Update on the San Diego Capsizing last year

Sumner · Jan 20, 2012

Scott T-Bird said:
....on the other side of the coin, these are the only two incidences that I am aware of where lack of stability led to tragedy. This is surprising to me, but I can only come to one conclusion....

Are you saying that only two sailboats have capsized with the loss of life. Seems like unfortunately boating accidents like this do occur and not just Mac's.

The boat was being use in these incidents in a manner that was totally unsafe and even someone without too much experience should of know that. How may Mac's have you been out on? I'd be more than happy to take you out on ours if the occasion would arise and then if you hadn't ever been on one you would be talking with some personal experience.

Also you are lumping all of the water ballast Macs together. Please at least be fair to the manufacture and learn the difference between them. The boat is designed to have the water ballast tanks filled at all times on the S and D, the non-power sailors, regardless if you are under sail or power. That boat sure looks like the tank was empty from the photo and some reports. That would be like you taking someone out on your boat with no keel.

Also don't forget that there are more Macs out there than any other trailerable sailboat, so the chances of accidents are going to go up. It is sad that when there are tragedies associated with other makes of boats they are reported as just that, tragedies, but when it is a Mac, then it is time for Mac bashing, usually not based on many facts.

Scott I'm hoping that is not your intention,

Sum

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Our Endeavour 37[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Our Trips to Utah, Idaho, Canada, Florida[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Our MacGregor S Pages[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Mac-Venture Links[/FONT]

Maine Sail · Jan 20, 2012

Mac has built perhaps more "sailboats", and I use the term loosely, than just about anyone and there have been but two cases involving drownings. Just TWO. In both cases there was gross negligence on the part of the captains. But sure, it's the Mac's fault...

The one in Vermont;

*Owner was drunk and had a BAC of 0.217 = More than twice the legal limit
*Did not even know if the ballast tanks were full or not = Captain not "in-charge" of vessel
*Had spent 15 months in prison for federal theft charges = Great characer
*Was 10:00 PM with at least 11 people on board!! = Over loaded by more than DOUBLE
*Was not even the skipper own boat = Probably had no clue how to properly operate it.
*Went all the way to the supreme court and he was still convicted for boating while intoxicated, death resulting.

From the Vermont Supreme Court records;

"The boat was designed so that the ballast tank should be filled when operated as a sailboat and normally emptied when operated as a powerboat, except when carrying more than four people aboard—in which case, the manufacturer warned in the manual, the ballast tank should always be filled. The manual also warned not to overload the boat, and recommended a limit of six adults so as not to compromise the boat’s stability. The manual further warned that when operated without the ballast filled, passengers should stay off the cabin top and foredeck to avoid instability.

On the evening of the capsize, defendant was operating the MacGregor 26X as a powerboat with eleven people on board—eight adults and three children. One adult was seated on the foredeck and another was standing atop the cabin. The ballast tank was empty. Defendant had never seen the owner’s manual. Although the manufacturer typically puts decals on the boat warning about the number of passengers, their location and when to fill the ballast tank, the warnings were missing on this particular boat. Both the State and defense experts agreed that had the ballast tank been filled, the capsize would not have happened.

One State’s witness, a passenger on the boat to which defendant’s boat had been tied during the fireworks display, testified that defendant “gunned” the motor, that she could tell from the white water coming out of the back of the boat that defendant “had almost put it on full throttle,” and that defendant turned sharply to the left. She stated that she had “never seen a boat turn so sharply at the same time as accelerating so quickly.” The witness’s boyfriend also recalled a hard left turn."

RobG · Jan 20, 2012

JuzSD - you beat me to it on your second post. I couldn't agree more. The technicalities could be discussed at nausium, forever here. His ice cold response is revolting and all telling.

Scott T-Bird · Jan 20, 2012

I agree with you LuzSD. Just think if you pointed the thread in this direction at the beginning ... ?

Just for clarification, is the author of the e-mail the captain during this incident, or the leader of the organization, or both? It seems to me that I recall that he is both. He does come across as trying to make people think of him as a victim.

As a leader of the organization, it is difficult to understand why he would not be responsible for determining the appropriate use of suitable vessels for the intended purpose. They either were stupidly negligent for not determining the safe capacity or criminally negligent for ignoring the safe capacity.

Scott T-Bird · Jan 20, 2012

Sumner, I think you are like most people who make the assumption that I am faulting MacGregor because of a bias. I think that I am only biased by what I see in their advertising. To me, their advertising suggests that a MacGregor has equal or superior safety and stability features than similar-sized sailboats. Of course the point is that I CAN'T remove my keel and invite people aboard for a cruise, but you CAN evacuate the ballast from a water-ballasted MacGregor. But even with the water ballast, MacGregor eludes the stipulation of limited capacity (because, in my opinion, it is in the "fine print") when they discuss safety and stability. In my boat, there is no reason to elude that important aspect. Do you not see where I think it is deceptive? The people who were standing on the dock and invited aboard the MacGregor did not recognize that a MacGregor is inherently less stable than they should expect. Am I incorrect?

I state my case based on my observations of their advertising and the stated (and acknowledged) limitations of capacity. I also reached a conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence that MacGregor boatowners are cognizent of the capacity limitation and act responsibly. MS, is right, the only 2 cases that we are aware of involved overwhelming gross negligence by the so-called captains.

Maine Sail · Jan 20, 2012

RobG said:
JuzSD - you beat me to it on your second post. I couldn't agree more. The technicalities could be discussed at nausium, forever here. His ice cold response is revolting and all telling.

Arrogant, ignorant and lack of remorse are the adjectives that come to my mind....

FourPoints · Jan 20, 2012

Maine Sail said:
Arrogant, ignorant and lack of remorse are the adjectives that come to my mind....

Arrogant, ignorant and lack of remorse, Just like an italian cruise ship captain...

...too soon?

:stirthepot:

Indysailor · Jan 20, 2012

I live in Bloomington, IN (where Heart of Sailing was founded) and I have a kid on the autism spectrum. We had contemplated getting involved with HOS and have a friend who has captained for them. This particular friend is very experienced, safety minded and conscientious, which was one of the things that attracted us to them. I figured if he's involved, it must be pretty good. When I read the circumstances though, I began to think something was seriously wrong. The picture that was posted (from another day, I believe) showed a captain with safety not in the least regard, in my opinion. But then to read that he's sailing in a junked up, old boat (whether it's a Mac or not), I have to say my mind's made up on the guy. He may have good intentions, but he's a buffoon who's negligence killed two people and I'm actually surprised the HOS board has not moved to get rid of him. This email does him no favors in my opinion.

The San Diego Harbor Police found that overloading, the vessel's condition and the absence of lifejackets contributed to the March 27 mishap.
Investigators said the sail was held together with duct tape and staples, and the vessel had wear and tear to be expected of a boat made in 1988.
When it capsized, there were 10 people aboard the 26-foot boat, which is designed to sleep six people, said Harbor Police Chief John Bolduc. Investigators also found the weight on board was unevenly distributed.

Capt Fernando Martinez · Jan 20, 2012

Where is the remorse? Where is the justice in all of this? Clearly he had no business carrying so many people on that boat. It is all his fault for being negligent. Did not matter what vessel he was operating, one must know the limitations of your vessel and not put anyone in danger.

Maine Sail · Jan 20, 2012

FourPoints said:
Arrogant, ignorant and lack of remorse, Just like an italian cruise ship captain...

...too soon?

:stirthepot:

Not soon enough for "Captain Coward".......

Joe Snuffy · Jan 20, 2012

"Captain" George should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

Joe · Jan 20, 2012

I agree with you LUZ........... the fact that he seems ready to continue business as usual without reviewing safety and policy conditions in the organization is disturbing. Neither does he ask for donations or any consideration for the victim's families .... what a Jackass......

Calif. Ted · Jan 20, 2012

The fact the Mr. Saidah doesn't recognise the organization would be better off without him is consistent with the poor decision making abilities already displayed. This boat was at the guest dock in Dana prior to the incident and the whole boat seemed reliant on duct tape and staples. It seemed a very poor vessel for the purpose that was run-down and shabby.
How come very time I got sued it took at least three years to get kicked out of court when all I did was own property NEAR the accident ?

Cool Beans · Jan 20, 2012

And I thought 5 people in my 33ft boat was crowded

Seriously, is that pic for real? That can't be real. . .and where are their life jackets?

MrBill_FLL · Jan 23, 2012

They can recover from a pretty big heel... if properly loaded and ballast-ed (see attached)

I have watched some marketing videos, and the one where they say its gale force winds... (8-10' seas?) but it didn't look more than 4-6' to me... and few white caps. So I think they went out early the day after a storm when thru... but the USCG still had the gale flag flying...

in a gale I believe the tops would get blown off the waves... and lots of white foam...

here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smlP6iXnk2s&feature=related

^*I can't believe that's 50mph...*

FourPoints · Jan 23, 2012

MrBill_FLL said:
They can recover from a pretty big heel... if properly loaded and ballast-ed (see attached)

In that pic the main looks sort of baggy and the water is flat, yet this mac is heeled over 55 deg?? (yes I measured the angle on my screen with a protractor). It may recover from it, but what the heck is it doing that far over with the rail buried to begin with?

Also I agree with you on the video, that is more like 15-20kts of wind, not 50+! Anyone can see there is little to no spray coming off the tops of the waves, there are almost no white caps at all. It looks like current conditions represent a force 4 or 5 to me, and agree that it was probably gale force the day before, that would explain the large ocean swells, and the CG was waiting for the swells to die down a little before pulling the flags..

MrBill_FLL · Jan 23, 2012

^ not my boat... but someone just 'testing the limits'. they wanted to see what it would take.. its a classic wb sailboat, vs the X (or M) powersailor in the video.

-sorry I forgot who owns the above boat...