Cynthia Woods Rehash

dlochner · Jan 4, 2020

I would hope that this kind of information would be covered as part of SAMS or NAMI certification process.

Obviously loose keelboats should be immediately notice, just wiggle them with your fingers. If the owner of the boat is there, not the prospective buyer, a torque wrench could be used to see if the bolts are properly torqued. Additionally look for evidence of a keel repair, mismatched paint in the bilge, changes in GRP patterns in the bilge, and so forth. Outside, sounding the hull can give an indication if the hull laminate is intact. Also look for changes in the shape of the bottom, does it look like it's been patched or repaired?

dlochner · Jan 4, 2020

Budward said:
Have you read anything about the cynthia woods or the thread I posted? I'd like to hear answers from people who are knowledgable about this particular case. I appreciate your insight.

Yes, the case is very similar to the Beneteau, Cheeki Rafiki, that was lost a couple of years ago, it had been run aground several times and not properly repaired. A similar scenario was believed to be the cause of Coyote's sinking which resulted in the Mike Plant's death. Damage from groundings is not always visible and often not in the place most people look.

If you are interested in the specifics of the Cynthia Woods, then reading the official accident report would be your best source of information about the accident. Here's the link:

http://assets.system.tamus.edu/files/communications/cynthiawoods/cynthia-woods-report-siad-ogc-final.pdf

dlochner · Jan 4, 2020

The Official report cited inadequate laminate strength. The same problem was identified in the sinking of Polina Star III, an 82 foot high end yacht. Part of the issue is there are not good tested standards for hull laminate thickness and strength. There was a rule of thumb, it was something like the keel sump thickness should be equal to the keel bolt diameter, or something similar.

There are techniques using Ultrasound and X-rays to inspect the hull laminate, as well as taking a core sample. There are all kinds of reasons for weak keel sumps, from poor laminating, inadequate design strength, weak layup schedules, and so on. In part, a buyer or surveyor has to rely on their experience and the reputation of the builder. But event that doesn't always work, as the Polina Star III accident shows.

If you are serious about becoming a surveyor, get a subscription of Professional Boatbuilder.

Professional BoatBuilder Magazine - Written for boatbuilders, repairers, designers, and surveyors

www.proboat.com

Experts examine Oyster Yacht that sank

Oyster 90 that lost her keel and sank has been raised and investigations are ongoing into the structural failure that caused the keel and its stub to break away

www.yachtingworld.com

Davidasailor26 · Jan 4, 2020

dlochner said:
The Official report cited inadequate laminate strength

Yes, the Official Report prepared by the school that managed the boat cited design/manufacturing failures. Interesting that their report differed so much from the USCG conclusions, and seemed quite dismissive of those conclusions. Reading the Texas A&M report, it seems to just say “there was a grounding, and there were some cracks from it. Our students repaired the visible cracks and the failure didn’t occur anywhere near where our students made the repair, so it can’t possibly be the fault of the groundings.” I’m not convinced that their report adequately addressed the potential that there could have been further hidden damage that wasn’t repaired. As Maine Sail pointed out in the original thread it looks like the keel bolts may have been compromised before the final hull failure. Can anyone find the actual USCG report for comparison, and not just the press release and forum discussions about it?

I also was intrigued by the report’s line “The stress at the connection point was unnecessarily exacerbated by the backing plates being too narrow as they were only as wide as the top of the keel (See Photo 6). For backing plates to be effective they should be much wider than the keel.” Not sure what design requirements they are citing there; I don’t think keel bolt backing plates I’ve seen usually meet that criteria.

Charlie Jones s/v Tehani · Jan 4, 2020

The windows in my Lindsey 21 came from a Catalina 30 that lost it's keel off Matagorda Island. The boat washed ashore on the outside of the island, and with no way to get heavy vehicles out there, it was cut up and the remains burned. Salvageable parts were brought in in pick ups and brought ashore on the ferry that used to run.

justsomeguy · Jan 4, 2020

@Budward , are you a lawyer?

dlochner · Jan 4, 2020

Budward said:
If you were hired to survey that vessel, would you have clued in on the fact that it was unsafe just by visible clues, or would you have known based on experience, that Cape fear yachts are not built adequately?

Sounding the hull near the keel should have given an indication the laminate was damaged. Looking at the bilge and looking for cracked or delaminated floor timbers would also be a clue. Furniture in the boat that is out of alignment, yet another clue. Carefully inspecting the keel for damage or repair would also be helpful.

Here are a couple of photos of a boat that went hard aground. There is a crack in the middle of the floor timber. This is the aft most timber, the keel was forced up in the back causing the crack.

The bottom paint is falling off aft of the keel. This is due to the hull delimitation caused by the grounding. The force of the grounding pushed the aft end of the keel up. It was compounded by the leverage created by the keel.

It is my understanding the boat has been repaired and is now actively raced south of Boston.

Ralph Johnstone · Jan 4, 2020

Budward said:
Can you definitely look at the keel bolts and notice the were loose just by looking at them? I am asking because as a Surveyor this is a very scary scenario and would like to try and learn as much as I can so that If i were to ever survey a boat like this, I can be extra diligent and hopefully not miss something so crucial as to what lead to the vessel sinking.

I had my boat surveyed in June 2019 for insurance purposes (20 yrs).

The surveyor called in advance to advise me that he would be checking the keel bolt torque with his torque wrench but it was my responsibility to ensure I had an adaptor for his torque wrench with 1/2" drive. If I did not have one, he would be more than happy to supply a fabricated one for a reasonable cost. Looking into my bilge, I could see exactly what he was getting at.

The threaded portion on that one bolt is 6" long and a radial space of 2-3" to swing a cat. Not ideal for a torque wrench given that the bilge is 12" deep.

Given some welding gear and a few spare sockets, I fabricated a 16" long adapter with a 1-1/4" pipe in between the two sockets and then promptly forgot to photo the thing for my records

. Next project.

Required torque values came from Marlow Hunter which were also the maximum allowable for that size of SS stud.

I was then able to show the surveyor that all six bolts withstood the required torque without movement. I was able to get under the table easier that the surveyor so I was elected to the job.

Unless the owner is fully knowledgeable about his boat and can discuss it with the surveyor needing the test, I would suggest the surveyor needs to make an initial visit to see what he's dealing with and if an adaptor needs to be fabricated.

I couldn't come up with a "universal" adapter to patent which would cover all scenarios so there went my dreams of an early retirement, up in smoke. You'd pretty well need a trailer full of adapters to fit every nut size, every bilge depth,every bolt length, and allow for every corner needed to be negotiated around. I've got my adapter and that's enough for me.

justsomeguy · Jan 4, 2020

Budward said:
No but as a surveyor you have to think like one if you want to protect yourself from being sued.

You just need the right disclaimer on the first page of your report.

Tally Ho · Jan 4, 2020

dlochner said:
Yes, the case is very similar to the Beneteau, Cheeki Rafiki, that was lost a couple of years ago, it had been run aground several times and not properly repaired. A similar scenario was believed to be the cause of Coyote's sinking which resulted in the Mike Plant's death. Damage from groundings is not always visible and often not in the place most people look.

If you are interested in the specifics of the Cynthia Woods, then reading the official accident report would be your best source of information about the accident. Here's the link:

http://assets.system.tamus.edu/files/communications/cynthiawoods/cynthia-woods-report-siad-ogc-final.pdf

Does anyone else find it odd that the boat make, model, size, hull number, etc were not mentioned in the “official” report?

What kind of boat was sv Cynthia Woods?

Greg

Davidasailor26 · Jan 4, 2020

Tally Ho said:
Does anyone else find it odd that the boat make, model, size, hull number, etc were not mentioned in the “official” report?

What kind of boat was sv Cynthia Woods?

Greg

That, and there is very little information on the usage or maintenance history of the boat. They seem to dismiss the maintenance in general, beyond saying that for a boat of its size and usage there are no inspection requirements. In contrast compare that to the discussion in the Cheeki Rafiki report at Keel detachment and capsize of sailing yacht Cheeki Rafiki with loss of 4 lives.

Maybe there are more details in the appendices listed in the TAMUG report, but they’re not available anymore, at least not at the link listed in the report.

justsomeguy · Jan 4, 2020

Tally Ho said:
What kind of boat was sv Cynthia Woods?

Cape Fear 38

Tally Ho · Jan 4, 2020

justsomeguy said:
Cape Fear 38

Thanks.

SG · Jan 4, 2020

S.V. Cynthia Woods - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The boat was a "Cape Fear". Mitchell company settles wrongful death suit from capsizal of 'Cynthia Woods'

Cape Fear Yacht Works (Wilmington, NC)

Classified listings boats for sale or charter from yacht brokers, dealers and manufacturers and builders. Marine products and services.

www.yachtworld.com

The Texas A&M General Counsel's client is Texas A&M. It's not even an Inspector General Report. It's a "brief" by the University's lawyer.

That being said, the report did identify issues where the minimum standards weren't met (how a surveyor would have known that in the normal course, I have no idea.) Whether that was the cause of the accident, I know not. Where any other Cape Fear 38's shown to have an issue. It's not like Bavaria's boats a few years ago that had several failures (and some deaths, as I recall).

Settling the case may, or may not be indicative of any issues. The motivation of the closely held company may have had little to with actual liability. e.g., It could be the insurance company didn't want to litigate the case, It could have been an altruistically motivated item, It could have been that litigation would have uncovered some non-related stuff that the Company just wanted to keep out of the record.

In furtherance, as an answer to the original Budward's original questions, I'd only add (or reinforce):

Repairs can hide problems from a surveyor -- even a competent one.
The examination of a keel-to-hull attachment is involved in every sailboat survey.
- That happens outside the hull. Different keel and hull construction involve different approaches.
- The survey should happen inside the hull. Inside, the keel boats may have issues of corrosion, mechanical abuse, etc.
- Survey's I've been familiar with always involved eyeballs, wrenches, hammers, ears, and questions of history on a boat. As pointed out above, in a bunch of the posts, you can't depend on just one-thing to determine something like keel attachment to establish that "there's no problem" -- you look for a bunch of collateral signs of damage. The keel joint may be fine, but a collision transferred huge amounts of stress to other places in the hull.
- Just like the outside examination, different boat constructions require different places to examine for "signs" of issues. (Your Young Sun 43, Budward, is a lot different that a Farr 40. You'd look around (and have the ability to do so) in different places on those two boats.
- Some surveyors that aren't familiar with certain types of boats or construction techniques; and, they just shouldn't be surveying them -- or really ought to research what they are looking at and for before they get on a boat.
The owner of the boat (i.e., Texas A&M) should NEVER let someone make cosmetic repairs without being sure that there wasn't something else that they'd be concealing which could get overlooked later. They should really search after a hard grounding to see if something had happened.
The surveyor needs to really inquire about hard groundings and other sorts of "abuse" in the history of the vessel. (That often doesn't happen. That's too bad. An owner (seller) or previous owner might lie or not be around to answer a question.)
There are bunch of things that usually cause catastrophic or mortal issues on a sailboat: The keel coming off, explosions or fire, electrical shocks, rigging failures (boom breaking, goose necks that let go, blocks or other running rigging devices that let go (or explode), etc. Those are things that a surveyor has to focus on..
The good ones always go through a boat and it's systems in a methodical fashion. But I'm convinced that there is a great range of skills, thoroughness, and commitment involved.
A lot of surveys are influenced by who is paying for them, who brought the surveyor to the survey, and what the "expectations" are intended to produce.
A surveyor can't catch ever thing.