Why Running is the most dangerous point of sailing or motoring

Daibheid

I can only guess these guys were running for home - no way would you take the waves on your stern quarter otherwise in these conditions. That said the seas were to put it mildly - confused and seemed to come from several directions. More power would have helped maintain steering.
Scary stuff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt69DcjgZsA

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?159342-Anatomy-of-a-capsize

extract:
The slow roll period she was showing is scary. It means the range of positive stability is reduced. This is what we saw. There is a lot of weight and windage up high. The should have dropped it all as low as they could at the first sign of the wind and sea making up. All the rigging was up....There is a crows nest at the top of the mast...There is a large awning over the flying bridge with enormous windage.
Some fishing vessels have a hydraulic power pack which can be run by either the main engine or the auxiliary. This can sometimes be used to drive the boat as well. I know a couple of boats which use the auxiliary at time to save fuel when they can. If they were using it as an emergency back-up in a storm, they were in deep already. It does explain why they did not appear to have good control of the vessel in the conditions. It was good they had another vessel in attendence.
As a lesson for trawler yachts this is a waste of time.....
Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
02-12-2013, 02:57 PM #15 TerryLL's Avatar TerryLL TerryLL is offline
Occasional Member
Join Date
Mar 2007
Location
SPID
Posts
4,853
Default Re: 'Anatomy of a capsize'
Here's an update:

I talked to the Marine Safety official who interviewed the skipper and I also watched the video of the interview. Here are the facts.

There was never a mention of engine trouble, running on auxiliary power, or not having sufficient power to maintain steerage.

The transom of the seine skiff had shifted to port, depressing that side.

The seine net in the hold had also shifted to port.

The boat had an empty hold, except for the net.

The fuel tanks had not been topped before leaving port.

The seine block had not been lowered to the deck to reduce the center of gravity.

The boat was not designed to handle those conditions.

The owner of the boat (in Cordova) had called the skipper and urged him to cross the Gulf of AK from Icy Bay to Prince William Sound, even though the weather conditions were bad. The rest of the seine fleet decided to wait out the weather in Icy Bay.

The skipper hand steered for many hours and was exhausted. He turned the helm over to an inexperienced crew member who decided to engage the auto pilot, and within a few minutes the boat broached and went over.

Linda's Draw had called ahead as they approached PWS and asked if any boat could come out and accompany them in. The Alaska Eagle came out of PWS and was standing by. That one call likely saved the crew.

There were many contributing factors to the loss. Crew inexperience, crew fatigue, poor decision making, a boat not suited to the conditions, shifting deck and hold weights, excessive weight high up, empty hold, low fuel tanks. But no mention of engine trouble.

pedroeibar1

Those are not particularly bad conditions, even for a boat of that size. The cause of the accident was piss-poor seamanship. ‘Running’ is not the most dangerous point of sailing; putting to sea with idiots is, was, and always will be.

Steve

Running is a 'sailing' as opposed to motoring term and cannot really be applied in this case.

To me it looks like they were either on autopilot and it wasn't coping with the seas or the guy on the wheel was not experienced enough to know that the boat would not survive a broadside like that. It was an avoidable situation.
That said, I don't mean to speak ill of those involved, I hope all were saved.

davlacey

i think there was a lot of bad decisions that caused the capsize. they could of turned back and took it on the bow quarter instead of the stern.

Daibheid

Steve wrote: »

Running is a 'sailing' as opposed to motoring term and cannot really be applied in this case.

Really? Why can't a powerboat run? How would you describe motoring before the waves and the wind in one word?

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Those are not particularly bad conditions, even for a boat of that size. The cause of the accident was piss-poor seamanship. ‘Running’ is not the most dangerous point of sailing; putting to sea with idiots is, was, and always will be.

Maybe I'm a wuz but I'd certainly call those bad conditions before you even factor in the water and air temperatures.
As Steve -our nautical term adjudicator- will probably point out putting to sea isn't a point of sailing.
If you'd read the background I provided you might realize that in the world of commercial fishing choices are more complicated and a skipper under pressure from an owner may have decisions made that he didn't want to make but that's life in the real world. He still managed to ensure the survival of his crew by being humble and smart enough to ask for an escort over the worst leg.

I posted it because I think there's a great deal to learn from just watching the video and also from the analysis of the background to the sinking.

For anyone interested a few of the things to learn from it or see reinforced are
motoring at speeds that are low relative to the speed of the following waves means very poor steering response, failure to correct fast will put the boat sideways or beam on to the waves which will then swamp/roll the boat in an instant.
Heavy cargo carried high like the big fishing tender in the video raises the centre of gravity and reduces stability. Worse it may shift and move the centre of gravity to one side hurting stability, freeboard and steering. By that time conditions are probably too dangerous to risk trying to sort it.
Leaving heavy booms and net hauler equipment hoisted up high is bad news again for stability.
Travelling with empty tanks/holds to improve economy is the wrong thing to do when stability in rough seas is a concern
An autopilot can't read/anticipate waves so won't steer safely with waves coming from behind.
Try not to be pushed into going to sea against your better judgement but don't be afraid to ask for assistance before you actually need it because by then it's often too late.
If anyone else has any insightful comments on what else could have been done to avoid losing the boat please feel free. I'm a firm believer in trying to humbly learn from others mistakes as well as my own and I still believe that running before waves is the most dangerous course.

pedroeibar1

If you want to split hairs to that degree on what I wrote, clearly you want an argument. Parse my sentence again. Putting to sea with idiots is the most dangerous point of any sea journey. (put to sea = to embark on a sea voyage; point = a particular step, stage, or degree in development ).

FWIW, the most dangerous position when at sea in a storm is when turning across a following sea, a point that appears to have escaped your lengthy observations.

The skipper of any boat putting to sea is in command and carries responsibility for the safety of his craft and passengers/crew. That is the case whether it is a liner, a fishing trawler or a dinghy in Dublin Bay. The first rule is not to put anyone in harm’s way. Only idiots break that rule.

In the case you mention,

• the entire fleet was in port for a good reason, the conditions were bad. Despite this the skipper put to sea.
• Accepting orders is not an excuse, even more so when that person is hundreds of miles away.
• the vessel was not made seaworthy for bad weather conditions, a mistake compounded by the fact that those were expected.
• the skipper then allowed himself to become fatigued and went below – more mistakes, both allowing that level of fatigue and then going below.
• The crewman he passed command to was inexperienced – another mistake, compounded by that idiot’s decision to switch on the autopilot.

I imaging that skipper will find it hard to get crew for his next command, if he obtains one.

As for lessons in seamanship from the person who posted this as an example of great boat handling, or who wrote

Daibheid wrote: »

I can only guess these guys were running for home - no way would you take the waves on your stern quarter otherwise in these conditions.

well, enough said.............

Tabnabs

Daibheid wrote: »

Travelling with empty tanks/holds to improve economy is the wrong thing to do when stability in rough seas is a concern

I think the original point about the tanks not being topped up was to reduce the problem of free surface effect, where having a half full tank can be worse than either a full or empty tank. (and why tanks are segregated)



It's not the following sea that gets the boat, it's when the boat broaches and turns beam on to the seas that it passes the Angle of Vanishing Stability (AVS). Anyone who ventures out in small boats and big seas should read Heavy Weather Sailing for more about practical tips (and less about the theory and mathematics of it all)

Steve

Daibheid wrote: »

Really? Why can't a powerboat run? How would you describe motoring before the waves and the wind in one word?

Of course it can, in sailing terms though, wind direction and wave direction seldom agree so 'running' in the absolute sense of the word means going directly downwind, not in the same direction as the swell.
That said, I don't have a word or term that describes following a sea like you describe. That's not to say there isn't one.

As Steve -our nautical term adjudicator- will probably point out putting to sea isn't a point of sailing.

Ah, come on.

If anyone else has any insightful comments on what else could have been done to avoid losing the boat please feel free. I'm a firm believer in trying to humbly learn from others mistakes as well as my own and I still believe that running before waves is the most dangerous course.

I've watched the video several times now and, with humility, can say that what happened was IMO, a freak wave. I don't think anyone, whatever their experience, could have anticipated it or avoided the consequences.

pedroeibar1

Steve wrote: »

I've watched the video several times now and, with humility, can say that what happened was IMO, a freak wave. I don't think anyone, whatever their experience, could have anticipated it or avoided the consequences.

Insufficient power / steerageway coupled with breaking wave height were the cause, rather than a rogue wave. You can see powerloss/steering issues from the difficulty the rescue vessel (a big trawler) had in keeping station.

Apparently earlier the filters on the main engine clogged and while working on them she was pooped and the turbo cracked by the cold water ingress. She then was reduced to an auxiliary engine that could push her at only 3 knots. As a result, maintaining steerageway was almost impossible in those conditions, and turning head-to-wind was not an option, hence calling for an escort. The seine net ‘follower’ (dinghy) on the stern also filled with water, moved around and led to further trim problems. The skipper said that it was too dangerous to allow the crew on deck or to lash down the moving gear. He had no searoom to ride it out. Three aboard, all wearing survival suits, were rescued, one was injured (punctured lung) during the rescue.
Had there been sea-room I guess he probably would have tried riding it out with a sea anchor from the bow. Most damage (in smallcraft i.e.<50feet) is caused by falling down from a wave crest. This report draws on the 79 Fastnet experience Investigation of the use of drogues to improve the safety of sailing yachts There is another similar report on the Sydney-Hobart but I cannot find the link.

One of the things that struck me was the scary shallowness of the underwater profile for a boat with that amount of top-hamper.

Steve

If that were so then it would explain a lot - I wasn't aware they were on reduced power.

I'm no expert on fishing vessels like the one in question but I agree that it's frightening how far up their CG is. A bow drogue would have made sense there - albiet uncomfortable for the crew.