Artley1, that is one of the most thorough, expert, and well written reports I have ever read. I cannot find fault with any of the conclusions stated therein. The report was fair and unbiased and that is rare in itself. The report does state that the preventer is better able to handle the expected loads when connected at the bow rather than further aft. I totally agree. However, the preventer here was not the only failure as you state above. The crew was sailing on a broad reach in 6 foot confused seas, with 50 knot gusts, on autopilot, with apparently full sails deployed. The cause of this disaster was either the autopilot which caused a sudden unexpected turn or a rogue wave and, in either case, caused the full mainsail to be totally backwinded. In the resulting gybe the preventer attachment failed at the toe rail and the rest followed. The report suggested that it might have been better if the mainsail had been stowed in the conditions they were sailing under. Under those conditions, I know I would not have the mainsail deployed at all. Further, my preventer is always deployed and not rigged as needed, as was done here. Leaving a bow connected, end of boom attached preventer always deployed, both port and starboard, would be very complicated and I doubt many sailors use such a system. In the coastal conditions in which I sail I think my permanently rigged preventer system, while not perfect, is adequate and an enhancement to crew safety. Excellent report and well worth reading!