Or ignorant of the importance. We're on our third summer with this boat and I've not had the rigging inspected yet. I realized it was a gap in our preventative maintenance so am taking steps to correct it and put it on schedule going forward.
Rigging Inspection
- Thread starter Phil Herring
- Start date
That’s it in 95% of the cases. You know better, you do better.
But this doesn’t have to be complex to be effective. A simple walk around looking at shackle pins and rings before heading out will address the vast majority of problems that people have.
Go sailing walk the deck and observe your rig at work. Is the mast in column? Are the spreaders correctly oriented? Is the forestay taut? How do the lee shrouds feel? Turnbuckles look similar side to side? All the clips and pins OK? Gooseneck fittings look right, any obvious wear? Tack over and do it again.
The day you go out for a sail in a blow and look up at your rig and say to yourself "... is this the day it's going to come down?" is the day you get your rig inspected by a pro.
This is not only true, but, I'll bet, any sailor with experience, does it without much thought. It's just what it means to be in charge of a complex piece of machinery that you care about. Frankly, I don't inspect my boat with a mind for safety. I do it because I just love looking at her and I want her to look good and perform well. The safety part is just part of living with a boat. It's automatic.
-Will (Dragonfly)
I do worry about the rig coming down. In season, I pay attention to slight movements or shifting of chainplates, tangs, etc.
We pull the mast(s) out every haul out. Everything from mast head down gets a good close look then while it's on horses, and in the spring when it's time to step.
If I'm not sure about a piece, I ask a rigger to take a look.
It was family ritual every spring and fall (usually after school), to help Dad "Drive the mast" through the public landing. I attach the spreaders and shrouds on horses before stepping. These days I've splurged and store in a spar shed.
We pull the mast(s) out every haul out. Everything from mast head down gets a good close look then while it's on horses, and in the spring when it's time to step.
If I'm not sure about a piece, I ask a rigger to take a look.
It was family ritual every spring and fall (usually after school), to help Dad "Drive the mast" through the public landing. I attach the spreaders and shrouds on horses before stepping. These days I've splurged and store in a spar shed.
Been there. I'm a licensed API inspector and still do a little consulting work. Smae mentality. Some inspect. Most would not if insurance and SPCC did not require it.
These are by far the most common failure I have seen. I've had several on boats of mine; one boat would crack the one on the forestay every ~ 7 years.
Scary pictures to say the least.These are by far the most common failure I have seen. I've had several on boats of mine; one boat would crack the one on the forestay every ~ 7 years.
Ken
That's interesting.
a) Under-speced?
b) Shock loading?
c) Loose rigging?
Normally if C is true it creates B. If C is not true, the normal amount of B will create a failure if A it true.
The capability to perform visual or die inspection never changes with time, so I'm assuming you mean that the ability to detect defects becomes more of a concern, that there are defects you can't see well through these methods that become important to the confidence you gain through that inspection.
However, it would seem to me if that were the case, then that inspection is not particularly useful at any time, not just at 10 years.
dj
DJ: That is a really great logic observation! The short answer: There is value in visual inspection and die testing early in the life of the standing rig. Parts are new and the duty cycles are low. You are looking for defects and assessing known damage.
But as the system ages and the duty cycles add up, the failure points do as well. The potential that the rig has been aged by conditions unobserved, excessive strain, hidden damage, obscured damage, changes to the metallurgy all reduce the limited safety factor of simple visual inspection and die testing. You just accept the reality that the system has an increasing possibility of failure, that the original specification is no longer reliable, and the result would be catastrophic and unacceptable irregardless of the statistical norm.
One reason for not inspecting … Reliability breeds complacency. I think that I am more like Will in that I don't do a conscious walk around every time I sail. One reason is that in 50+ years of boating (I'll have to admit that I have never been an intensive sailor), I've never experienced a catastrophic failure. I think that I am generally aware of the condition of the fittings and wires. I know that I have never seen a fish hook on a shroud or anything that looks suspicious and I know that I would never even consider sailing the boat if I were to suspect anything wrong. I replaced all the standing rigging and fittings just 2 years ago, not because anything looked even slightly damaged or deteriorated, but because I only knew the age of the forestay, which I replaced soon after purchasing the boat 14 years ago (the swaged fitting was slightly bent as noted in the survey). I did not know the age of the other shrouds.
Now that I know that standing rigging is new, complacency is easy. But this thread has made me consider that I should at least do a careful check of all the cotter pins, since I didn't step the mast this spring and I had noticed a few on deck and dismissed the notion that they came from a fitting (generally because they looked like the ones that would have been removed last winter).
Now that I know that standing rigging is new, complacency is easy. But this thread has made me consider that I should at least do a careful check of all the cotter pins, since I didn't step the mast this spring and I had noticed a few on deck and dismissed the notion that they came from a fitting (generally because they looked like the ones that would have been removed last winter).
I have never used a Sta-lok. is the error that the outer strands are too short or that the center strands don't protrude?
Ken
Correct. The core should stick out 1/8" and the outer strands should be flush with the tip of the cone. The installer also didn't use lock-tite. This is a properly prepared Sta-Lok:
The cone which you see in my photo above is hidden by the outer strands here, as it should be.
Just a bit sloppy in the assembly. Maybe been working all day and wanted to hurry home or to the bar or needed to eat as having skipped lunch. No one would know. They hold and there is a safety factor built in.
Right.
Reason to watch and know the type of person the rigger is.
Right.
Reason to watch and know the type of person the rigger is.
So we see pictures and experiences of fittings and chain plates being the cause of failure. And generally we know what to look for. But what about the wire? Is there chance the wire pulls out or breaks inside swages? Obviously we cannot see inside but when inspecting I look for broken wires at swage, corrosion at entry point..... any additional advice/techniques?
Greg
Greg
Doesn't that also point to, get that hackle moused? Or at last tie wrapped? After the same thing happened to me early this season I stuck a cotter ring on it...