line – sloppy seamanship on the part of the captain. No excuse for it. Lets hope it is a while before it happens again!
August 31st, 2010 at 11:04 am
Sorry this happined to you.” I assume you will be running on one fin until you can get a replacement. Could be very interesting!! You may already know this, but the first fin installations were “single” It will be interesting to hear your comments on performance using only one fin,
I have a very good friend that rebuilt a Rhomsdahl. He wanted to install active fins, but had some issues regarding space. Also he claimed the boat wanted to turn starboard with a neutral rudder. After much research and discussing the problem with Norwegians; he found out that a single fin would work very well and produce some port drag to help correct the steering problem. Made installation and is very satisfied with it. Your thoughts?
August 31st, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Hi John:
In normal weather one fin is fine, and we have already tested the boat this way, so we have the option of waiting until we are back in the US to put a new one on. However, haul, hang in the slings, and put on a new fin here is about the same cost as Florida, so the difference is the air freight. We are waiting on a quote, but if this isn’t too painful we are inclined to do the work here in case we hit some gnarly weather in the 5000+ miles left to go this year.
August 31st, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Dear Steve,
Damn those moments of inattention! Sometimes it is our own lapses that are our worst enemy.
Luckily you were spared any more serious damage.
I’m curious about the response you got from Niad about the interior construction of the fin.
From the photo I couldn’t see any glass in the socket where the shaft would have been. Was this lost leaving the hole we are seeing? It seems extremely odd that there was no real structure tying the shell of the fin to the shaft socket!
cheers,
David
September 3rd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Just remember though, at the end of the day, after all is said and done … you made new Aussie friends!
(So there’s an upside to everything!)
See you in the Canaries,
Steve, Cheryl, Chelsea & Nick
S/Y Connect4