Recently, my Beneteau First 44.7 sank 80 miles offshore in the Sea of Cortez between La Paz and Mazatlán, Mexico during a storm. The seas were 2-3 meters high and at very close intervals. No source of the seawater flooding could be found before we had to abandon ship. All the hoses and through hulls were checked, found intact and all thru-hulls closed. There was no collision, no knock down, no capsize, etc. It has been suggested that the pounding waves may have loosened the keel bolts enough to let water enter (the keel did not fall off) or otherwise cracked the hull. But this is conjecture, as the boat will likely never be recovered as it sank offshore in 340 feet of water. Have any of you experienced or heard of similar uncontrolled flooding from an unknow source on either this or another model Beneteau sailboat?
My Beneteau 44.7 Sank in Mexico
- Thread starter garygreen68
- Start date
Sorry to hear you lost the boat. Hopefully everyone on board was safe?
in addition to the thru hulls with seacocks, were the rudder post, prop shaft, and speed/depth transducers checked?
Edit: As Hello Below points out below, the 447 is a sail drive, so replace “prop shaft” with “sail drive seals”.
Wave action really shouldn't loosen the keel bolts, but it could exacerbate other existing problems in the area such as cracks or separation between the hull and grid liner. Did the boat have any history of groundings or any other needs for previous repairs in the keel area? It looks like the 44.7 shares some design similarities to the 40.7, which is the model of the infamous Cheeki Rafiki incident. In that case repairs to the keel area after a grounding were insufficient.subsequently the keel pulled the hull away from the grid and the laminate failed, dropping the keel.
in addition to the thru hulls with seacocks, were the rudder post, prop shaft, and speed/depth transducers checked?
Edit: As Hello Below points out below, the 447 is a sail drive, so replace “prop shaft” with “sail drive seals”.
Wave action really shouldn't loosen the keel bolts, but it could exacerbate other existing problems in the area such as cracks or separation between the hull and grid liner. Did the boat have any history of groundings or any other needs for previous repairs in the keel area? It looks like the 44.7 shares some design similarities to the 40.7, which is the model of the infamous Cheeki Rafiki incident. In that case repairs to the keel area after a grounding were insufficient.subsequently the keel pulled the hull away from the grid and the laminate failed, dropping the keel.
Last edited:
How fast did the boat flood?
That time could reveal the answer.
Small leak = long time
Fast leak = flooding [suggesting stuffing box or PSS shaft seals]
Was your motor running?
Were you quartering the waves under sail?
Jim...
PS: Wave size of 3 meters should be nothing for a boat of your size to handle.
That time could reveal the answer.
Small leak = long time
Fast leak = flooding [suggesting stuffing box or PSS shaft seals]
Was your motor running?
Were you quartering the waves under sail?
Jim...
PS: Wave size of 3 meters should be nothing for a boat of your size to handle.
More than likely, this boat has a sail drive rather than a traditional shaft/stuffing box.
From recent post on Corrosion problems on Sail Drives....
Perhaps even worse catostrophic failure occurred.
But the Time to Flood will still give a BIG clue to the hole size in boat.
Jim...
Thank you for your ideas about the recent loss of my boat. To answer your questions: (1) The leak was slow. It was six hours between my "Mayday" and being picked up by the rescuing boat. During that time the water rose in the cabin to four feet. We could not keep up with the bilge pump and bailing. The rescuing boat observed we were low in the water, bow down, but the decks were not yet awash. As this was our only chance at rescue (Mexican Navy failed to respond), it was time to leave. (2) We had a sail drive, so there was no prop shaft and no stuffing box to worry about. (3) we were using the engine, until it went out shortly before our rescue , trying to keep the bow pointed about 45 degrees into the seas to avoid a broach. (4) the transducers were intact and still reading speed and depth until the very end. (5) no water observed from the rudder post and steering was normal. (6) no collision or grounding If you have any other ideas what could have caused this slow leak, I'd appreciate your ideas. Thank you.
Was the sail drive sail checked to see if it could be the ingress point? The fact that the engine kept running doesn’t necessarily rule that out.
I know hindsight is 20/20, but was any effort made to use the engine’s raw water intake as an extra pump for de-watering? I ask not to pick at your emergency response, but to see if there’s anything we can learn about if and how that approach works. I’ve read about it but would be curious to know if it’s feasible in practice.
None coincident with the sinking, or none in the history of the hull?
Were all of the above-waterline thru hulls checked? I’m including things like anchor locker drains, which do pass through the hull and could let water inside if there was a failure.
This is a very concerning story which deserves a proper investigation by insurance company, designer, builder, regulatory body. Did your boat have any signs or history of corrosion damage to thru-hulls or rudder bearing? What materials were used in thru-hulls and ball valves?
So sorry to hear of this loss.
In reference (above) to the Cheeki Rafiki , a Beneteau 40.7 that sank in the North Atlantic a few years ago while experiencing bad weather, there is a report on-line. (Or, at least there was once.) The keel did ultimately fall off, but what is notable and germane here is that the crew reported water ingress to their home station but could not find/confirm the leak (i.e., site of ingress), despite extensive searching. The ingress was slow enough for them to work on the problem for some period b\f the keel detached and the boat turtled. The report concluded that the separation ultimately was caused by inadequate repair of damage from a hard grounding that had occurred sometime (years) earlier. The failure was catastrophic in the end, but not suddenly w/o warning.
Last edited: