# To Scuttle Or Not To Scuttle?



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

In a number of threads in this and other forums, opinions have been raised in relation to abandoned boats at sea where the sailor has been rescued for one reason or another. What is the right thing to do? Do you scuttle the boat or not, the boat may be fine but the sailor sick or injured, the sailor may be fine and the boat is broken but still floating.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

One thing's for sure - I wouldn't scuttle the boat while I was still on board 

But if you're leaving a boat out there on it's own, it's better to send it to the bottom.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Scuttle; but make sure if for some reason the rescue attempt fails you can re-board and pump it out. (Put the boarding ladder on the side for this reason also) 

It would require a slow leak upstream of a valve that can be closed. If I had to do this I think I would put a cut in the sink drain below the waterline. I would not cut the hose completely off; that would allow water in too quickly. Then turn the bilge pump off. It might take several hours but the boat would eventually sink.

OTOH; MARPOL says disposing of PLASTIC anywhere in the ocean is illegal!!


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

But would your insurance company pay out?


----------



## southwindphoto (Sep 4, 2009)

good question. . If you have to scuttle a boat would an insurance company pay the claim?.. anyone have an experance with this?


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Would they pay out if you didn't? If the boat is adrift; it's not a total loss...


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

I could just imagine the insurance assessor “ Its about your claim for total loss..(smiling)...it says here you opened the through hulls...(frowning)...... and cut the hoses..(glaring)....you then turned off the bilge pumps .......(crying).....and then got into your life raft as the helo arrived....You have heard about the penalties for fraud?


----------



## southwindphoto (Sep 4, 2009)

good post SimonV


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you scuttle, there's a risk that the insurance won't pay off, but if you don't, you might get sued by someone who hit it and damaged their boat or is injured or killed. If I thought I could come back and salvage it, I probably wouldn't scuttle it, but, if not, I'd probably scuttle it and hope I could persuade the insurance company that, by eliminating the boat as a hazard to navigation, I was also acting in the best interests of the insurance company, by preventing any further liability claims against it. If the facts support your actions as being prudent, the chances are fairly good that it'll work out, but there are no guarantees.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd point out that some boats just can't be scuttled easily. Most multihulls will float regardless of whether the seacocks are open or not.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

southwindphoto said:


> good question. . If you have to scuttle a boat would an insurance company pay the claim?.. anyone have an experance with this?


Why on earth would you tell them you were rescued from a boat that was not sinking? Your little secret.

I thought Keelhauling's answer made sense. Just a crack--it will sink in a day.

I would base my choice on whether salvage, on a nice day, seemed reasonable. Is the boat trashed? Where am I?


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Whether the boat sinks or not is irrelevant; you abandoned it. If you had to abandon the circumstances were that you could not make it to shore and would not be going back to retrieve the vessel.

Two sailors in an Olson 40 were washed overboard outside of SF a couple of years ago. Amazingly they were recovered by a catamaran that was nearby; but they could not safely get back aboard the Olson. If I recall the Insurance was trying to get out of paying off because the boat did not sink; and it did not come ashore. I think they finally did settle but it was dicey for a while.

The Olson 40 was later seen adrift somewhere off the coast of Japan; about 9 months after. Sails were in shreds but the hull and rig appeared OK.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

KeelHaulin said:


> ...
> Two sailors in an Olson 40 were washed overboard outside of SF a couple of years ago. Amazingly they were recovered by a catamaran that was nearby; but they could not safely get back aboard the Olson. If I recall the Insurance was trying to get out of paying off because the boat did not sink; and it did not come ashore. I think they finally did settle but it was dicey for a while.
> 
> The Olson 40 was later seen adrift somewhere off the coast of Japan; about 9 months after. Sails were in shreds but the hull and rig appeared OK.


I'd point out that this is the case with many, if not a majority of the boats that are abandoned and not actively in the process of sinking or scuttled. One 35' catmaran that was abandoned by its designer and his SO was found six months later floating and supporting a large colony of seabirds several thousand miles from where it was abandoned.


----------



## sailjunkie (Nov 4, 2009)

sailingdog said:


> I'd point out that this is the case with many, if not a majority of the boats that are abandoned and not actively in the process of sinking or scuttled. One 35' catmaran that was abandoned by its designer and his SO was found six months later floating and supporting a large colony of seabirds several thousand miles from where it was abandoned.


Excellent observation, SD. Also, kudos to the OP for raising this and to everyone who has contributed to this.

While I hope that I am never faced with this decision, one of the lessons that seemed to emerge from incidents like the 1979 Fastnet Race and the Sydney-Hobart race is that one should stay with the boat as long as it is afloat. If no assistance was readily available, I think that would be my choice.

However, if the sea worthiness of my boat and/or weather conditions are so bleak that assistance has been requested, doesn't that decision take things to a new level?

I wish I knew more about Maritime law, but I guess that is why lawyers love this stuff.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

I think this is one area where one would want to scour the fine print on their policy up front, and seek clarification in writing if it isn't there.


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

Personally, I would NEVER scuttle a seaworthy vessel!
Hazard to shipping? What about all the floating containers and other shipping debris scattered across the oceans? Scuttling the vessel seems like an over-the-top reaction to me.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd point out that most policies will have a section on salvage, and if you do not scuttle the boat, that section would likely apply.


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

Salvage rights are not as onerous as many people think. Salvage companies are quite willing to do 'business' with their clients. Poor outcomes result in poor future business so most salvage operators will sell back the abandoned vessel for considerably less than the insurance right-off cost.

Scuttling the boat should be the absolute last recourse.


----------



## paul323 (Mar 13, 2010)

I think another consideration is where the boat is located! Scuttling in shallow water/in a channel/in a frequently used bay or cove is generally considered impolite.....


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

nemier said:


> Personally, I would NEVER scuttle a seaworthy vessel!


Yes but then it is necessary perhaps to qualify "seaworthy" as well as the likelihood of the vessel surviving on it's own. Sorry to go back there but consider the Open 40 that was abandoned in the Southern Ocean not too long ago.

Rolled, dismasted, 2500 miles from land but still floating. Is this seaworthy? Not likely. Some will say (and have said on this forum) that if you leave the harbour without an EPIRB your boat is not seaworthy. So how do you classify the term?

I reckon that if you scuttled a floating vessel 5 miles from your marina, your insurers would be asking some tough questions. But when the vessel is far from help without any prospect of being recovered, the insurers will not expect any sailor to place life at risk trying to protect their interests.

In such an event, scuttling is the correct thing to do.



KeelHaulin said:


> Scuttle; but make sure if for some reason the rescue attempt fails you can re-board and pump it out. (Put the boarding ladder on the side for this reason also)


I can jut imagine . . .a radio message comes through . . . "We're on our way to fetch you". "Oh well right then, I'll just cut these pipes and wait in the life raft" It would surely be seriously dumb to scuttle any floating vessel until your rescuer is standing alongside.


----------



## MarioG (Sep 6, 2009)

What ever happen to the captain going down with his ship? I would do what ever I could to save my boat, if it doesn't sink on its own I will save it.


----------



## JT1019 (Aug 14, 2006)

A couple of thoughts come to mind. You don’t need to be rescued until you have to step up from your ship to get into a liferaft. Yes there are some exceptions to this but 99% of the time if the ship is floating you are in good shape. As to scuttling a ship many things come into play here; How far from land are you? (Is the distance too great for a tow? Will she ever wash ashore? Can she be tracked?) Are you in a high traffic area or will she drift into a high traffic area?) Do you have the resources to retrieve her? (A mid-ocean tow is big money) How deep is the water? (Will your scuttled ship become an underwater hazard?) What other options are there? (Can you set a drogue to reduce drift? Drop an anchor so if she goes close to land she will anchor herself? etc.) What do your rescuers think is the right thing to do? (USCG will have an opinion, so will other rescue agencies).

Insurance is not really a problem if the right things are assessed. A good case can be built for all thing but you have to do what is right. As was said earlier if you are in such danger as you must abandon ship than I believe the ship must be in peril and will flounder sometime soon. That being the situation accelerating the process for documentation reasons is not only understandable but the right thing to do. In all cases the ship should be secured so as to not add to the already polluted/dangerous waters (run the engine out of fuel, burn all oil liquids if possible, puncture all plastic and lash it to the ship, neutralize all toxins, save all documentation). Finally open two seacocks, one below the waterline and one above. This is like a slow burning fuse as the one below will slowly lower the ship until the second one is below the waterline then she will rapidly sink.

If someone is to leave their vessel abandoned hoping to salvage her other things must be done as well to assure she is safe, sound, visible and not a danger to other ships. Secure everything as tight as possible, place one reflector on deck and the rest in the rigging, spray-paint key information somewhere on deck or on the hull to assure you are contacted if she is found in advance of your salvage, close all seacock’s except those for bilge pumps, shut everything down except bilge pumps, anchor light, set sea anchor, remove all sails from deck, unlock all compartments to make the salvage easier, hang ignition key on the seacock with instructions to the battery switch, etc.

Some of the best sailors in the world have had to make this very decision.


----------



## JimHawkins (Aug 25, 2006)

If your boat has an engine, fuel, fuel tanks, propane, waste, or waste tanks you are clearly in violation of MARPOL if you scuttle your vessel. And that's ignoring the large piece of plastic we call a hull.

Why would you do it? To eliminate a navigation hazard? A yacht isn't much of a hazard. If a ship hits it they probably won't even notice. If a yacht hits it they might do some damage but they probably won't sink. And they should have been standing watch anyway.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

*What is MARPA?*

Whatever it is it can't be too formidable since it doesn't appear with any sea-related connection on the first three pages of a Google search.

If MARPA in the sailing context is what I think it is, what they stand for sometimes doesn't matter anymore. Would the MARPA POLICE prefer boats that have been abandonded floating around on top of the sea or resting on the bottom? Either way the pollution is the same. The danger in the first option are far more real.

And when a ship sinks, what are MARPA going to do? There are a lot of organisations around that have very high standards that they don't have to maintain themselves. Maybe MARPA isn't one of them but if they expect every vessel that gets into dire trouble at sea to be rescued and brought ashore they're living in a fool's paradise.

Ships have been sinking since they began sailing centuries ago and no organisation is going to change that.


----------



## n0w0rries (May 17, 2009)

I didn't feel comfortable going offshore until I rigged scuttling charges on my boat. Just in case!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

MARPA, at least in the context of small sailboats usually refers to Mini Automatic Radar Plotting Aids-or Mini ARPA. It has nothing to do with scuttling boats AFAIK. What they probably meant was MARPOL, which is the international treaty on MARine POLlution.



Omatako said:


> Whatever it is it can't be too formidable since it doesn't appear with any sea-related connection on the first three pages of a Google search.
> 
> If MARPA in the sailing context is what I think it is, what they stand for sometimes doesn't matter anymore. Would the MARPA POLICE prefer boats that have been abandonded floating around on top of the sea or resting on the bottom? Either way the pollution is the same. The danger in the first option are far more real.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I think you are doing your insurance company a service by letting the boat sink. If you don't; the insurance company is still on the hook for either collision damage caused by the adrift hull; or wreck removal (and environmental fines) if it comes ashore. I really don't understand why an Ins company would hold it against you if you were in a location where retrieval was not feasible (say more than 10NM offshore). The closer the boat is to shore; the easier it would be to retrieve, but the potential for it to become a wreck on a shoreline where removal would be difficult is greater also.


----------



## sailor50 (Aug 26, 2009)

Good question!

I was amazed that the Hunter 46' (Jopie Helsen modified to 47') "JADE" could be left adrift in the Gulf of Mexico after this years Isla Mujeres Race from St. Pete to Mexico -500 miles.

In the midst of the Deepwater Horizon spill. I thought with all the recovery boats going to LA, this would have been a hazard to navigation. After the CG took all of them aboard, the tracker was turned off - and the boat allowed to sail off until the "salvagers" took possession.

It is remarkable that the boat is back in Sailors Wharf - Jopie's Haulout yard!


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

Then there was that guy named Skip something who was sailing back from Hawai'i after that crazy single handed race they do from the US to HI every couple of years. He was a very experienced skipper and was caught in heavy weather for a number of days in a 27' (or so) boat he had built himself. He radioed the CG and boarded a nearby shipping ... ship. He scuttled his boat before leaving but had NO insurance, if I recall correctly. He was also several hundred miles from any land.
Some of you will remember this fellow from the sketchy details I have barely provided.


----------



## kulokoo (Feb 19, 2010)

I think it was Skip Allan

L38: Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude
More: Skip Allan's Decision to Scuttle Wildflower | Single-Handed Transpac Champion Makes a Difficult Decision | I Sail Away

I got the impression he felt it was inevitable the boat would sink, so took his chance to be rescued, and then scuttled his boat. I guess there would always be the question of what would have happened if one did not abandon - if you don't scuttle, you may find out when the boat sails into some port on its own.

I can scarcely imagine the state one must be in after battling truly fearsome conditions singlehanded for days on end, I am just glad when the sailor gets back to port, anyway possible. A couple sailors were lost in sight of a restaurant patron this last May, we survive at the ocean's grace and discretion.


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

It wasn't the wind or the the seas, it wasn't the loss of steering and GPS, it wasn't even the Skipper's broken wrist. No, it was the fish hook in the right buttock...

Two people are in hospital - one with a fish hook in her right buttock - after being rescued from a stricken yacht off the west coast of New Zealand's South Island.

Rescue Co-ordination Centre New Zealand (RCCNZ) search and rescue officer Ramon Davis said the 9m yacht Marguerite was 16.5 nautical miles southeast of Kaikoura when a large wave disabled the steering and knocked out its electronics about 8am.

The three men and one woman aboard activated their emergency beacon, as well as calling for help on a cell phone and UHF radio.

A Coastguard vessel reached the boat within two hours and battled 'fierce' weather, including 5m waves and 30-40 knot winds, to rescue those aboard.

'They had trouble locating the yacht at first because visibility was so bad, and the yacht had to set off two flares to signal their position,' Kaikoura-based Search and Rescue co-ordinator Jack Kemp said.

'It was extremely difficult to get the passengers on to Kaikoura Rescue [the Coastguard vessel]. It was a job well done by the volunteers; because of the sea conditions it could have been a lot worse.'

Those on board were from Christchurch and Nelson and were en route to Lyttelton from the Marlborough Sounds.

Two were taken to Kaikoura Hospital - the skipper with a suspected broken wrist and the woman passenger with a fish hook in her right buttock.

Mr Kemp said all four were experienced sailors and had the correct safety equipment on board.

Update:

The yacht has since been found by the coast guard and towed to shore. Coast Guard Coordinator Daryl Mc Millan said later that the damage to the hull of the boat suggests it could have been a whale, not a rogue wave, that hit the yacht.

If they had scuttled the boat they would not have evidence of a whale strike.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

simonV said:


> If they had scuttled the boat they would not have evidence of a whale strike.


Nor if the NZCG had not towed the boat in. USCG won't even tow you to open water in calm conditions if you are grounded. They will pluck you off the boat if you are in danger; but they won't expend any resources to rescue the craft.

Was it that pesky white whale again?


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

SimonV said:


> If they had scuttled the boat they would not have evidence of a whale strike.


I wonder if that would have made any difference to an insurance claim.

The other thing I was wondering is was the yacht stricken or just the folks on board?


----------



## steel (Sep 1, 2010)

If the boat has solar panels couldn't they just leave the anchor light on and that way it wouldn't be a hazard to navigation?

If the boat does end up on a shore isn't the aluminum mast and other stuff worth the cost to have it removed?

All you would have to do is wait for low tide and pump or drain out whatever water is in the boat and then tie a big rope up to tugboat and drag it off the shore and then sink it or salvage it. If the companionway door was missing then I guess it could sink on its way in to the water. But it could just be left there on the bottom.

If it looked like there was a pretty good chance that the abandoned boat would end up on a rocky shore and break up then I see the reason for scuttling it. But then again, who cares if there is a wreck on a rocky shore where nobody goes? Somebody will still probably come and take the aluminum mast off.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

Threads are always interesting.

But at the end of the day, with a gale blowing and me trying to avoid drowning, this is SO far down my list of cares as to be irrelevant. Is there ANY case history of a damaged yacht causing an accident (not the potential--real injury)? Can't be many.

I'm guessing that the majority either sink quickly (within a few days) or are salvaged.


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

steel said:


> If it looked like there was a pretty good chance that the abandoned boat would end up on a rocky shore and break up then I see the reason for scuttling it. *But then again, who cares if there is a wreck on a rocky shore where nobody goes?* Somebody will still probably come and take the aluminum mast off.


That sort of is right in line with the thinking of:

who cares if drift nets float where no one sees them
who cares about plastic garbage if no on sees it
who cares about oil dumped in the ocean if no one sees it
etc.

I think you get my point, and may want to reconsider your comment.

Hey, I've spouted off about things I was wrong too once in a while


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

cupper3 said:


> That sort of is right in line with the thinking of:
> 
> who cares if drift nets float where no one sees them
> who cares about plastic garbage if no on sees it
> ...


You have reduced the argument to the absurd, which insults the process of discussion and rhetoric. This approach has nothing to do with the question, no more than comparing apples to hand grenades.

No, I can't see that you have a related point.


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> You have reduced the argument to the absurd, which insults the process of discussion and rhetoric. This approach has nothing to do with the question, no more than comparing apples to hand grenades.
> 
> No, I can't see that you have a related point.


Have I? Seems to me MARPOL impacts was discussed before.

My point was that I thought it was a flippant remark to say "who cares" about an abandoned boat pounding against a shore "where nobody goes".

It was the out of sight, out of mind situation I thought inappropriate.

I believe most of us are environmentalists at heart and DO care about our impact on our environment. Flippant remarks about "who cares" are inappropriate, and may well have not been meant in the manner they were made, but until the OP clarifies, I stand by my comment.

What is the right decision? How long is a piece of string?

Weather, location, seas, shipping lanes etc. etc all play a role and all have been mentioned.

Your dealing with a stressful situation and although it may cross your mind after your rescued, I'm not sure scuttling is the primary thought a person would have.


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> You have reduced the argument to the absurd, which insults the process of discussion and rhetoric. This approach has nothing to do with the question, no more than comparing apples to hand grenades.
> 
> No, I can't see that you have a related point.


Have I? Seems to me MARPOL impacts was discussed before.

My point was that I thought it was a flippant remark to say "who cares" about an abandoned boat pounding against a shore "where nobody goes".

It was the out of sight, out of mind situation I thought inappropriate.

I believe most of us are environmentalists at heart and DO care about our impact on our environment. Flippant remarks about "who cares" are inappropriate, and may well have not been meant in the manner they were made, but until the poster clarifies, I stand by my comment.

What is the right decision? How long is a piece of string?

Weather, location, seas, shipping lanes etc. etc all play a role and all have been mentioned.

Your dealing with a stressful situation and although it may cross your mind after your rescued, I'm not sure scuttling is the primary thought a person would have.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

cupper3 said:


> Have I? Seems to me MARPOL impacts was discussed before.
> 
> My point was that I thought it was a flippant remark to say "who cares" about an abandoned boat pounding against a shore "where nobody goes".
> 
> ...


My sincere apologies. I do see your first point but did not make the connection. I thought you were speaking of scuttling. Again, my apologies.

So many variables. If it washes onto a 3rd world shore, the boat will be picked over an recycled... mostly. Some--more than would seem likely--are salvaged. I have a friend who bought a "floater" for a dollar. Some will sink. And some will become a litter problem. But as you implied, unless you think you are at great risk of death, most of us would not quit.


----------



## merc2dogs (Jun 5, 2004)

On the scuttling from an environmental impact view....

Scuttle the boat and it will sit at the bottom and nothing on it will ever be recycled simply because of the expense. It will instead sit there slowly breaking down slowly infusing it's components into the sea.

If instead it drifts onto shore, anything that is on the boat when it does can be cleaned up and recycled easier.

So scuttling is the ultimate 'out of sight out of mind' solution, it does NOTHING for the environment.

As for recycling the hull, I once had a shed that the roof was an old 14ft fiberglass dinghy, was the ultimate in maintenance free roofs, painted once every few years simply to make it look good.
When I moved in, the boat was in the woods behind the garage with the floors and all other wood rotted out, way too much effort and expense to make it a boat again, but was a great roof


----------



## cupper3 (Jun 30, 2010)

pdqaltair said:


> My sincere apologies. I do see your first point but did not make the connection. I thought you were speaking of scuttling. Again, my apologies.


Apologies noted and accepted 

I just noted your tag line URL to your blog... I've been following it for months! You do a great job on it. Thought it was a good "teaching moment" the other day about who owns the beach.


----------



## steel (Sep 1, 2010)

merc2dogs said:


> If instead it drifts onto shore, anything that is on the boat when it does can be cleaned up and recycled easier.


That's what I was thinking. Who cares if it is on some shore where nobody goes any more than on the bottom of the ocean? I know someone who does see it may think it is ugly but they could scrap the metals and use the money to have it removed.

If it ends up on a shore the metal parts of the boat can be scrapped, the sails can be taken out an reused and the batteries can be scrapped.

If it lands on a 3rd world shore rocky shore I think pretty much everything except the fiberglass hull will be taken. They'll probably even try to break out the keel with axes to get the lead out. They'll take all the wiring. Everything! Now it is just a big piece of plastic which could be easily dragged off by a tugboat and put at the bottom. Over all the amount of money they got from scrapping it should cover pulling it off the shore, in theory. But they have better things to worry about like feeding their families than whether or not there is an ugly piece of plastic sitting on their shore.


----------



## brpyrate (Jul 24, 2011)

*Non-Disposable Boats*

1.ANY reason to NOT pay out on a Marine Insurance Policy will be taken advantage of by the Insurer.
(Unless SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN into the Contract "Scuttling" claims will be denied.)
2.USCG MIGHT have an Opinion on "Scuttling",If the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) applies.[Look it Up ,Beforehand]
Please don't put them in a Position of Non-Responsibility as to your Hull.
('Frustrates the H*ll out of them!)
[They're Trained to "Save Lives",which they do at the cost of their own sometimes.]
3.Local Jurisdictions MAY have a much farther reach Seaward in Environmental
Pollution matters than you are aware of.


----------

