# 2 dead, 8 injured in sailboat sinking



## scraph (Oct 19, 2009)

2 dead, 8 injured as sailboat sinks off San Diego Bay

This is a very unfortunate event but ... 10 people were not sailing around the bay on a large vessel ... they were on a 25-foot sailboat. 10 people on the rail of this boat (think, 'Oh look! A dolphin. It's over there!') is just as much movable ballast as the boat was built with (if not a little more). The article mentioned the boat capsized, cause unknown. This certainly outlines the eventuality of boating safety neglected... what a shame.


----------



## Collinsb (Dec 23, 2010)

I live close to this area and sail out the shelter island harbor. My heart and prayers go out to the families involved. It's especially sad knowing a little bit of extra knowledge on boating safety could have prevented this.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I saw an aerial picture of this on the news here in Northern California; and it looked like the boat may have lost it's keel. The reason I say this is because you could not see a fin on the hull and the boat was floating while completely upside-down. In most cases this cannot happen a keel boat will always try and right itself if it turns over. Rolling to an inverted position should not be able to happen in flat water. Looks like maybe 6 adults, 4 kids. I'm not sure I would call that over-loaded because sailboats can handle a large amount of ballast weight. I think my 41 is rated to have something like 25 adults aboard if I had life jackets for everyone. That's way, way more than I would ever want to have onboard; just it's rated capacity.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

I have read several accounts, and so far one identifies the boat as 25', the other two i.d. the boat as 35'. So there seems to be a discrepancy on the size of the boat.

The video in this news clip shows the overturned boat. I agree with KH, there does not appear to be a keel, although this could be a centerboard boat. I also don't see a rudder.

Clearly something went very wrong here.

P.S. KH, good to hear from you -- although I wish it were under different circumstances.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

KeelHaulin said:


> I saw an aerial picture of this on the news here in Northern California; and it looked like the boat may have lost it's keel...


It's possible, but remember that many 25-footers have swing keels. I assume that if a boat with swinger capsizes, gravity will pull the keel back down into the well.

I have no direct experience with swing keels, but I believe that any ballast is higher up in/near the hull, making the boat even more topheavy with that many passengers. And as already mentioned, coming about with that many people aboard is likely to end up with too many being on the leeward side.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Studying that video clip some more -- that is an unusual hull shape for a sailboat. Very low-displacement, with a flat bottomed in the run-out aft.

It almost looks more like a powerboat hull, with an outboard drive-shaft at the stern. Hard to say, though.


----------



## michigancruisers (Sep 12, 2008)

not only is there no keel in the image but there is no rudder as well. Do Macgregors have a flip up rudder?

MC


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

The original link's video shows them towing the boat in with someone onboard. It's definitely not 35' and 25' looks like a pretty close guess. 
10 people on a 25' boat?  

Mine is 26' and maximum loading is 6 people of normal weight. 6 on mine would be a crowded boat.

Unless something happened to the keel, how did it completely turtle? I would think once those 10 people went into the drink, it would have righted itself. I couldn't identify the boat from the video, but if it's a water ballast which was left empty it could happen, I guess. The article said they needed translators for the victims.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Sublime said:


> The original link's video shows them towing the boat in with someone onboard. It's definitely not 35' and 25' looks like a pretty close guess.
> 10 people on a 25' boat?


Looks like an early McGregor in that first video where they are towing it upright.

Sad story... that's a big load on a small boat.


----------



## CLucas (Feb 10, 2007)

At the 2:00 mark in the video in the original post you can see a profile of the boat as it's being towed in. There's a small outboard mounted on the stern -- I'm guessing a stern hung rudder detached when it turtled (not that it should have, of course). I'm going to guess that it was a CB, which, if the pivot bolt gave way or came out would quickly result in a capsize. If they had sails up, the drag from the sails would have slowed (but not prevented) it from turtling. Only "some" of those rescued had pfds according to the video.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

It looks like a MacGregor 26D. Profile and portlights look right. and there seems to be an outboard well on the port side of the transom. If it is an M26D, they are a swing keel boat, with a transom-hung rudder; only about a foot draft with keel up.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Okay, I was finally able to view scraph's first link that he posted (it wouldn't spool for me earlier). I had only seen the capsized boat in the other footage. 

Definitely a sailboat, and not 35'. I agree it looks like a McGregor. Did the 26D have water ballast?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Here's the boat (from SA):










Mac 26


----------



## scraph (Oct 19, 2009)

Yessir, that's definitely a MacGregor. The question remains whether it is a centerboard or daggerboard model (it seems to have gone from a daggerboard, to swing centerboard, and back to daggerboard over its history) and I can' make out either of the bottom features on the picture above. Either way ... the keels do not provide substantial stability by ballast. With 1150lbs of water ballast and only 300lbs of fixed ballast (installed inside hull of a boat drafting 1.25' (keel up)). The concern then with static stability is not whether a keel was installed (of either sort ... or whether it fell away) but whether the water ballast tank was filled. This is sure sounding like there was no water ballast... absent that, the 300lbs of fixed ballast would have no ability to right the capsized boat with survivors clinging on.


----------



## scraph (Oct 19, 2009)

JohnRPollard said:


> Did the 26D have water ballast?


All MacGregor 26s are water ballasted. 300# permanent, 1150# water ballast. The only difference over the history of the boat seems to be whether it is swing keel or daggerboard (D in this case means daggerboard).


----------



## YeahJohn (Nov 4, 2010)

So sad. In the article from fox along with the video clip, it states that the boat was a rental. That could not be right and if it is should not be right.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

Edit: So, while I was looking for a pic of the 26D (and making lunch for my daughter) a lot of other people beat me to this conclusion. 

But yes, the 26D was water ballasted.

Original Post:

Dunno...sorta looks like a 26D to me...










Either way, my heart goes out to the friends and family of those lost.

Peace,

6P


----------



## Kiltmadoc (Nov 10, 2009)

Just curious (since i live another life as an occasional private pilot): In the airplane world, an event like this would possibly warrant an "airworthiness directive" if it were found to be related to a mechanical or structural problem. 

For example: all Mac 26 owners are advised to place a placard warning the user (captain) to ensure that the swing keel is in a deployed and locked down position prior to entering deep water. 

Does the coast guard or AYBC or anyone else have any authority to issue these type of directives/warnings/consumer advisories?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Kiltmadoc said:


> Just curious (since i live another life as an occasional private pilot): In the airplane world, an event like this would possibly warrant an "airworthiness directive" if it were found to be related to a mechanical or structural problem.
> 
> For example: all Mac 26 owners are advised to place a placard warning the user (captain) to ensure that the swing keel is in a deployed and locked down position prior to entering deep water.
> 
> Does the coast guard or AYBC or anyone else have any authority to issue these type of directives/warnings/consumer advisories?


Shhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Geez, what are you trying to do?

The FAA has written a regulation to try to prevent the recurrence of every scratch, let alone accident. It has created the largest most disfunctional regulatory authority in the nation. The regs often contradict themselves and you seriously can't get two Flight Standards District Offices to agree on the interpretation of half the regs. Seriously.


----------



## MikeinLA (Jul 25, 2006)

To think that all they wanted was a beautiful day on the water just as we all enjoy. I wonder if any of the survivors will ever step foot on a boat again. So sad.

RIP

Mike


----------



## lans0012 (Jul 16, 2008)

*10 People?*

Whether it was 9 or 10 people, it was about 5 too many. Can't believe a rental company would have let that many people on board, unless they didn't know.

Don't know the details, but just should serve as a reminder that everyone on your boat should know how to swim or at least be wearing a PFD...especially on a rental...Macgregor...in cold water....with children

Would you drive your car full of people with no doors or seatbelts on the edge of a cliff knowing that one bump or slip could send someone to their death?


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

I watch this happening yesterday evening ( out walking the dog ) very sad deal, saw the bodies on the dock and saw the boat this AM at shelter island boatyard, though I thought it was a older 27 it's difinitly a Mac and difinitly overloaded


----------



## carl762 (Jan 11, 2010)

Whomever decided to put 10 people on a 25 foot boat, without lifejackets, should be arrested for involuntary manslaugher. If I were the rental company, I'd be cleaning out my shorts about now, after getting off the phone with my attorney. 

My sincerest sympathies to the families of the victims.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

There are a bunch of photos of the boat over at SA

Its really strange as it has NJ numbers and a Indiana registration sticker


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

carl762 said:


> Whomever decided to put 10 people on a 25 foot boat, without lifejackets, should be arrested for involuntary manslaugher. If I were the rental company, I'd be cleaning out my shorts about now, after getting off the phone with my attorney.
> 
> My sincerest sympathies to the families of the victims.


If indeed it was a rental, hard to imagine it was legit, or in full compliance with CA or local regs...

The boat shows a home port and state registration numbers from New Jersey, coupled with an expiration sticker from Indiana...

From a series of pics of the boat by DA-WOODY over on Sailing Anarchy...


----------



## easypart (Mar 28, 2011)

The boat was 35 feet long not 25'.


----------



## centaursailor (Nov 7, 2010)

Sad all around, hope the investigation deals with any negligence.
I don,t put the main up if I,m feeling crowded with 4 or 5 on board.
Only have that many life jackets anyway.
Safe sailing


----------



## YeahJohn (Nov 4, 2010)

> Authorities say a father and son died in a sailing expedition in San Diego Bay that had been organized for people with special needs.
> 
> Harbor police Chief John Bolduc says 73-year-old Chao Chen and his son, 48-year-old Jun Chen, died Sunday night after a rented sailboat carrying 10 people capsized in calm water and good weather.
> 
> Bolduc says the trip was organized by an Indiana-based nonprofit organization that conducts sailing trips for people with disabilities.


Update. They trailerd the boat from Indiana?


----------



## carl762 (Jan 11, 2010)

> The boat was 35 feet long not 25'.


Just got done watching LA Times video. The boat really doesn't appear to be 35 ft. It looks like a 26 footer. Initial reports were corrected to say 26 footer.

Jon, very very interesting.


----------



## derfus (Jan 12, 2011)

*More Regs?*

The boat in the pictures looks more like a MacGregor 25. I owned one and I sure wouldn't let 10 people on board. With the keel up it is very tender and if the keel safety bolt wasn't in it will retract into the trunk if the boat goes over.

Minnewaska is right we really don't need anymore government regs! Have you ever seen them do *anything* without it ending up a fubar.

Capt Bob ATP A&P AI retired


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

Any info as to which non-profit organization put its disabled beneficiaries on this boat?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Apparently this one (from SA - not confirmed):

Heart of Sailing Foundation


----------



## LauderBoy (Mar 15, 2010)

Kiltmadoc said:


> Just curious (since i live another life as an occasional private pilot): In the airplane world, an event like this would possibly warrant an "airworthiness directive" if it were found to be related to a mechanical or structural problem.


The environments are no where near the same though. An engine failure on a plane during take off due to poor maintenance, bad fuel, etc etc etc can pretty easily mean death.

Lose your engine on the way out of the marina and it's an embarrassment and maybe the expense of a tow.

Particularly with sailing on a good weather day in a bay, you really have to do some work to get killed. It's sad that this accident happened, but it's only news worthy because it's unusual. I'm sure several families were in car accidents over the week but it won't make the national news.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

In addition to the registration irregularities and boating safety questions, I would also question their safety on the road. They had a ~15 year old Dodge minivan pulling the trailer. My Dodge minivan struggles to pull my 15' Trophy boat. I can't even imagine pulling a 25 or 26' Macgregor with one - even with the ballast tank empty.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I'm not trying to justify flawed thinking here, but is it possible the skipper thought leaving the ballast tank empty would increase buoyancy so he could carry more passengers? Obviously the weight would be totally in the wrong place in this case.


----------



## swimnfit (Dec 2, 2008)

Here's the latest from Signonsandiego:

Definetely a MacGregor 26 and overloaded. Tragic and unneccesary.

San Diego boat accident victims ID'd as father, son - SignOnSanDiego.com


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

WOW. I was on a boat that left Shelter Island yester late afternoon for delivery to Mexico and we heard the CG warning people off from the area of this incident. Did not realize it was that serious. Loss of life is always a bummer but HOW MANY PEOPLE DID THEY HAVE ON THIS BOAT? 
Later we heard them cancel the PAN PAN. Just assumed everything turned out okay. Damn.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> Apparently this one (from SA - not confirmed):
> 
> Heart of Sailing Foundation


I met this guy and his other ( they introduce themselves to my wife and I in Dana Point a few years ago), seemed like nice people with a admirable outreach and knowledge of what they were doing. I would hate to think they would knowingly allow a overbook like this.

Time will tell


----------



## ftldiver (Sep 9, 2002)

its a 1987 or 1988 Macgregor 26D (blue stripe vs later black stripe).

the only ballast THIS model has is the water, and if it leaked out, it could capsize. 
(no relation to the current model for sale on the mfg website... a very different boat)

I can't imagine them leaving the dock with NO ballast, its just very very tippy. but if they didn't seal the vents or close the air vent, and it was heeling water could leak out, to help cause a capsize.

however, the hull would not want to float upside down, where the weight was the highest.

like most of the accidents for macgregor, I think it will turn out that the balast was not full and that error in use, caused the incident.

-and that is way to many aboard! 6 is a normal limit, 8 maybe if there are several kids. but 8 is a lot, and 10 is just foolish.


prayers for their families! so sad.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

A well-written first-hand account of the rescue attempts this morning on SA. Worth the read.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

More informations is available at 2 Dead, 7 Hurt in SD Sailboat Accident - Page 6 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

The following is a sanp of the boat--badly overloaded and absent ballasting--just before the accident:


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Thanks for the tip Fast. Jeez what a horrible story.

Have they disclosed who was skippering the boat? I haven't seen that anywhere yet. Whoever it was is sadly going to have a serious cross to bear.

God be with them all.

(Just saw the above pic. Jeez.)


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 23, 2007)

Prayers to those involved.

The picture looks ominous! By that photo, it looks like at least 5/10 are seated starboard, so why is a boat with bare sticks heeling like that? He could be motoring a turn, but still, I wouldn't think a ballasted boat should heel so much. also see six with no PFD. 

It certainly caused me to reflect, and think about what I do, and what can happen.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

What sucks is that this organization seems like it's made up of really good people. Free sails to these kids and their families - only asking for donations to cover expenses.

One bad call out of many, many sails - and disaster happens.

As for the boat - how does the water ballasting work? Is there one tank? Two? Judging by that pic, that was a very unstable boat from the get-go.


----------



## EJO (Jan 10, 2010)

Again back to the "Rental" company. Even if this was for a good cause. Somewhere it would have stated that there were only 5 PFD on board as that would have been the max load. It should have been obvious at cast off that there are to many people on this 25/26 ft. boat (not 35') as the picture shows. Apparently there was no operating instructions given to any as to how to deploy the keel and ballast.
I read there was a language barrier, but still these people should not have been "cast off" by the "owners" of this boat as it is obvious it wasn't this family that owned it. 
I feel for the survivors, this is not how a family outing should end.


----------



## swimnfit (Dec 2, 2008)

I must be missing something completely. Could someone please clarify "SA"? I presume it is a website and I have seen it reference a number of times in this thread but for the life of me I don't know what "SA" is referring to.
Sorry for being dense.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Here's a link to the scheduling page for these sails:

Heart of Sailing Foundation

I have no idea if the listing on the 27th was the group/boat that actually went out, but you can see that "Sailing with George" that day was fully booked.

As for the "rental" - my hunch is that this was a donated boat. You can see that they ask for boats (and other things) as donations. This would explain the tags, etc.

Again, a lot of spotty information - but the rental aspect of this doesn't make sense in light of the organization behind it.

swimn - SA is *Sailing Anarchy*.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Pop top fully open... once leaned over hard there was nothing stopping water rushing in....

No boom/main. Makes one wonder if they removed ballast because they 'didn't need any since they were only using the jib'... The guy on the tiller is wearing a captains hat... was he part of the group or was he the skipper/owner?


----------



## lickingcardboard (Oct 21, 2010)

the missing Boom and main sail might be so they can Sit on the Cabin top and also display there banners on the Mast as seen in this Picture form there sight

Heart of sailing Slide Show

just my guess as to the missing boom.


----------



## ftldiver (Sep 9, 2002)

My GUESS, is like many here (and everywhere else), skipper confused the current model with the older models.

This (older) model can never be operated without the ballast. the newer ones can be (if not over loaded) when motoring to get on a plane.

The way a water ballast boat works is you launch it, open the valves, and the water fills up the cavity. (when it fills up) you close it up. shut the valve in the bottom of the boat, and the air vent.

there are several line drawings on SA already...


even if it was knocked down, it would still right, with water in the cabin. -the factory installed a lot of stryofoam to keep them from sinking, and its distributed all over the innner hull. 

The fact it floated hull up, says a lot...


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

ftldiver said:


> its a 1987 or 1988 Macgregor 26D (blue stripe vs later black stripe).
> 
> the only ballast THIS model has is the water, and if it leaked out, it could capsize.
> (no relation to the current model for sale on the mfg website... a very different boat)
> ...


I really think they didn't have the ballast completely full. The amount of bodies on the boat certainly contributed to the capsize, but the fact that the boat didn't right itself points to an empty or mostly empty ballast.
I know water ballast boats are known to be tender, and they are up to a point just because the center of gravity is a little higher. But with a full ballast (unless it's a bad design) they don't turtle easily. Mine stiffens up like a keelboat at 15 degrees.

If there was any kind of thought to the design, the valve would be near the midline of the hull. It would need to have it up and out of the water before leaking from heeling. That would be near 90 degrees. It it was a severely leaky valve, water going by the hull might drain it. But that would probably take speeds faster than that boat can go since the valve wouldn't be designed like a self bailer. I know of a few water ballast boats with mildly leaky valves that still remain full.

Though, if you don't check to make sure it's full, they can fool an idiot. Mine will fill by itself to about 1/3 of capacity and take it's time doing so. I have to physically push down on the rod to hold the valve open to get it to fill completely because the pressure of the water closes the valve. It's a fair amount of pressure as well. I wouldn't have known to babysit it if I didn't check with lowering a rope down the vent hole to check the water level. I also know how low the boat should sit in the water, but a renter might not be privy to that.

If it was indeed a rental boat, surely they would have filled the ballast at launching before allowing anyone on the boat. But I have seen enough stupid with rental companies that it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't.


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> As for the boat - how does the water ballasting work? Is there one tank? Two? Judging by that pic, that was a very unstable boat from the get-go.


A boat like that would have one tank. Big cargo ships use water ballast which they can move around the hull to counter act shipping weights and/or while loading to remain level. 
The only real difference is the ballast is closer to the hull instead of in a keel which makes it initially a little more tender. Same as a shallow draft keel vs a nice deep bulb keel. But the weight is there and just like lead, she'll stiffen right up. Pull her over to 90 and she'll pop right back up. Because the tank is full (or should be-a check performed by any good skipper) the water doesn't slosh around, like many people imagine, and acts just like how a tank full of lead located in the same place would. 
The physics tend to trick some because it's water which is under water. But the difference is it's in a separate tank, full, and attached to remain in one position on the hull. If you want to run an experiment, do this:
Cut a milk jug in half to form a "hull". Take a smaller bottle, fill it with water, and glue to the inside of the "hull". Gluing is important as well as the water being inside a different "tank", otherwise it doesn't work as ballast and just sloshes about (you wouldn't attach a lead keel to the the hull with something as flexible as a string, would you?  ). 
Now, place in water and try and capsize. You'll find it works much like attaching lead equaling the same amount of weight in the bottom of the "hull".


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

Sublime said:


> Gluing is important as well as the water being inside a different "tank", otherwise it doesn't work as ballast and just sloshes about (you wouldn't attach a lead keel to the the hull with something as flexible as a string, would you?  ).


Put another way, you wouldn't expect to improve stability by opening a through-hull and letting seawater slosh around your cabin sole.


----------



## mdbee (May 2, 2007)

*Hunter 260?*

I'm not familiar with the Hunter (I assume you were referencing it) water valve. The Mac 26S & D have a valve that exits through the bottom of the hull in a recessed area. (although the earlier Mac 26 was flush I believe - the one that turtled was a earlier model) When you loosen the "wing nut" the valve drops down and allows water into the ballast tank. The weight of the fairly heavy valve holds the valve "open." It's not really necessary to "hold it open" in my experience.

Is the Hunter much different in it's design?

I agree how you felt about the ballast being empty.
One bit of supposition: Possibly if the valve was not tight (or the earlier design valve had been damaged due to a grounding) air may have slowly entered the water ballast from the overloaded condition, if heeling, even when motoring in waves etc. (I don't believe they were sailing from pictures before the accident - I'm just not sure) I would still find it hard to believe that so much water would have escaped, that it would have allowed the boat to flip over and stay that way, as indicated by pictures. I would think the tanks must have been empty when they left the boat launch.

I can't imagine what that boat must have felt like with that many people on board. If the skipper didn't have the ballast filled...

I have also found the same experience as you, with water ballast. The first 10% - 15% they are tender. Mostly noticeable when stepping on board from the dock. That may be where the erroneous feelings come from about water ballasted boats. After 15% they harden up considerably. After all, 1200 lbs is still 1200 lbs, whether it's water or lead.



Sublime said:


> I really think they didn't have the ballast completely full. The amount of bodies on the boat certainly contributed to the capsize, but the fact that the boat didn't right itself points to an empty or mostly empty ballast.
> I know water ballast boats are known to be tender, and they are up to a point just because the center of gravity is a little higher. But with a full ballast (unless it's a bad design) they don't turtle easily. Mine stiffens up like a keelboat at 15 degrees.
> 
> If there was any kind of thought to the design, the valve would be near the midline of the hull. It would need to have it up and out of the water before leaking from heeling. That would be near 90 degrees. It it was a severely leaky valve, water going by the hull might drain it. But that would probably take speeds faster than that boat can go since the valve wouldn't be designed like a self bailer. I know of a few water ballast boats with mildly leaky valves that still remain full.
> ...


----------



## Jonathan316 (Aug 5, 2003)

That pic was from the day before - Saturday - and not the day of the accident. Here is an interview with the people who took the picture:

Image Captures Sailboat Before Accident | NBC San Diego



svHyLyte said:


> More informations is available at 2 Dead, 7 Hurt in SD Sailboat Accident - Page 6 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums
> 
> The following is a sanp of the boat--badly overloaded and absent ballasting--just before the accident:


----------



## carl762 (Jan 11, 2010)

Wow, and the helmsman is wearing a #*#)#) Captains hat!!!!

I've saved the picture to always remind me of safety before fun. I don't see one PFD on that boat. 

What a horrible story.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Looks like the 'overloading' was not an isolated incident...


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Why is the boat heeling so much when it appears that the people in the cockpit are not all on sitting on one side of the boat? Seems to me that there is something wrong with how the weight is distributed in the boat; maybe a bilge full of water (not in the ballast tank) that had shifted to one side. Could a failure of the ballast tank, allowing water into the bilge cause this?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

From SA...it looks like it was the founder of the non-proft, George S. (from what I can see on the site), that was at the helm. This is not going to go well for anyone involved:



Great Red Shark said:


> Story as it ran in our local paper today:Wind gust blamed for fatal San Diego capsize
> By Associated Press
> 
> POSTED: 06:54 a.m. HST, Mar 29, 2011
> ...


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Jonathan316 said:


> That pic was from the day before - Saturday - and not the day of the accident. Here is an interview with the people who took the picture:
> 
> Image Captures Sailboat Before Accident | NBC San Diego


Jonathan,

I'm having trouble keeping up here, and don't have time to follow th elinks to other websites. Are you saying that the photo above is a different group, not the group that ended up in the water?


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

mdbee said:


> After all, 1200 lbs is still 1200 lbs, whether it's water or lead.


That's a bit misleading, since it's not weight that rights the boat, but moment, and 1200 lbs just below the waterline is not 1200 four feet below the waterline.

In this case it's a moot point since it probably wasn't in use and the ballast system was not designed for such capacity anyway.


----------



## scraph (Oct 19, 2009)

If you're interested in the location of the ballast in this boat, reference this: DRAWINGS

Permanent ballast: 300lbs
Water ballast: 1150lbs
Boat weight, empty: 2550lbs
Boat weight, ballasted: 3700lbs

If ballasted, the passengers would account for ~30% total displacement (assuming 150lbs x 10 persons = 1500lbs)

If unballasted, the passengers would account for ~40% total displacement.

If you do the math for passenger weight vs total displacement ... their loading would be equivalent to 27 passengers (ballasted) and 40 passengers (unballasted) on a 10,000lbs displacement boat ... and that 10,000lbs boat would still have its ballast hanging much lower in the water.

This boat wasn't just a "few people overloaded" ... it was grossly overloaded. I'm not normally a proponent of legal action but someone showed gross negligence in this case.


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

mdbee-
My only reference is my Hunter. It has the wingnut like you describe. I loosen it and push down on the rod, get a "thunk" and water starts coming in up to a point. From looking at pictures, it might have a little bit of a recess around the valve on the hull.



AdamLein said:


> That's a bit misleading, since it's not weight that rights the boat, but moment, and 1200 lbs just below the waterline is not 1200 four feet below the waterline.
> 
> In this case it's a moot point since it probably wasn't in use and the ballast system was not designed for such capacity anyway.


Of course. Just like a 3' leaded keel is not a 6 foot bulb keel. It is still difficult to capsize a water ballast boat with the tank full.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

scraph said:


> If you're interested in the location of the ballast in this boat, reference this: DRAWINGS
> ...


That's an M26M, MacGregor's current model, not the boat in question, an M26S or M26D.


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 23, 2007)

AdamLein said:


> Put another way, you wouldn't expect to improve stability by opening a through-hull and letting seawater slosh around your cabin sole.


Good explanation. While letting water slosh around would add weight, it would not add any righting moment, as it would just settle into the lowest part of a heeled hull. Hence "taping" the little water bottle to the hull. 

It seems to me, due to its relatively low density, water is a rather poor ballasting agent, except for the fact its cheap, readily availiable, and easily off-loaded for trailering.


----------



## MarcHall (Jun 13, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> What sucks is that this organization seems like it's made up of really good people. Free sails to these kids and their families - only asking for donations to cover expenses.
> 
> One bad call out of many, many sails - and disaster happens.
> 
> As for the boat - how does the water ballasting work? Is there one tank? Two? Judging by that pic, that was a very unstable boat from the get-go.


From looking at the website and the number of scheduled trips listed I can't help but think that their "might" be a bit of scam going on.

Set up a non-profit, put together a good story including how safety on the water is chief concern, solicit sponsorships from companies and other non-profits as well as over the internet.

Take out non-paying passengers to avoid Coast Guard regulations and then solicit suggested donations to the non-profit from the passengers.

The whole emphasis in the literature on sailing the boat but with the 2 hour intervals between trips how much sailing actually occurs.

Its a non-profit but the "captain" charges the non-profit a significant fee for his services which ends being accounted as just one of the expenses for directly providing the services. On paper it looks like the non-profit is spending a high amount of its donations on providing the services it advertises but a significant amount goes directly to the captain.

Marc


----------



## solman55 (Mar 6, 2010)

Here is some news just in. 
Boat operator blames wind gust for fatal capsize - SignOnSanDiego.com

The operator seems to think a gust of wind caused the accident, which may be a little true but with 10 people on board and no ballast I feel that a small ripple could have made it go over.


----------



## scraph (Oct 19, 2009)

SlowButSteady said:


> That's an M26M, MacGregor's current model, not the boat in question, an M26S or M26D.


Worth mentioning is that ... LWL, beam, displacement, ballast, LOA, freeboard, draft, etc are very similar so for the purpose of *referencing* an available line drawing to illustrate what a 26' water ballasted MacGregor looks like ... that suits more than adequately. I would have to be a MacGregor enthusiast to be convinced of substantive difference between them all.


----------



## LauderBoy (Mar 15, 2010)

MY favorite comment on the bottom of that story:

i would never take a sailboat out in the wind. too dangerous!!


----------



## sailsail (Mar 21, 2000)

JonEisberg said:


> If indeed it was a rental, hard to imagine it was legit, or in full compliance with CA or local regs...
> 
> The boat shows a home port and state registration numbers from New Jersey, coupled with an expiration sticker from Indiana...
> 
> From a series of pics of the boat by DA-WOODY over on Sailing Anarchy...


WAIT?

The numbers say NJ but the reg says Indiana?


----------



## Cassive (Nov 20, 2009)

While sailing my boat on Saturday afternoon, my friends and I encountered this boat at the Bali Hai dock when we arrived. They were in the process of changing out passengers at the time and while we were inside having a drink, the boat left with a new group. When it came time for us to leave, the boat was back again loading up yet another group, this time at least 9 people. As we pulled away, I looked back and saw how overloaded the boat was with the bow coming out of the water due to the immense weight in the stern. The group in the picture above is the same group that was preparing to leave the dock when we did. While I recognized it was obviously overloaded and we even shared a laugh over the ridiculous way it looked, we did not turn back to do anything about it. Obviously, that group survived but the ones on Sunday were not so fortunate. Whether us going back to reprimand the captain would have made a difference or not, this incident is a stark reminder to me as an owner that I have a responsibility to take safety seriously, whether it's my boat or someone else's. The passengers of that boat had no clue they were being put in such danger and those of us who knew better should have acted on their behalf. My heart goes out to the family that lost two men in a terrible accident that could have been prevented. May the rest of us always put the safety of our passengers above anything else.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

FWIW, I do think that boats like this should be required to meet the same licensing and regulatory requirements as boats for hire. The only difference between this situation and a water taxi or ferry is that the passengers do not apparently pay any money. (But then again, maybe they are encouraged to make a "donation.")

I know that others here object to regulators and say that they screw things up, but skipper certification, inspections, enforced load limits, etc. would have prevented this. Even that's not perfect, as the people in Baltimore's Inner Harbor will recall, but it would be an improvement over this.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Cassive said:


> ... The passengers of that boat had no clue they were being put in such danger and those of us who knew better should have acted on their behalf....


Cassive,

I think everyone of us has a story like that -- where we realize after the fact that we should have done something differently, or we could have made a difference if only we'd spoken up. It's part of what we loosely refer to as "experience". The important thing is to apply the lesson going forward.

P.S. Welcome to Sailnet


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Cassive said:


> ....While I recognized it was obviously overloaded and we even shared a laugh over the ridiculous way it looked, we did not turn back to do anything about it.


I've been sailing a long time so I have some measure of experience, most hard learned. Unfortunately, on the occassions when I have taken it upon myself to say something to someone who is obviously ignorant of matters of safety, I have been variously told to "F*&K Off"; "Mind your own f'ing business"; and/or "If I wanted an opinion from you I'd have asked for it".

There is a canal that runs next to the long-dock/tiki-bar at our yacht club and the number of times one sees patently obvious dangers--small children without life jackets in small boats; kids sitting on bow rails dragging their feet in the bow wave while dad powers along with a meat grinder prop spinning at high speed; et al--is stunning yet saying anything is fruitless. Stupid is as stupid does.

Regrettably people are dead that didn't need die and it is all the more heartbreaking as they were so defenseless. However, having said something beforehand might be a salve to your conscience but likely would have accomplished nothing. One can try to warn people but one cannot expect much by way of results.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

RhythmDoctor said:


> FWIW, I do think that boats like this should be required to meet the same licensing and regulatory requirements as boats for hire. The only difference between this situation and a water taxi or ferry is that the passengers do not apparently pay any money. (But then again, maybe they are encouraged to make a "donation.")
> 
> I know that others here object to regulators and say that they screw things up, but skipper certification, inspections, enforced load limits, etc. would have prevented this. Even that's not perfect, as the people in Baltimore's Inner Harbor will recall, but it would be an improvement over this.


Regulations would have made no difference. The operator violated any number of regulations to say nothing of common sense. One cannot regulate Stupid and/or Ignorance.


----------



## ftldiver (Sep 9, 2002)

scraph said:


> If you're interested in the location of the ballast in this boat, reference this: DRAWINGS
> 
> Permanent ballast: 300lbs
> Water ballast: 1150lbs
> ...


DUDE. THAT IS A DIFFERENT MODEL! THATS A POWERSAILOR VERSION.

THIS COULD BE THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM, THE SKIPPER GOOGLES MACGREGOR, AND GETS THE CURRENT MODLE, THINKING THEY STILL BUILD THE SAME MODEL AS IN 1988.

-the current version is usable (motoring) without a ballast (if not overloaded).

THE 1988 VERSION IS NOT USABLE WITHOUT THE BALLAST.

your post is misinformation....


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

svHyLyte said:


> .... One cannot regulate Stupid and/or Ignorance.


Indeed... and if you try to make something idiot-proof, the next thing you know along comes a better class of idiot....

As far as the 'We should've said/done something'.. I suspect most of us end up in that situation nearly every day. Kids being mistreated in the grocery store, others being driven without seatbelts or car seats, and situations like what happened here. I guess there's only so much we can do, esp when trying to help is often unappreciated and even occasionally may put yourself in a bad situation.

This has been a sad story on many levels - and worst, completely avoidable had common sense prevailed.


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

Cassive said:


> While sailing my boat on Saturday afternoon, my friends and I encountered this boat at the Bali Hai dock when we arrived. They were in the process of changing out passengers at the time and while we were inside having a drink, the boat left with a new group. When it came time for us to leave, the boat was back again loading up yet another group, this time at least 9 people. As we pulled away, I looked back and saw how overloaded the boat was with the bow coming out of the water due to the immense weight in the stern. The group in the picture above is the same group that was preparing to leave the dock when we did. While I recognized it was obviously overloaded and we even shared a laugh over the ridiculous way it looked, we did not turn back to do anything about it. Obviously, that group survived but the ones on Sunday were not so fortunate. Whether us going back to reprimand the captain would have made a difference or not, this incident is a stark reminder to me as an owner that I have a responsibility to take safety seriously, whether it's my boat or someone else's. The passengers of that boat had no clue they were being put in such danger and those of us who knew better should have acted on their behalf. My heart goes out to the family that lost two men in a terrible accident that could have been prevented. May the rest of us always put the safety of our passengers above anything else.


True, you saying something may have stopped this. It may not have. It's something you'll never know so it's a waste of mental anguish to mull it. If you had a magic crystal ball and could see what was going to happen, I'm sure you would have prevented them from going out. But that isn't information you had.

You didn't cause those people injury or death. The hardest thing for us to wrap our minds around is that sometimes bad things happen. They will always happen no matter what precautions we take. And they can happen to anyone. 
This experience might make you more vocal the next time you see something unsafe. It might make you alert the authorities. If you don't like the regret you're feeling now, change how you will react in the future. That's all you can do.

But read carefully: You are not the reason those people died. You weren't on the boat. You weren't the one who was entrusted with those lives.

So shake off your "what ifs" and move on. You can't change the past.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Sublime said:


> True, you saying something may have stopped this. It may not have. It's something you'll never know so it's a waste of mental anguish to mull it. If you had a magic crystal ball and could see what was going to happen, I'm sure you would have prevented them from going out. But that isn't information you had.
> 
> You didn't cause those people injury or death. The hardest thing for us to wrap our minds around is that sometimes bad things happen. They will always happen no matter what precautions we take. And they can happen to anyone.
> This experience might make you more vocal the next time you see something unsafe. It might make you alert the authorities. If you don't like the regret you're feeling now, change how you will react in the future. That's all you can do.
> ...


+1.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

svHyLyte said:


> Regulations would have made no difference. The operator violated any number of regulations to say nothing of common sense. One cannot regulate Stupid and/or Ignorance.


I did not necessarily say that the boat should have been regulated. My exact quote was "I do think that boats like this should be required to meet the same licensing and regulatory requirements as boats for hire."

If you think that this activity should not have been regulated, then you apparently think that boats for hire should not be regulated either. However if the federal/state authorities regulate boats for hire, then this boat should be included in those same regulations. The reason is that the activity is exactly the same - the only difference is that the passengers are apparently not required to pay.

And the current Magregor is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT BOAT from the one that capsized. It's specifically designed to motor with the ballast tank empty with up to 50hp (mounted on the centerline) pushing it around 25 mph. If you've ever seen one flying past you, you'd realize that it is a totally different boat.


----------



## n0w0rries (May 17, 2009)

Here's another overloaded boat. There was about 1" of freeboard at the transom. These people had to launch from a trailer, and drive right by a harbor patrol office.

I saw let Darwinism do it's thing. We certainly don't need any more laws, surveillance, or enforcement.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

It seems as if my first post here has been removed by person or persons unknown. It was about the regulations that that skipper had violated.
But you can find them in "46 CFRs". An I assure you that he either did this out of ignorance, idiocy or was thumbing his nose at authorities. But 99% of those Regulations were written in somebody's or more blood. And he violated just about everyone of them, giving the sailing community, the builders of that boat all a bad name. 
1st degree Manslaughter should be the charge X 2 and if I was on the jury I would find him guilty on all counts.
And if you think that I'm coming down to heavy on the Idiot. Remember in the professional community, It is Always Safety First. And he violated that Prime Rule.

Note: The Laws & Regulations are already there and inforced... Dropping a dime to the USCG may have saved those people's lives... Please do it. Doing nothing isn't worth the possible lost of life. Get involved. Please...


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

n0w0rries said:


> I saw let Darwinism do it's thing. We certainly don't need any more laws, surveillance, or enforcement.


In the situation you provided, I agree with you. Idiots bringing harm upon themselves for their idiocy should face the consequences of their actions.

In this thread, talking about _disabled children_ injured through the actions of an idiot they have neither the knowledge nor experience to see as such, I find the suggestion of applying Darwinism to them uncalled for. I realise you might not mean it that way, but it does sound like it.


----------



## swimnfit (Dec 2, 2008)

I live and sail in San Diego and find this entire incident to be extremely tragic on many levels. True somebody should have said something or reported the vessel to the CG. But having personal experience in sailing the same area where this accident occured completely amazes me that no one from San Diego Harbor Police or Coast Guard saw this vessel out on the Bay the dozens of times it went out overloaded. I understand they cannot be everywhere all the time but the area they were sailing is heavily populated and is constantly patrolled by Harbor Police and Coast Guard. It seems to me everytime we go out, we see them boarding vessels for inspections and are ever apparant. Too bad this one slipped past their safety enforcement. I'm not throwing blame but I find it amazing that they never were stopped by a cognizent authority. 
Again... so sad on many levels


----------



## dnf777 (Jun 23, 2007)

I've found, as a general rule, you can't tell anyone who wears a skipper's hat along with a t-shirt, anything they don't already have a reply for.


----------



## scraph (Oct 19, 2009)

ftldiver said:


> DUDE. THAT IS A DIFFERENT MODEL! THATS A POWERSAILOR VERSION.
> 
> THIS COULD BE THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM, THE SKIPPER GOOGLES MACGREGOR, AND GETS THE CURRENT MODLE, THINKING THEY STILL BUILD THE SAME MODEL AS IN 1988.
> 
> ...


Dude yourself, sir. The first line of my post, the *gasp* misinformation, was a link to a line drawing of the newer model Macgregor 26M. That much is apparent from the website itself. There were previous postings in the thread where people seemed curious as to the general concept of a water ballasted boat, which is what I was providing the line drawing for ... now, unless Macgregor reinvented how boats float and how tanks are filled between then and now ... then that line drawing illustrates the concept sufficiently. The rest of the post was 'just a question of weight ratios'. I am glad you, too, realize the difference between the 1988 Macgregor 26D/S and a 2011 Macgregor 26M but ... what do you want? A round of applause?

Altering ballast location, reinforcing transoms, and adding chines to accommodate a larger outboard does not really justify your frantic ravings. The Captain sank the boat because I provided a link to a different model year boat to illustrate a concept ... right. DUDE.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Still don't quite understand why the boat is heeling severely to port while motoring with no sails when at least 4 people can be clearly seen on the starboard side of the cockpit. Are people sitting on the rail on the port side? I don't understand why someone who -should- have a captains license (more passengers than six) would not have an adequate number of PFD's and the vessel be inspected/certified for the number of passengers he is -allowed- to carry. There are laws regarding these things to protect the public safety; and it seems to me that the person in question here was negligent in more than one regard.

Unfortunately there are serious distress calls here in SF almost every weekend of the summer. Sometimes I get so tired of trying to make sense of the pan-pan calls I turn my handheld off and let the crew monitor the cabin vhf for major calls (so I can concentrate on the traffic in our proximity).


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Keel, I would guess that there is 5 plus capt on the portside in addition to the OB, the ones to starboard look small in weight, also, if he's headed back to the Bali Hai dock from where he is in that pic, he's turning to starboard....



If this is the same guy I met in DP a few years ago, all I can say is my first impression was way off


----------



## lickingcardboard (Oct 21, 2010)

Sounds like people here are looking at the Photo that is reportedly taken the Day Before and Assuming it was of the Boat and passengers of the Day of the Capsize, the Posted Photo(From what i understand from reading is thread) was taken the Day Before the Boat Flopped, and so far there is not been an official report released that i have seen.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

We (I) understand that but, whether or not it was the day before or the day of, it was a question of why it was heeled so much to port.

I also understand that this was going on all weekend ( Fri-Sun ) and every outing was overloaded


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> Still don't quite understand why the boat is heeling severely to port while motoring with no sails when at least 4 people can be clearly seen on the starboard side of the cockpit. Are people sitting on the rail on the port side?


Interpreting a single still pic in a situation such as this is often problematic. That this particular pic appears to have been taken using a moderately long lens makes it even more so. For instance, it's impossible to tell if the boat was turning, or had just completed a turn; if it had just been hit by another boat's wake, et cetera. It appears that it is pretty over-loaded, and that most of the passengers aren't wearing PFDs, but the apparent list could have been just a momentary thing (albeit, still disturbing, since it leaves so little free-board, even if only for a moment)



KeelHaulin said:


> I don't understand why someone who -should- have a captains license (more passengers than six) would not have an adequate number of PFD's and the vessel be inspected/certified for the number of passengers he is -allowed- to carry. There are laws regarding these things to protect the public safety; and it seems to me that the person in question here was negligent in more than one regard.


I believe that the rules and regs to which you are referring only apply to a boat with _paying_ passengers. Whether or not such rules should apply to a charitable operation, such as this, is another can of worms; the fact is (AFAIK) no license is needed unless there are paying passengers on board. However, there still should have been the requisite number of wearable PFDs (plus a throwable).

Also, one would hope (looking at the above pic) that the CG should have been able to terminate the trip based on the overloading. However, vessels over 20 feet don't need capacity plates, and using the general rule for a vessel's capacity ( (LODxBeam)/15 = #pass ) this boat could have theoretically carried 13 passengers. So, it appears that for the CG to have stopped these folks from carrying so many passengers would have been a "judgement call", at best.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I thought that if "money changes hands"; meaning if the passenger gives the owner/skipper money for the service, they are then a "vessel for hire". I don't think NPO status exempts a private owner, group or organization from maritime law (but I could be wrong); maybe someone here who knows the legalities will post on this.

Yeah if that is the calculation; 'technically' the boat is not overloaded if the weight is distributed evenly. But without correct ballast and a boat that has a low form stability to begin with is where the capacity calculations fail. Sailboats have a more slender hull form; and I also don't think the calculation is tailored to them. My 41' would have a capacity of 31 people!! I don't think you could stuff 31 people aboard and have 31 PFD's in the boat; there just is not enough space!

This is one reason why when a boat goes for CG certification; a USCG surveyor will come and inspect the vessel and give a certification for the number of passengers the boat can safely carry. The boat must then have that number of PFD's and the correct life saving equipment (liferafts, extinguishers, flares, etc) for the certified size/capacity of the boat. A boat carrying more than six (six-pac) must undergo this certification; which was either disregarded or overlooked (or possibly exempt from) in this situation. It's flat out illegal to not have one PFD for each passenger and a throwable onboard so we know this was in violation; unless PFD's were found inside the wreck.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> Yeah if that is the calculation; 'technically' the boat is not overloaded if the weight is distributed evenly. But without correct ballast and a boat that has a low form stability to begin with is where the capacity calculations fail. Sailboats have a more slender hull form; and I also don't think the calculation is tailored to them. My 41' would have a capacity of 31 people!! I don't think you could stuff 31 people aboard and have 31 PFD's in the boat; there just is not enough space!


That is a general calculation that is often given for boats >26ft. It does sound a bit wacky that a Mac26 (actually a shade shorter than 26ft) could have 13 people on it. My boat (a Cal 2-27) is only marginally longer, but would theoretically be able to carry 16 people. To be honest, I would probably feel better about having 16 people on my boat than 10 on a Mac26. However, a Cal 2-27 has 3100 lbs of lead in the keel, and at least a foot more freeboard. I've never been out with more than 6 people on board, and 5 or 6 adults feels pretty crowded.

As it happens, there is a Mac26s in the slip next to my boat. I don't recall ever seeing it underway with more than 4 or 5 people. Even at that, they are usually heading for the marina long before I've decided that it's too windy for my boat. Macs may be fine for light winds and lake-like seas, maybe even a bit more. I've seen other Macs of various sizes going back and forth to Catalina fairly often. Even so, I can't imagine loading one up with 8 or 10 people, even in the calmest conditions. It seems like the folks who ran this boat in San Diego just took people out for a little putt-putt around the harbor, and maybe a bit of down-wind jib-only sailing. It probably was a real thrill for folks who have never been "sailing" (such as it is, in this case). But, if a puff of wind heels a ballasted boat enough to swamp it inside an area as protected as San Diego Bay there is obviously something seriously wrong.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> I thought that if "money changes hands"; meaning if the passenger gives the owner/skipper money for the service, they are then a "vessel for hire". I don't think NPO status exempts a private owner, group or organization from maritime law (but I could be wrong); maybe someone here who knows the legalities will post on this.


Lots of people appear to be making the assumption that because Heart of Sailing is a non-profit organization, that "no money is changing hands"... I suspect that like so many others, the only time this deal turns out to be a completely zero-sum game is on April 15 of each year...

There was a cost involved to the participants for these daysails, here's how it's described on their website:



> While there is no cost for the Daysail, there is a $10.00/per person *registration fee.* (emphasis mine)


Some pit bulls over on SA have done some extensive probing into the public records/filings of this organization... Given the number of different sails they were doing over the course of a day, and the number of people they were cramming into those boats, a fairly tidy sum of money actually was "changing hands" on a daily basis...


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

SlowButSteady said:


> That is a general calculation that is often given for boats >26ft. It does sound a bit wacky that a Mac26 (actually a shade shorter than 26ft) could have 13 people on it. My boat (a Cal 2-27) is only marginally longer, but would theoretically be able to carry 16 people. To be honest, I would probably feel better about have 16 people on my boat than 10 on a Mac26. However, a Cal 2-27 has 3100 lbs of lead in the keel, and at least a foot more freeboard. I've never been out with more than 6 people on board, and 5 or 6 adults feels pretty crowded.


From the coat guard test, I could carry 15 people on mine. The capacity plate states 8. I wouldn't never go out with more than 5 passengers. Everybody would be tripping over each other and that's just as unsafe as too much weight.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Does anyone want to defend the "L times W divided by 15 = max no. of people" formula that's so often given in lesson books and safe-boating pubs as an alternative way to figure capacity when you don't have a capacity plate?

Me, I think it's whacked-out, and about twice as generous (read: "dangerous") as it should be, at least for narrow-ended, round-bilged sailboats as opposed to boxier hull forms. 13.8 people on this MAC-26?? You kidding me?

I refuse to teach it to my sailing students (who are on a 25' x 8' Beneteau sport boat, 2500 lbs dry weight, including 800 pound swing keel). Legally I can only carry 6 anyway, but 13 (under the "formula")?? Totally nuts. It ignores the fact that on most sailboats you can't spread 'em out the way you might in a stability test. Plus, I think it's based on 150-pound average per pax, which for adults is too low for the 'average bear'

Can we please lose this freakin' formula? Or am I missing something?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

nolatom,

I'm not defending the formula, that's just the one commonly given. Since this boat was longer than 20 feet, it didn't need a capacity plate. So, where does that leave us? It sounds like we all agree that the boat sure looks over-loaded in that pic, and I haven't seen anyone defending the practice of loading up a Mac26 (or any 26 foot sailboat) with 10 people. However, there is no other hard and fast rule one can use "on the fly". The CG does give a detailed method for figuring out a boat's capacity (it's on the CG site, under "boatbuilding"), but it's far too involved for such a situation. So, as I said earlier, terminating the trip based on over-capacity alone would have to be a judgement call.

I can almost hear the conversation now...

*20-something Coastie* to middle-aged daysailor: "Back to the dock; you are over-loaded."
*Middle-aged daysailor*: "I take this many people out all the time. We've never had a problem."
*20-something Coastie*: "In my judgement, you have too many people aboard"
*Middle-aged daysailor*: "I used the formula everyone publishes, we're fine."
*20-something Coastie*: "That doesn't matter, you look over-loaded."
*Middle-aged daysailor*: "So, then how many people can I carry?"
*20-something Coastie*: "There is no definite number, you have to rely on my judgement."
*Middle-aged daysailor*: "YOUR judgement!?!?! I've been boating since before you were born!!!!!"
...

The exchange makes its way to SN... and things go downhill from there. Libertarians whining about how we've become a "nanny state"; the WRW blaming President Obama, and the French; the Lunatic Fringe holloring that this is just the first sign of an imminent UN invasion; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

n0w0rries said:


> Here's another overloaded boat. There was about 1" of freeboard at the transom. These people had to launch from a trailer, and drive right by a harbor patrol office.
> 
> I saw let Darwinism do it's thing. We certainly don't need any more laws, surveillance, or enforcement.


Actually, this boat may not be overloaded. It is loaded, I will agree. It looks to be about a 20 ft boat and I count 7 heads. That should be within the load capacity. With a planing boat, when you increase speed, the stern goes down as the prop moves water away, and the bow comes up. In the normal sequence of things, if the helmsman increases power, the boat will come up on a plane and level off. If he holds the boat at considerable power but at not quite enough to get it on a plane, the boat will take the attitude that you see in the picture. And if you were in the boat, you would see that it has more/sufficient freeboard. The load could be better distributed (if it has an open bow) by having several people up forward....this would also help it to get up on a plane.

Regarding the picture of the overloaded sailboat...it was clearly not "right" and the operator should have not operated it in that condition. Ships frequently will flood tanks/compartments to correct listing and improve stability. But the tank or compartment is always either empty (except for water tanks or fuel tanks in use) or completely full. A partially filled compartment will cause a significant loss of stability....try it sometime with your dinghy (with life jackets on). With the boat listing greatly to one side with no waves/wind and crew/passengers all on the high side, it looks to me as if the ballast tank was only partially full. If there was no ballast, with all the people on one side, that side would be low to the water, not high. From what I've read, to load water ballast, a valve has to be open and vent open during the filling. Once ballast water is on board, both valve and vent have to be closed, or under certain conditions (motoring, heeling) the boat will partially deballast it self automatically. (Another possibility is there was an undetected leak into the boat hull outside the ballast tank, which would get progressively worse the longer the boat was operated).


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> I can almost hear the conversation now...
> 
> *20-something Coastie* to middle-aged daysailor: "Back to the dock; you are over-loaded."
> *Middle-aged daysailor*: "I take this many people out all the time. We've never had a problem."
> ...


Could you imagine being the adult responsible for the disabled children on that boat, hearing the Man In Uniform tell you that the boat you're on is not safe, and going sailing anyway?

It's not a "libertarian" issue, it's one of responsibility. The passengers could not be expected to know the vessel was not safe, but they're likely to take the word of the Coast Guard over Dude In Captain's Hat.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

To SBS: Okay I follow what you're saying. 

So don't trashcan the formula itself then, but increase the divisor to, what-- 20? 25? Using 15, I get 13 150-pound people, or 1950 lbs on my 2500-pound sport boat (whose capacity plate says 550 kg*, or about 1200 lbs). With 175-pounders under the 'formula' it'd be 2275--the crew almost outweighs the boat. I have a big, long cockpit to spread them out (not that I would ever take that many)--the Mac doesn't, and most sailboats of that length don't either, hence the skyward bow in the photo.

Where'd the formula come from? anyone know? It might be slightly less suicical when applied to powerboats or prams, but I hate it for sailboats. As I said, I won't teach it to my students.

*(French, Beneteau--I think in Europe, it's 25 feet and under have to have the capacity plate, vice 20 in the US)


----------



## glassdad (Feb 21, 2009)

I was sailing the day of the accident. It was a gusty day. If the boat was overloaded and or had insufficient water ballast, it could have been knocked down quite easily. San diego bay can have unexpected gusts as you go in and out of the wind shadows of the buildings or passing ships.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Kiltmadoc said:


> Just curious (since i live another life as an occasional private pilot): In the airplane world, an event like this would possibly warrant an "airworthiness directive" if it were found to be related to a mechanical or structural problem.
> 
> ..


That boat has a max load of 960lbs. It carried 10 people more the weight of equipment and stuff. It was clearly overloaded. As you well know no pilot would fly an overloaded airplane and if the airplane crashed he would be accused of criminal negligence.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## CapnRon47 (Jul 29, 2007)

*Wild Wild West*

Clearly this is a very sad incident and it certainly seems to me that common sense and good seamanship could have avoided this tragedy. And I offer my condolences and prayers to victims.

But it also seems that it is well known that sea captains are a tough lot to tell what they should and should not do!

I was at a briefing today by a fairly high ranking official in the Office of Naval Research (it had nothing to do with this incident). He indicated that one of their technology needs is collision avoidance at sea. He said that air space controllers (civil defense and all) have been around since 1903 and they have developed systems for aircraft collision avoidance. But sailing has been around for 5,000 years and captains have been the commander of their ships since then and making changes to the attitude that they can do and go wherever they want with their ship is very difficult. Quote "it is the wild, wild, west out there."


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

Ain't that the truth...just go out into the ICW channels in South Florida on any Saturday and Sunday...probably safer to drive a moped with no helmet thru New Delhi rush hour traffic...but instead I just try to get on the water REAL early and get back in REAL late...me two-foot draft keeps me out of the slot a fair amount too...


----------



## mdbee (May 2, 2007)

*Max Load*

Just curious where you located the max load figure?



PCP said:


> That boat has a max load of 960lbs. It carried 10 people more the weight of equipment and stuff. It was clearly overloaded. As you well know no pilot would fly an overloaded airplane and if the airplane crashed he would be accused of criminal negligence.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I get 57 people with the formula. You're all invited. Uh, someone needs to bring more beer and/or pfds.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Minnewaska said:


> I get 57 people with the formula. You're all invited. Uh, someone needs to bring more beer and/or pfds.


Who needs pfds? With that many empties, you'll have plenty of floatation.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Some questions:
Did this Skipper have a USCG license?
Was the boat inspected, & certified for commercial usage?
Why wasn't he turned in for over loading his vessel time after time?
What was the number of brain cells is there in his brain pan?


----------



## sailtch (Apr 1, 2011)

*tragic sail*

Yes I just joined, yes this is my first post. I have been reading(lurking) this forum for longer than I can recall, never felt the need to post, or guess I never felt I had something to share. 
I am the parent of a special needs child. This organization (heart of sailing) is new to me. The boat as pictured is clearly overloaded, as it was when the accident occured. The responsibilty lies with the boats captain, whether he was USCG liscensed or not. Although I would wager he is not. One of the poster states that the parent should have stopped the voyage. I take a strong objection to this. These people were not sailors. These people probably had never before been on a boat. They were brought to the boat by Heart of Sailing. They trusted this organization to provide a safe sail. When "Captain George"(this is how he is refered to by the web site) welcomed them aboard they assumed he knew what the frig he was doing. The absolute terror the parents of the disabled child/children must have felt is staggering for these children must have been extremely traumatized. I am not for more or bigger government. I am for common sense. Organizations such as these should state the qualifications of their skippers. Are they USCG liscensed, ASA qualifications, etc.
Also this boat was in Chicago last summer, 2010, with "Captain George", see schedule below. On their website they ask for boat donations, if you look you will see they want keel boats. The mac 25 is not. Hopefully this link works.
Edit: I have been informed that I can not submit links because I am new. Type the following into your browser. heartofsailing.org/regional77. If that fails go to their website, click sail with us, click chicago.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Often, mistakes are completely disguised by randomly avoiding consequences the first time you make them. In this case, perhaps the first few hundred times.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

mdbee said:


> Just curious where you located the max load figure?


Listen to the first posted movie. At the end the reporter says that the boat shipyard had said that the boat was badly overloaded and that the max load of that boat (according with the shipyard) was the one I had refereed. Max load is the weight of crew and passengers, luggage, equipment, everything except tankage.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

sailtch said:


> ..The responsibilty lies with the boats captain, whether he was USCG liscensed or not. Although I would wager he is not. One of the poster states that the parent should have stopped the voyage. I take a strong objection to this. These people were not sailors. These people probably had never before been on a boat. They were brought to the boat by Heart of Sailing. They trusted this organization to provide a safe sail. When "Captain George"(this is how he is refered to by the web site) welcomed them aboard they assumed he knew what the frig he was doing. The absolute terror the parents of the disabled child/children must have felt is staggering for these children must have been extremely traumatized. I am not for more or bigger government. I am for common sense. Organizations such as these should state the qualifications of their skippers. Are they USCG liscensed, ASA qualifications, etc.
> ...


You are absolutely right and this is one of those cases where even the ones that are for total freedom in what regards the need of licences for sailing and to carry as passengers the ones it please them, will think twice.

If someone can do this kind of stuff without any kind of supervision (kind of licence needed, kind of boat that fulfill the basic requirements, number of people that boat can carry under these circumstances and so on) how can they have "trusted this organization to provide a safe sail. When "Captain George"... welcomed them aboard they assumed he knew what the frig he was doing" if, as you have said, they probably don't know nothing about sailing or boats?

How should they know if it's safe or not? Who is telling them that? In whom can they trust?. There are a lot of good intentioned people that don't know what they are doing.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

PCP said:


> You are absolutely right and this is one of those cases where even the ones that are for total freedom in what regards the need of licences for sailing and to carry as passengers the ones it please them, will think twice.
> 
> If someone can do this kind of stuff without any kind of supervision (kind of licence needed, kind of boat that fulfill the basic requirements, number of people that boat can carry under these circumstances and so on) how can they have "trusted this organization to provide a safe sail. When "Captain George"... welcomed them aboard they assumed he knew what the frig he was doing" if, as you have said, they probably don't know nothing about sailing or boats?
> 
> ...


I am glad some people are finally agreeing with me. I stated before that this boat should have been regulated as a vessel for hire. There is no difference between a boat like this giving free rides (and apparently soliciting "registration fees" and voluntary donations) and a water taxi or ferry. There should have been captain certification, regular inspections of the vessel, etc., just like are done for vessels for hire.

Maybe that's what the local regs already required, and this organization simply ignored them. If so, there may be no need for new regulations, just after-the-fact charges against the captain/organization for breaking the law (on multiple occasions).

Even those regulations do not guarantee perfect safety of the passengers - think Baltimore Water Taxi and Philly Duck Boats. But they do hopefully minimize the incidence of egregious repeated safety violations, which some are saying was the case here.


----------

