# Boat lost off Hawaii



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I was just reading about a recent Hunter which was lost en route to Hawaii due primarily to its loss of a rudder in heavy conditions. Here is the link to the news story:
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=28269

Discuss!


----------



## winddancer88 (Oct 2, 2006)

Wow, doesn't say much for the structural integrity of the Hunter.  
I sailed one when I was a kid . . .good boat, but clearly not an ocean crosser.
I'd love to see pictures of the bow, to see how the anchor chain ripped through it. Question, though. . . why did the CG attach to the anchor chain, why not run a couple of heavy lines to the bow cleats?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

My understanding is that the sailboat captain tied the ROPE from the coastguard to his anchor chain. Unclear why...but that is certainly why the boat was lost. 
The rudder breakage on a (since discontinued) composite rudder post was a KNOWN problem to Hunter and they issued a bulletin to owners on the subject in 2005 after 16 reports of failure. The captain of this particular Hunter apparently did not know of the problem or chose to ignore it.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

Presumably, the USCG would have instructed the Hunter's crew to cleat off the anchor rode, before attaching the tow line. The crew either failed to do so, or the cleat snapped from the strain - not surprising, considering the boat's typically lightweight hardware. 

There's a late model 45 Hunter at my dock - never goes out and is used as a summer condo. By comparison, my 33 foot boat's bow cleats are over twice as big.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

TrueBlue said:


> By comparison, my 33 foot boat's bow cleats are over twice as big.


Roger that.


----------



## CharlieCobra (May 23, 2006)

That's not a cleat. It's a friggin' bollard!


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

TrueBlue said:


> Presumably, the USCG would have instructed the Hunter's crew to cleat off the anchor rode, before attaching the tow line. The crew either failed to do so, or the cleat snapped from the strain - not surprising, considering the boat's typically lightweight hardware.
> 
> There's a late model 45 Hunter at my dock - never goes out and is used as a summer condo. By comparison, my 33 foot boat's bow cleats are over twice as big.


I'm a novice, but from what I've read I don't think I would ever attempt to tow from any single point, regardless of how robust a cleat appeared. I hope to never have to test my theories, but if I ever have to be towed in rough conditions, I think I would use my rock climbing background to try to rig a load equalizing, 3 point harness to spread the load over both bow cleats and the base of the mast. Hopefully, such a bridle tied into a long enough tow line would spread the shock load and keep anything from failing, but any single point of failure would not leave me adrift again.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

I am certain Cam's intent with this thread was not for us to compare our deck hardware to the ill-fated Hunter's. But if it were my boat being towed, each eye of the USCG tow boat's bridle would be led through the port and starboard bulwark chocks and secured to the bow cleats.

Certainly, I would never suggest using the anchor chain and do not know why that decision was made.


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

TB,
That's one cool looking deck.
Sailhog


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

thanx sailhog . . . taken while singlehanding to Block Island last summer. Wife's below fixing lunch, Otto's at the helm (Otto's my autopilot).


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

TrueBlue said:


> Wife's below fixing lunch, Otto's at the helm.


Very nice...
SH


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Possibly the USCG tow rope was a proper hawser and simply too thick to be secured to the cleats on the boat.

I've been taught to run a tow rope aft to the mast and secure it around the mast itself if there is no suitable strong point on the bow, but I can see that might not be feasible either, given the sea conditions and the amount of motion it would swing through.

I'd hate to be the PO, explaining why I threw away the recall notice instead of replacing the rudder.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> I'd hate to be the PO, explaining why I threw away the recall notice instead of replacing the rudder.


This topic is now on 3 different threads, but I don't think there was any kind of recall.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

TrueBlue said:


> thanx sailhog . . . taken while singlehanding to Block Island last summer. Wife's below fixing lunch, Otto's at the helm (Otto's my autopilot).


C'mon TB - singlehanding means having to make your OWN lunch too!!


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

Give me a break . . . life's tough enough without the armchair sailor criticisms.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

T34C-
"The rudder breakage on a (since discontinued) composite rudder post was a KNOWN problem to Hunter and they issued a bulletin to owners on the subject in 2005 after 16 reports of failure. "
My foolish assumption, that if rudders were known to break off, a manufacturer would have issued a recall of some kind rather than, what? just sending out postcard saying "Keep an eye on your rudder" ?

AFAIK there is a strict product liability under the Uniform Commercial Code, Magnusson-Moss Act, and other statutes for hidden defects that would pretty much make the builder responsible for coming out and replacing the rudders. (Which is not to say some vendors wouldn't try to ignore that cost.)

Dunno, not my department.<G>


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

CharlieCobra said:


> That's not a cleat. It's a friggin' bollard!


Yep. I have six of them. If they ever give, I'll have bigger problems than a five-inch hole in the deck.

My boat is about as far from a Hunter 45 as you can get, and I suppose we've "sacrificed" good looks, style, some speed (not as much as you'd think, however) and some amenities to go to sea in her. But when I hear stories like this, I think that the sacrifice is on the other human, so to speak.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

midlifesailor said:


> but if I ever have to be towed in rough conditions, I think I would use my rock climbing background to try to rig a load equalizing, 3 point harness to spread the load over both bow cleats and the base of the mast. Hopefully, such a bridle tied into a long enough tow line would spread the shock


Your instincts are good. It's the whole idea behind snubbers and other shock-deflection tactics...not to create an overwhelming "point load" that will cause the actual fabric of the boat to fail.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> T34C-
> "The rudder breakage on a (since discontinued) composite rudder post was a KNOWN problem to Hunter and they issued a bulletin to owners on the subject in 2005 after 16 reports of failure. "
> My foolish assumption, that if rudders were known to break off, a manufacturer would have issued a recall of some kind rather than, what? just sending out postcard saying "Keep an eye on your rudder" ?
> 
> ...


Link to Hunter site that discusses this: (Thanks Cam-)
http://www.huntermarine.com/Images/ProductNot/Hunter2005TuneUp.pdf
Hunter doesn't warrant the rudders of their boats. Of the 16 boats that lost rudders they were able to look at 13 of them. 11 met their design/manufacturing standards. (maybe not high enough) 1 met design tolerances, but not their in-house tolereances. (bad quality control). 1 "may" have had a defect. (again, bad quality control)

Hunters solution: The captain should learn to sail w/o a rudder, and they have made a ss rudder post they would be happy to sell you at a "reduced" cost.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

*Steel boats*



Valiente said:


> Yep. I have six of them. If they ever give, I'll have bigger problems than a five-inch hole in the deck.
> 
> My boat is about as far from a Hunter 45 as you can get, and I suppose we've "sacrificed" good looks, style, some speed (not as much as you'd think, however) and some amenities to go to sea in her. But when I hear stories like this, I think that the sacrifice is on the other human, so to speak.


Right on, Valiente! Though a steel boat does not suit us or our normal sailing venues and habits, some years ago I did a down coast trip to California on a Colvin Schooner in steel - not fast, but when the weather hit we had tremendous faith in the structural integrity of the vessel and fittings. One worry down.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

T34C-
Very interesting bulletin. Sixteen lost rudders in that "size" boat from one maker alone. Considering that in all the years, I only know one person who actually lost a rudder at sea (stainless failure in the days when it was little known)....one has to wonder if Hunter has simply under-designed the rudders. And, despite their express warrantee, if that's an inherent design defect and safety issue they may be held liable for under statute. Some liabilities you just can't waive, no matter how hard you try.

This is the kind of stuff that makes lawyers rich and customers unhappy. A more reputable maker might say "Well, 1/2% of all boats in this size range have rudder failures, but we've had 20% failures. Ooops, we made a mistake." Looks like they're inviting their owners to do the math themselves. Saying that rudders are exposed and they break and all, that's nice...but did you also notice they mentioned 16 composite rudder stock failures--and none for traditional steel stocks?

Manufacturers just don't get it, they complain about the courts and regulations...and then they leave customers with no other alternatives, and wonder why they get hit with more regulations every year.

One could argue that this failure is a good thing, and call it a "breakaway rudder stock" which fails before the rudder tube or hull can be damaged. But then again...they only problem seems to be in _their __composite _rudder stocks.

Why be picky, if the tail can fall off an Airbus, what's a rudder stock among friends. (sigh)

Now, if I were a real cynic, I would wonder if the design specs for those rudder stocks were calculated by the same guy who spec'd the keel on Thursday's Child. Which broke off when the boss was racing it, years ago. (Oopsie.)

Personally I think if more customers would just leave horse heads in the CEOs bed, the CEOs would behave better. (Referring to "The Godfather".)


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

CharlieCobra said:


> That's not a cleat. It's a friggin' bollard!


Technically it's a mooring bitt.. but very nice... it'd be a bit overkill on a smaller boat though like mine..



T34C said:


> This topic is now on 3 different threads, but I don't think there was any kind of recall.


While there wasn't technically a recall, having a significant number of rudder failures on all the same design of boat in such a short period of time should have been a warning. Ethically, Hunter should have posted a recall on the defective design of the composite rudder stock.

I think that Hunter should be held accountable... since, statistically, the number of problems with their composite rudder stocks is far higher than one would expect. This is one reason Hunter has been given such a hard time on a lot of sailing forums, by a lot of sailors.


----------



## Wayne25 (Jul 26, 2006)

*When is it time too..*

I've never been blue water sailing, but would like to have that as a goal someday. From the little bit of information in the article, it sounded like he was running with the weather. From what I've read, this can give you a false sence of security vs other points of sail.
At what time should the skipper have said "were pushing the rigging and equipment to much" and heave to and wait out the weather? I know we can't answer that question. But how do you (the experienced blue water captains here) determine the limit of your boats? Did you do it by experiencing equipment failure or sail with a big safety factor that is not dictated by a time schedule to maintain?


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

It’s a judgment call and I think it’s something you get with experience. I have broken enough stuff that I now have a feel for what the limits are.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Wayne25 said:


> At what time should the skipper have said "were pushing the rigging and equipment to much" and heave to and wait out the weather? ?


Appearently, if you are in a Hunter, it should be a lot sooner.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Faster said:


> Right on, Valiente! Though a steel boat does not suit us or our normal sailing venues and habits, some years ago I did a down coast trip to California on a Colvin Schooner in steel - not fast, but when the weather hit we had tremendous faith in the structural integrity of the vessel and fittings. One worry down.


If it were just me, I'd throw a couple of tanks in the Viking 33 and take off, or get an old J/Boat. But as it's my family, and I haven't got a million bucks to buy a Kanter build of a Paine design, or a Shearwater 45 or a J/160...I'll go around at five knots instead of nine.

Colvins are brutally overbuilt even by my standards. Ours will be well under 30,000 lbs. fully tanked and provisioned on 42 feet in steel. Those babies weigh that empty. I think you use a reef to ready the hull for a repaint.

EDIT: Sailingdog, you win the terminology prize. But it's a mooring bitt, with two "t"s. Hence "the bitts", two squarish timbers in the foredeck area for lashing off a cable, and akin to a samson post. I just call my bitts "the big buggers there..."


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Damn spellcheck..  I actually have one mooring bitt that I'm installing on my boat for the anchor rode. The rest of the boat will have to make do with plain old cleats...but my boat probably masses about an eighth of what yours does... being a multihull and a good deal shorter.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

SD-
"Damn spellcheck.. I actually have one mooring bitt "
My spellcheck tells me a mooing butt is a cow that's gotten turned inside out and bass akwards.<G>

I don't know...I had the foolish impression that crucial parts of a boat, like the rudder stock, should be strong enough to survive rollovers, falling off waves, little things like that which, apparently, that Hunter never had a chance to get tested by.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I would hope that the rudderstock was strong enough to withstand a rollover or violent broach. It just seems very odd that so many boats with the composite rudderstock had problems, when the same boats with the stainless steel rudder stock did not. 

Engineering problems with composites, especially in high torque/high load situations is pretty common according to one aeronautical engineer I know who designs composite drone aircraft. Back when carbon fiber was the new kid on the block for bicycle frames, they had some spectacular failures caused by small scratches to the frames...which are common to bicycles... but it wasn't understood how it would affect the integrity of the carbon fiber composite frames initially. They're much better now, twenty years later or so.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

sailhog said:


> TB,
> That's one cool looking deck.
> Sailhog


Thoroughly agree. I'm getting a very positive vibe off of those Nauticats.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Wayne25 said:


> I've never been blue water sailing, but would like to have that as a goal someday. From the little bit of information in the article, it sounded like he was running with the weather. From what I've read, this can give you a false sence of security vs other points of sail.
> At what time should the skipper have said "were pushing the rigging and equipment to much" and heave to and wait out the weather? I know we can't answer that question. But how do you (the experienced blue water captains here) determine the limit of your boats? Did you do it by experiencing equipment failure or sail with a big safety factor that is not dictated by a time schedule to maintain?


Wayne,
Personally I think its largely to do with the schedule. Theoretically the idea when cruising is just to sit pat if the weather looks dodgey. On the other hand of course, getting caught out by an unexpected blow is a fact of sailing life and the boat has to be prepared to take it when it comes. Some designs do seem to have an inherent problem with their rudder stocks. Hunters and Bavarias spring to mind but I do know of one guy who has quite successfully sailed a Hunter he bought in the US back to Australia and there are plenty of plastic fantastics out there cruising quite happily. One thing the prudent cruiser needs to have ingrained in his head is to know when to reduce sail, preferably well before it is absolutely necessary. Racers don't have that latitude but cruisers are not supposed to be in a hurry to get anywhere.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Why is it that rudders don't seem to go missing as often when they are skeg mounted? <g>


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Correct me if I am wrong; but wouldn't it be a bit difficult to come about onto a tack and then heave to in 14' seas and wind from the quarter? Maybe it's not terribly hard; but I still don't think that those conditions would be what should cause the rudder post to break like a matchstick. It sounds like boat was starting to broach; it was not fully broached/rolled when it failed (based on the report). I hope they recover what is left of the rudder stock for some failure analysis and testing; I don't think ABYC "approves" of this sort of thing...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Cam-

Maybe because there's something other than the rudder stock holding the rudder to the boat when the stock fails...  However, a properly designed spade rudder is a good thing... granted, it won't survive an impact as well as a skeg or keel mounted rudder, but it should be sturdy enough for most use. These Hunter composite beasties just don't cut it.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

SD...I know you know this..but a lot of comments about skeg rudders focus on the protection from debris and other objects afforded the rudder by the skeg. Just as important to me is the support for the bottom end of the LEVER that a spade rudder becomes and the spreading of those forces to the entire hull through the skeg rather than focusing them on the rudder stock alone. 
As you point out...the rudder also doesn't go to king neptune if one of the two supports should fail. Of course a spade post can be over-built to minimize the risk of failure...but i prefer redundancy especially for offshore cruising...even at the cost of some speed.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

Anyone want to weigh in on weather the Hunter should have been out in the middle of the Pacific in the first place??


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

I remember reading in one of the sail mags that they had a couple of boats lose rudders (neither of them Hunters) in one of the recent East Coast to Caribbean races.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Cam-

Redundancy is always nice when help is 1000 miles away...  I agree that the keel and skeg mounted rudders are better supported both at the top and bottom. 

I have a kickup spade rudder on my boat, but it is really a requirement of the desing, being a multihull, with a draft of 14" with the board up. 
BTW, the rudder on my boat works, although not as well, in the up position.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> but i prefer redundancy especially for offshore cruising...even at the cost of some speed.


I guarantee my skeg and transom-hung ruddered, full-keeled, steel "tub" will go down a wave face quite fast enough in 50 knots. Unlike some current production boats, however, it will come back up the next wave.

It's really a matter of how you want to sail. The list of "fast" fin keeled, spade-ruddered boats that are also good for extreme or even stormy conditions is pretty short, in my view, and as the Americas Cup designs hint at, we may be approaching the limits of our materials science in getting ULDBs that can take the kind of hits the sea can dish out.

Would I like a J/160 or a Saga 48 or a Swan or even a more conservative Moody? Yes, I would...because such boats are on that list. Nothing by Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau, Jeanneau, Dufour or Bavaria is on that list. Tartan is a maybe.

Of course, I'm the annoying bastard who shows up at boat shows with a dental mirror and a flashlight to view the backing plates under the (too short) stanchions, or who counts the hand holds in the (too wide) saloon. The Lloyd's Ocean certification is handed out far too liberally, in my view. But I am very much in the minority these days, and frankly, if one in 100 production boats actually goes offshore, I would be surprised.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

I am suprised that the delivery captain did not require the boat to be equipped with an emergency rudder system for the trip to Hawaii. A independent steering system is the only truly redundant setup IMHO. I'm pretty sure this is a requirement to enter either the TransPac or Pacific Cup.

I think it's amusing that the rudder is a weak link in a +200k boat; what's the point of that crappy emergency tiller handle they provide when you have no rudder? (Only supplied to make the buyer much more confident in the seaworthyness at the showroom)


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

It is possible the CG instructed the crew to secure the tow hawser to the windlass. This could, and would, be done with larger vessels. The towed vessel, assuming the hawser is clapped on to the anchor chain, would then fleet out sufficient chain to make abrasion of the hawser a non-factor. The anchor windlass is also likely to be the most secure fixture on the bow. We now get around to the point raised by Valiente and Blue, most yachts have cute, shiny, and weak fixtures in their bows. A cruciform bitt, as pictured, provides the width of base to be securely backed below and distributes the load over a wider area of deck. The greater the area of contact with the deck, and by extension the backing plate, the greater the strength imparted.

The next factor to be considered is the tow hawser. When being taken under tow by a large hawser it is essential that a large amount of catenary be allowed to develop. This means a long hawser. Two to three hundred feet would not seem out of line, and perhaps substantially more. What cannot be allowed to happen is 'straight lining' of the hawser. A relatively small yacht, being towed by a large diameter hawser, will never stretch the hawser prior to structural failure on the yacht. The stretch we take for granted in our anchor rode will not be present in the size hawser likely to be passed. The anchor line, doubled up and passed through the eye of the hawser, can provide a measure of stretch not provided by the hawser and it is probably the strongest part available on the yacht.

The towing vessel should gain way slowly while taking up the tow. The weight of the catenary will bring the towed vessel into motion. Foolishness arrives when the desire to yank the towed, possibly off a lee shore, overcomes the benefits of a gentle strain. The old adage regarding lines, any lines, is "strain it-don't part it". Whether the line parts, or the attachment point, the towed vessel is adrift and probably worse off.

A possible compromise, necessitated by inferior hardware forward, would be to secure the hawser to the available fixtures forward (more than one cleat) with mooring lines. A rolling hitch with the mooring line around the hawser and thence to the cleat, using as many cleats and lines as available, would work. The procedure for doing this involves bringing approximately a length of hawser equivalent to the length of the vessel on board, claaping on the mooring lines with rolling hitches, and then fleeting out the hawser to one half the length of the vessel, and making the mooring lines fast to their cleats, taking an even strain on all parts. Then the hawser could be led aft and, assuming a keel stepped mast, secured about the base of the mast. Smaller lines can be rigged at the bow to fairlead the hawser dead ahead over the bows.

This is also the time at which it will be found desirable to have an axe, or more practically a hatchet. If it becomes necessary to sever the tow immediately, your basic knife (I don't care the blade is hand forged of unobtainium!) will prove deficient. A good sharp hatchet will allow you to use much more force in severing the line(s). The resultant damage to your deck probably not being a major concern in this eventuality.

The CG does not do as much towing as one might think; certainly nothing like the experience of your tow boat operator. Good communication, if possible, can preclude worsening the situation.

I would also caution of drawing too much from the media in dissecting these types of incidents. The "allision" I was involved in, anchored in the roads off Little Creek, VA, was reported in the local paper. There was little follow up, as my vessel fortunately did not blow up (1,500 tons of ammo in No.1 hold made this a concern) and what was printed in the paper seemed to come from the designated CG pr personnel. Suffice it to say, they got the name of the vessel and the anchorage correct. After that, one began to wonder which ship they were discussing as it did not sound like the incident of the night before.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

*Hidden Strengths*



camaraderie said:


> Why is it that rudders don't seem to go missing as often when they are skeg mounted? <g>


Cam

Your comment set me thinking about the rudder on my CS 36T, which I think serves as a good example of how design details set the good apart from the not so good. The 36T has a spade hung off a skeg and the rudder is about 2.5' shallower than the keel. The hidden detail is that the SS rudder post and flange within the rudder ends half way down the rudder - the lower part of the rudder is a sacrificial shell designed to fail if the rudder is subject to extraordinary forces. There are a number of stories in owner lore from the 20-25 year life of these boats, of owners reaching port with half a rudder, but not any I've heard of total rudder loss.
Sometimes what you can't see in a boat is as important as what you can. It wouldn't cost that much more to design a rudder to avoid total failure, but you can't add quality details, especailly hidden ones, like that to boats built to a bottom-of-the-market price point.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

T34C said:


> Anyone want to weigh in on weather the Hunter should have been out in the middle of the Pacific in the first place??


I DO! i was just thinking the same when i was reading through these posts! isn't taking a Hunter bluewater, akin to taking an Audi TT out four wheeling?

i will give Hunters their due, they are very swank. at my previous slip i was next to a Hunter 30, and i drooled over all the shiny bits. looking at my 40 year old Islander 29 in comparison made me feel very light in the jockstrap. however, with my 1960's over built hull, and in general built like a tank structure, in any but ideal circumstances i would feel a heck of a lot safer in mine...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"what's the point of that crappy emergency tiller handle "
You can bring it home and use it to beat to death the alleged engineer who designed the rudder component that failed? (That was the builder doesn't have to pay unemployment for firing him.)


----------

