# 70' Hylas grounded, dismasted in Penobscot Bay...



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Ouch...

A good opportunity for us, perhaps, to divert the conversation to someone else's screwup... 

Coast Guard, Wayfarer Marine respond to sailboat aground off Lasell Island | PenBay Pilot

I'm guessing there will be a serious reduction in her $2.4 million asking price....ARCHANGEL is a Hylas 70, I saw her in Hampton a couple of years ago prior to the start of the Caribbean 1500, where she was the "flagship" of that year's fleet...

David Walters Yachts

I can't imagine being aboard a boat of that size, and having the rig come down, that would have to be a terrifying experience... Amazing no one was seriously hurt, or worse...

I'd love to see how that area is displayed on electronic charts of the area, how it compares with my paper, whether there is any discrepancy... Nigel Calder addresses the issues that arise in the conversion of existing charts to digital in HOW TO READ A NAUTICAL CHART, and actually uses the ledge at the entrance to Camden harbor, just off Wayfarer, as an example of how the cartography of an area of such detail can be altered on an e-chart... If anyone could post a pic of how the detail of the area around E Goose Rock shows electronically, it might be interesting...

How accurate are our charts? - Ocean Navigator - January/February 2003

Sounds like he was headed for Pulpit Harbor perhaps? I'm guessing since it is a charter yacht, they'd probably been thru that passage numerous times before... I'm gonna hazard a guess that a degree of 'complacency' might have played a role in this one, perhaps a somewhat casual reliance on waypoints used previously thru a rather tight passage for a boat of that size, a possibility that would be even further increased by the absolutely perfect weather and sailing conditions at the time... The tide may have just begun to ebb out of Penobscot Bay around that time, which could have played a role in setting them down on that ledge, presuming they were on a course to just clear the southern tip of Lasell Island...

At any rate, whenever a very experienced professional captain puts a multi-million dollar yacht on the rocks in a heavily trafficked, well charted area, on a perfect summer afternoon, it should serve as a cautionary reminder that the sort of electronic 'piloting' most of us are doing today certainly isn't foolproof... 

I'd really be curious to see what the keel looks like... Wouldn't at all be surprised, if some rep from Hylas is already at Wayfarer, with a 150 X 10 foot 'curtain' at the ready... 

Just glad nobody was hurt, boats can always be fixed...


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

Maybe some sort of mechanical failure?


----------



## Tim R. (Mar 23, 2003)

Here it is from Garmin Mapsource.

BTW, I have sailed through there many times and always stay close to Lasell I.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Ouch...
> 
> A good opportunity for us, perhaps, to divert the conversation to someone else's screwup...
> 
> ...


I am a bit surprised that a pro capt would do that too. See, if he had kept his draft at 6 feet like I have been saying, they would have been fine (snicker).

Hey Jon, I understand going from 6-7 kts down to zero would put a lot of stress on the rigging, but I am a bit surprised it demasted the boat. Is that unusual? Does that surprise you?

Brian


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

I have read a few articles on how our reliance on electronic charts and plotters had increased the groundings, accidents, and sinkings. Once, when paper charts were the norm and you had to take physical readings, you never really knew exactly where you were. You had to fudge it a bit and give known hazards (and some suspected ones) a wide berth.

With the "accuracy" of electronic charts and GPS, many sailors and powerboaters are cutting it a lot closer, thinking that what they see on the chart is really there and that the GPS is telling them exactly where they are on that chart.

This does not take into consideration shifting bars, mismarked hazards, and even other boats that may have sunk there. 

I have spent too much time with a paper charts to cut it close, I prefer a good wide safety area around my boat


----------



## Tim R. (Mar 23, 2003)

Looks like it is back in Camden now. The track on Marinetraffic.com looks a little off though.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Tim R. said:


> Here it is from Garmin Mapsource.
> 
> BTW, I have sailed through there many times and always stay close to Lasell I.


Thanks, Tim... no discrepancies that I can see, looks virtually the same as my paper chart of the area...



Cruisingdad said:


> Hey Jon, I understand going from 6-7 kts down to zero would put a lot of stress on the rigging, but I am a bit surprised it demasted the boat. Is that unusual? Does that surprise you?
> 
> Brian


Yes, the dismasting surprised me, as well...

Only thing I can figure, is that the grounding exerted such a violent upwards pressure on the keel-stepped mast, and forced it to buckle... The rig on that boat is carbon fiber, which being somewhat 'brittle' (for lack of a better word), might have been less forgiving than, say, aluminum to such a violent shock... it may actually speak to the integrity and overall strength of the chainplates and shrouds on that boat, that a massive compressive force was put on the mast from the keel, but the standing rigging allowed no movement to help absorb the shock... On the other hand, perhaps the impact did cause a failure of a chainplate, and subsequent loss of the rig... That's the only thing I can think of, at the moment... I suspect we might have a better idea if we'd actually witnessed the grounding occur, but I'm guessing it all started with a dramatic movement upwards of the keel, even a deflection of the bottom by an inch or so might be more than sufficient to cause a failure somewhere else in such a "highly strung" rig...

Be interesting to see what Jeff H or Bob P might surmise...


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

It looks as if the starboard shroud(s) parted. It's not unusual for the rig to come down in a real dead-stop. There's an awful lot of inertia in the weight of all that structure if it all of a sudden puts strain on one wire/plate/fitting. 

Does anyone think it's a copyright violation to post screen shots of nav software? I was going to post a shot of C-Max/Jeppesen charts but though twice about whether they may object.

I've done a lot of sea kayaking around this area. It's the kingdom of ROCKS!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

smurphny said:


> It looks as if the starboard shroud(s) parted. It's not unusual for the rig to come down in a real dead-stop. There's an awful lot of inertia in the weight of all that structure if it all of a sudden puts strain on one wire/plate/fitting.
> 
> Does anyone think it's a copyright violation to post screen shots of nav software? I was going to post a shot of C-Max/Jeppesen charts but though twice about whether they may object.
> 
> I've done a lot of sea kayaking around this area. It's the kingdom of ROCKS!


Really? I have seen (and been on a few) hard groundings and never seen a rig come down or worry about it.

Maybe Hylas is experimenting with the B&R rig? (hehe, just a joke, duck and run).

Jon, I am not convinced a single chain plate would bring down that rig unless they had multiple shourds/stays on it... and even then...??? Wouldn't they have to have at least two failures or more? Again, assuming they are not using the B&R rig, am I wrong? I really don't know.

I like your compression theory the best.

Brian


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

You're probably right. Looking at the picture again, it looks as if the shrouds may actually still be attached. Wasn't there another recent thread in which a fiber mast let go?


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> Ouch...
> 
> At any rate, whenever a very experienced professional captain puts a multi-million dollar yacht on the rocks in a heavily trafficked, well charted area, on a perfect summer afternoon, it should serve as a cautionary reminder that the sort of electronic 'piloting' most of us are doing today certainly isn't foolproof...
> 
> ...


Hey Jon! I know you like like to find the fault in "electronic piloting", but I don't think that's the demon here.

I hit that rock 13 years ago with a paper chart in my lap.  I wasn't the first, and Archangel won't be the last.

That is actually a wide(1/4 mile plus) and well traveled passage used regularly by local schooner traffic under sail as well as a good portion of the heavy pleasure boat traffic that cuts a near straight Easterly line from Camen Maine to Pulpit Harbor.

The rock he(we) hit is about 4' under at HW. It's well charted but as we know, if you become a little lazy piloting, rocks get hit.

Down on the docks I heard some talk, "They should put a marker on that rock". I heard that after my episode when I had to run my boat a half mile to Lasell Is and up on the beach to save it.

A marker might help, but with the heavy boat traffic, somebody will hit that rock, now and then. I never will again. 

Archangel must be built like a tank because despite having to haul off that rock, she's floating fine in Camden right now.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> Really? I have seen (and been on a few) hard groundings and never seen a rig come down or worry about it.
> 
> Maybe Hylas is experimenting with the B&R rig? (hehe, just a joke, duck and run).
> 
> ...


Well, I think it's worth noting that it was an in-mast furling rig, affording "infinite push-button reefing abilities..." As Tom's pic shows, it sheared off right above the boom...

In other words, right about where that slot cut in the back of the mast section begins, and continues to the top of the rig.... 

I suspect the folks at GMT are not happy about this one, at all...

GMT Composites Carbon Fiber Mast Chosen for Hylas 70 | GMT Composites


----------



## Plumbean (Dec 17, 2009)

TomMaine said:


> [snip]
> 
> The rock he(we) hit is about 4' under at HW. It's well charted but as we know, if you become a little lazy piloting, rocks get hit.


Tom:

Active Captain has a warning posted for this rock (I think it is this rock) that says the following:

"Give this marked rock extra clearance to the North because of a submerged ledge. Several boats have reportedly gone aground just north of the charted rocks. Also, beware the ebb current can set you southward of your intended course."

At least according to this, it sounds as though perhaps the rock is a little farther north than the chart shows (although I'm a bit suspicious that perhaps that is just a convenient excuse for getting caught by the ebb tide).

Thoughts?

Shame about the boat. Looks like a beauty.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I think it's worth noting that it was an in-mast furling rig, affording "infinite push-button reefing abilities..." As Tom's pic shows, it sheared off right above the boom...
> 
> In other words, right about where that slot cut in the back of the mast section begins, and continues to the top of the rig....
> 
> ...


Good point Jon. I suspect the inmast caused this accident. WIth the inmast, people are more prone to use their mainsails. Had he been smart, and bought a traditional slab rig, he would have been motoring instead and this accident would have been avoided.

Sorry Jon, couldn't resist...

Brian


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

Plumbean said:


> Tom:
> 
> Active Captain has a warning posted for this rock (I think it is this rock) that says the following:
> 
> ...


Wow! We're discussing this same grounding on the CSBB cruisers forum.

This rock has sunk some boats, including mine.

Just a few minutes ago, poster Larry posted that hazzard addition to AC. I'm new to AC and just downloaded it on my Bluechart App. I just checked and it's not on mine because I suppose I have to reload-the download or sign in again. But you must have the new AC software?

Being a local that uses that passage often, I don't think it's an inaccuracy of the charts(I will paste your post over on the CSBB, thanks). I would bet Archangel had no intention of cutting that rock closely and intended to traverse generally through the middle.

At low tide, you're likely to just run it visually staying about an 1/8th of a mile off Lasell Island to the North, and the "obstruction that covers", which is THEN, clearly visible, 1/8th nm.,to the south.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Plumbean said:


> ..Shame about the boat. Looks like a beauty.


Gotta say, every boat is a beauty to someone...


----------



## Capt.Alex (Jan 22, 2013)

I would loved to see what the keel looks like....


----------



## Plumbean (Dec 17, 2009)

sailingfool said:


> Gotta say, every boat is a beauty to someone...


Your point being what?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> Good point Jon. I suspect the inmast caused this accident. WIth the inmast, people are more prone to use their mainsails. Had he been smart, and bought a traditional slab rig, he would have been motoring instead and this accident would have been avoided.
> 
> Sorry Jon, couldn't resist...
> 
> Brian


LOL! Purely coincidental, no doubt, that the mast appeared to have failed pretty much precisely at the point where the largest cutout in the mast section is placed... 

It will be interesting to see what they decide to go with for the new rig... Right now, I'd put at least even money on the possibility of a furling boom, instead...










I must say, however, that boat wears her dinghy on its davits quite nicely...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> LOL! Purely coincidental, no doubt, that the mast appeared to have failed pretty much precisely at the point where the largest cutout in the mast section is placed...
> 
> It will be interesting to see what they decide to go with for the new rig... Right now, I'd put at least even money on the possibility of a furling boom, instead...
> 
> ...


I would definitely go with inboom over inmast. Just was not an option when I bought the boat. Short of cost, not sure I see any benefit of inmast over inboom.

B


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> I would definitely go with inboom over inmast. Just was not an option when I bought the boat. Short of cost, not sure I see any benefit of inmast over inboom.
> 
> B


Of course, all this is pure speculation on my part, who knows if it being a furling mast had anything at all to do with the rig failure... No doubt, GMT knows how to properly engineer these things...

My first thought regarding the dismasting, however, was to wonder whether they might have been sailing under a headsail alone, without the main to act as a reinforcing/stabilizing influence in the event of such a 'sudden stop', and the massive inertia that could put on the rig.. A second glance at the photos, however, quickly confirmed they did have the main unfurled...

Nevertheless, one thing I never like to see, are boats beating to weather in a good blow, under headsail alone... I'm afraid many people don't appreciate the importance the mainsail in such a scenario, and how helpful the stabilizing effect even a deeply reefed main can have, in helping to reduce mast pumping, and keeping the mast in column...


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

So, imagine for a moment the boat in the bottom pic, sailing 6-7kts with the sails under load going from 6-7 kts to 0 kts in a heartbeat ? Yeah, I could see the rig failing.

She may have been wearing her staysail as well


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Of course, all this is pure speculation on my part, who knows if it being a furling mast had anything at all to do with the rig failure... No doubt, GMT knows how to properly engineer these things...
> 
> My first thought regarding the dismasting, however, was to wonder whether they might have been sailing under a headsail alone, without the main to act as a reinforcing/stabilizing influence in the event of such a 'sudden stop', and the massive inertia that could put on the rig.. A second glance at the photos, however, quickly confirmed they did have the main unfurled...
> 
> Nevertheless, one thing I never like to see, are boats beating to weather in a good blow, under headsail alone... I'm afraid many people don't appreciate the importance the mainsail in such a scenario, and how helpful the stabilizing effect even a deeply reefed main can have, in helping to reduce mast pumping, and keeping the mast in column...


WHen beating to weather the main is by and far the best sail. Excluding for a moment where the center of effort is placed (and the tendency for a weather helm which is important), the main allows you to tack with little energy and effort from the crew. Especially if the crew is tired, you can come about to the same angle (more or less) and it is easy-cheesy.

Going to weather with just a jib is a typical novice mistake (IMHO).

Now when I run, especially if I am close to a dead run (which I hate to do), I will often go with just the jib. If I run the main, depending on the wind, I typically set a preventer. I assume you do too?

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

poopdeckpappy said:


> So, imagine for a moment the boat in the bottom pic, sailing 6-7kts with the sails under load going from 6-7 kts to 0 kts in a heartbeat ? Yeah, I could see the rig failing.
> 
> She may have been wearing her staysail as well


I dont know Poopy. I bet there was some give when he hit (probably as he listed over). I am just guessing, but I doubt he went straight to zero like he hit a brick wall. I have no doubt he came to a stop pretty quickly though. But still, how would that compare to a hard Jibe or tack in strong winds, which that boat should take?

This is probably a Jeff or Bob question, like Jon said earlier.

Brian


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> This is probably a Jeff or Bob question, like Jon said earlier.


Oh hell yeah, I'm kinda waiting to hear


----------



## Cap'n Russ (Jul 15, 2013)

I think you're on to something with the compression theory. I used to design and build composite airplanes. Carbon fibre parts are designed for specific load paths and while they do a superb job loads they do not yield. A carbon fibre part will continue to deflect until you reach its breaking point and then it typically cracks/shatters. Since the mast was designed to handle lateral loads, not compressive loads (other than those necessary to keep the mast upright), if the grounding did force the keel up, it's quite possible that could have been enough compressive force to cause the mast to break.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

"Yacht-Rock Collision"

Heh, I wonder if Michael Mcdonald or Christopher Cross was coming from the speakers at the time.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

This may have been a navigation error but it is also true that there are still PLENTY of uncharted or vaguely charted rocks lurking just under the surface. Sailing close to shore is always somewhat a game of Russian Roulette. No one wants to be credited with finding the precise coordinates of the next uncharted rock.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Tim R. said:


> Here it is from Garmin Mapsource.
> 
> BTW, I have sailed through there many times and always stay close to Lasell I.


Tim,
For those of us who do not know the area, could you please show us where this boat went aground and what his route was and (if different) should have been. Would he have been sailing between Lasell I and Mouse I or trying to get between Lasell and Goose Rock?
Thanks


----------



## Tim R. (Mar 23, 2003)

capta said:


> Tim,
> For those of us who do not know the area, could you please show us where this boat went aground and what his route was and (if different) should have been. Would he have been sailing between Lasell I and Mouse I or trying to get between Lasell and Goose Rock?
> Thanks


I have no idea which rocks they hit or what course they were steering.

A straight course from Camden harbor(known departure port) and Pulpit harbor(supposed destination) puts you right through the rocks NE of Goose Rock. Maybe their chart plotter had the detail filtered out when selecting the range to include both harbors. Maybe they did not zoom in to an adequate range to show that detail and also traced their route to ensure there were no obstructions.

This a only a guess and only the crew of that boat know exactly what happened.


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

I'm such a wimp, that when I'm coming from further N up the bay to Camden, I go all the way south around number "12" and skip the whole area. A few more miles.

Even though we're down east almost every year, we don't live there, so we try and give the rocks a bit of room to move around 

On the other hand, I have hit rock right in our back yard near Woods Hole. Good thing it was a center boarder and we hit the board only square on, could have duplicated this mess. Watched the pennant go slack and listened to the scraping! 

Our house is glass (fiber), so we ain't throwin stones at this guy!


----------



## T37SOLARE (Feb 1, 2008)

I wonder if this was one of the Hylass with carbon fiber standing rigging. If so I wonder if that could have played a factor in the dismasting?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Holy smokes. I've been aboard a Hylas 70 at a boat show. My recollection is you would struggle to wrap your arms around that mast. It's huge. Main shrouds had to be in inch or more. I can't imagine what it would have been like for it to come down.


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

capta said:


> Tim,
> For those of us who do not know the area, could you please show us where this boat went aground and what his route was and (if different) should have been. Would he have been sailing between Lasell I and Mouse I or trying to get between Lasell and Goose Rock?
> Thanks


I'm 95% sure, Archangel fetched up on the lone rock about 1/2nm NE of East Goose Rocks on this screen shot of my ipad.

They stuck the connected ledge just to the SE of the "*" ="obstruction that covers". This ledge and rock were between 2 and 5' below(not long after HW) the surface when they fetched up.

A friend that came upon Archangel not long after the grounding, thought it was a motorboat, anchored(the rig was gone, the boat flat and upright).

After 8 more feet of tide ebbed away, I suspect it was then she layed over and the photos of the article were taken. To her port is in fact the rock * about 3 feet above LW(which is where it should be at LW, I've passed dozens of times).

I stuck a bearing line which is the general safe passage between the rock they hit and lasell Island, the yellow land mass to the North. This is a busy passage, many boats travel through, and it's nearly a straight line between Camden Harbor and Pulpit Harbor.

There's nearly a quarter mile of safe water but Tim is right, it's best to favor the Lasell Island side.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

T37SOLARE said:


> I wonder if this was one of the Hylass with carbon fiber standing rigging. If so I wonder if that could have played a factor in the dismasting?


I don't believe so... The 70 known to use composite has a black mast, and as best as I can tell from various pics of ARCHANGEL, she appears to have wire... I checked the boat out pretty closely in Hampton a couple of years ago, I probably would have noticed/remembered if they'd gone with something as exotic as carbon or PBO...

Here's a pic of the 70 rigged with carbon...










Hylas 70 - SmartRigging

I just don't get going with something as cutting edge on a cruising boat like a Hylas 70... Interestingly, the recent rig failure in the Transpac of the Gunboat 66 PHAEDO, occurred on the only Gunboat built so far using PBO rigging...












> We may never know the exact reason why PHAEDO's rig succumbed. The crew wisely cut it away to preserve PHAEDO's hulls. She is the only GUNBOAT that chose to utilize PBO rigging. *While it can reduce windage and save weight, it's track record for reliability would not be regarded as the best today. The manner of the rig's loss, in our opinion, is consistent with the failure of a windward diamond shroud. All GUNBOAT's today are specified with aramid shrouds and carbon diamond stays, which reflect industry best practices at this time.*
> 
> Luxury Catamaran


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

Cap'n Russ said:


> *Since the mast was designed to handle lateral loads, not compressive loads* (other than those necessary to keep the mast upright), if the grounding did force the keel up, it's quite possible that could have been enough compressive force to cause the mast to break.


Uh, no. The purpose of the standing rigging is to translate nearly all _lateral_ forces on the sails/spars into _compressive_ force on the mast -- vertical, and in column. Wire goes into tension, spreaders and mast into compression. Lateral force on the mast 'panels' is quite minimal, relative to compressive force inside the spar.

There is a considerable difference in inertial energy between a hard grounding and the forces experienced as the boat interacts with water. While the total forces may be similar, hitting a rock generates much higher acceleration and impulse energy. Could very easily snap a wire or knock the mast far enuf out of column it buckles. Or the idea that the sudden lurch forward tensioned the rig & thus compressed the mast beyond design tolerances. Falling off a big wave into water will jar a boat, but that's slow motion compared to 29,000 lbs of ballast hitting a granite ledge. The boat _will_ stop, more or less at the point of impact. Very efficient transfer of energy -- and lots of that will be dissipated thru the rig.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Well I tell ya, all this waiting for Jeff H & Bob P is worse than waiting for chapter 2 of RD wild adventure


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Tim R. said:


> I have no idea which rocks they hit or what course they were steering.
> 
> A straight course from Camden harbor(known departure port) and Pulpit harbor(supposed destination) puts you right through the rocks NE of Goose Rock. Maybe their chart plotter had the detail filtered out when selecting the range to include both harbors. Maybe they did not zoom in to an adequate range to show that detail and also traced their route to ensure there were no obstructions.
> 
> This a only a guess and only the crew of that boat know exactly what happened.


Yes, great point. The layers of printed detail in these electronic charts seems unpredictable. Sometimes the depths and objects seem to randomly appear and disappear when changing magnification. I have definitely become alarmed at times to see a dangerous object just disappear in certain layers.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smurphny said:


> Yes, great point. The layers of printed detail in these electronic charts seems unpredictable. Sometimes the depths and objects seem to randomly appear and disappear when changing magnification. I have definitely become alarmed at times to see a dangerous object just disappear in certain layers.


That can be a real issue with e-chart/plotter usage, but not likely applicable in this case, the range is simply not that great...

TomMaine has already tried to make that ledge 'disappear' by zooming out, it didn't happen...

Can't wait for pics, Max. I think the zoom in wouldn't apply here.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> That can be a real issue with e-chart/plotter usage, but not likely applicable in this case, the range is simply not that great...
> 
> TomMaine has already tried to make that ledge 'disappear' by zooming out, it didn't happen...
> 
> Can't wait for pics, Max. I think the zoom in wouldn't apply here.


It could have been a factor, not a likely one, but the point about the e-charts is good. I have seen this layer disappearing phenom in more than one brand of chart: Garmin, Jeppesen, and NOAA ECSs. It's not something that often gets mentioned as a danger with e-charts. It seems that sometimes a programmer just forgets to keep objects in the picture from layer to layer. IMO, all dangerous rock notations should start appearing very early and remain to the largest scale.

C-Map (Jeppesen) shows that rock ("covers and uncovers") close and all the way out past 100,000 with no break in layers.


----------



## Ben Ellison (Aug 8, 2013)

The Garmin BCM screen shows some of my recent tracks through that passage. I'm using a powerboat now -- one equipped some fine electronics that allow me to carefully poke around some places many wouldn't, as seen on the tracks -- but I've also sailed it hundreds of times. I agree with Tom about the ledge that was likely hit and I marked it in the app. I also agree that it's charted accurately. I haven't hit that one but I have put lead on others.

The before and after pictures of the Hylas suggest that there be something to the theory that there was a weak area due to the in-mast furling.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

Thanks for those pics Ben.
The last 2 shots seem to clearly implicate the in-mast furling as a structural weak point. Just one more reason I'm glad to have an old school mast on our boat.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Ben Ellison said:


> The Garmin BCM screen shows some of my recent tracks through that passage. I'm using a powerboat now -- one equipped some fine electronics that allow me to carefully poke around some places many wouldn't, as seen on the tracks -- but I've also sailed it hundreds of times. I agree with Tom about the ledge that was likely hit and I marked it in the app. I also agree that it's charted accurately. I haven't hit that one but I have put lead on others.
> 
> The before and after pictures of the Hylas suggest that there be something to the theory that there was a weak area due to the in-mast furling.


Welcome to Sailnet Ben!!! Good to talk to you last week and I promise I will try to call when off cruising Downeast next week.

Re; grounding

It's Maine and we have hundreds of sail boats hit solid granite each year. That said I have never seen one lose a spar over it.. Certainly odd...

Oh and when you hit solid granite, IT'S NOT SOFT, it is almost always a dead stop like hitting a brick wall... Even a 70 footer is not going to move Maine granite..

-RC


----------



## Roger Long (May 28, 2012)

Not to speculate, which would be upsetting to many here as well as a violation of Internet etiquette; but to point out an illusion that has almost gotten me in trouble in a couple of other places:

The green line is a typical safe route through this passage. The red line is the apparent accident course. The yellow passes through another low rock which is always visible.










Note the almost exactly equal spacing of the lines. You have either set a GPS course or been through here numerous times before so you know you are good on what is actually an easy passage. Weather and visibility are good so you are relaxed. You look south and see the rock right where it should be and, up just off the starboard bow is a little island, right where it shoul&#8230;..WHAM!

It would be so easy, up on the windward side of the boat and distracted by a couple of other things to not look down to leeward and see that Lasell Island was a lot farther away than it should be.

I will speculate that this accident has something in common with the tanker that hit the bridge in Portland about a decade ago while being piloted by the port's top pilot on a clear calm day. In both cases, if it had been blowing 25 knots with 1/8 mile visibility, I suspect the vessels would have made it through just fine.

(Someone up the thread did suggest this scenario but I thought I would round it out a little.)


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

Having sailed with a growing family aboard for decades, I wonder about the crew/passenger dynamics aboard during an accident like this. 

My first thought was the captain has one crew, the cook. They've just left Camden, likely stowing provisions, stowing lines and generally turning over what is a high scale floating B&B for 6 guests, into the cocktail-dinner hour. He may have the anchorage ahead in mind, dinghy to shore, all the while entertaining the 6 passengers who are no doubt in the cockpit on the beautiful afternoon. He's also the lone pilot. 

On the other hand, I watched a large schooner sail into and onto their anchor in pulpit harbor the other night. They slid up between two anchored boats under full sail. Like a war scene, they crew snapped crackling jibs to the deck on the one lone command from the skipper. 

All the while on that schooner, all the paying passengers were sitting stock still on the cabin between the captain at the helm and the crew forward. It looked like the "sit down and shut up" rule aboard was being enforced. 

I would guess there are few rules with a high end charter. I imagine it could be very stressful for the captain.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

There's also a .55k cross current through there which could be part of the cause.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smurphny said:


> It could have been a factor, not a likely one, but the point about the e-charts is good. I have seen this layer disappearing phenom in more than one brand of chart: Garmin, Jeppesen, and NOAA ECSs. It's not something that often gets mentioned as a danger with e-charts. It seems that sometimes a programmer just forgets to keep objects in the picture from layer to layer. IMO, all dangerous rock notations should start appearing very early and remain to the largest scale.
> 
> C-Map (Jeppesen) shows that rock ("covers and uncovers") close and all the way out past 100,000 with no break in layers.


Actually, OVER-zooming can often present just as much of a danger to sailors relying on e-charts for navigating in close quarters, as well...

Nigel Calder, Ben Ellison, and John Harries are among the very few out there who have discussed these issues in depth... IMHO, the purveyors of electronic charting hardware, and software, do a VERY lax job in cautioning their end users about such potential dangers... The 'Plug & Play' mindset prevalent among many towards the use of these tools is scary...

The relevant chapters of Calder's HOW TO READ A NAUTICAL CHART really should be required reading for anyone using this stuff, it's by far the best overview that I've come across on this subject...


----------



## asdf38 (Jul 7, 2010)

Maine Sail said:


> Welcome to Sailnet Ben!!! Good to talk to you last week and I promise I will try to call when off cruising Downeast next week.
> 
> Re; grounding
> 
> ...


The only thing that makes sense to me is that the grounding flexed the hull and pushed the keel-stepped mast up into the stays where it cracked. I can only imagine that even an inch of flex in the hull (is that plausible?) would put tremendous force on the mast.

Certainly the quick stop alone wouldn't bring down the mast - masts don't have that much mass to stop.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

TomMaine said:


> Having sailed with a growing family aboard for decades, I wonder about the crew/passenger dynamics aboard during an accident like this.
> 
> My first thought was the captain has one crew, the cook. They've just left Camden, likely stowing provisions, stowing lines and generally turning over what is a high scale floating B&B for 6 guests, into the cocktail-dinner hour. He may have the anchorage ahead in mind, dinghy to shore, all the while entertaining the 6 passengers who are no doubt in the cockpit on the beautiful afternoon. He's also the lone pilot.
> 
> ...


Good post, Tom... I imagine you're very close to getting at the heart of what really occurred here...

I'd bet anything that guy had a series of stored waypoints creating a safe route through that passage that he had run numerous times before. I can easily imagine something along the lines of the following occurring...

I'm generally not in favor of running such 'Routes', or using an autopilot in TRACK mode to the next waypoint. I feel it is inherently a 'lazy' means of piloting which can diminish situational awareness, and allows sailors to pay too little attention to what's actually happening... However, in an instance such as this, where the guy's attention also might have had to be on getting his guests settled in, made comfortable, and so on, it could have been the best way for him to go... No matter what the tidal stream was doing, being in TRACK mode would have maintained a safe course between the known hazards... In _theory_, of course, assuming everything operating correctly... 

Now, one downside of running in TRACK mode with some systems (not sure how it is with Simrad, it's been awhile since I've used a Simrad autopilot) is the awkwardness of dodging, say, a lobster pot... (I seem to recall you have a few of those up there, no?) Very often, the simplest thing is to go into STANDBY, steer around the obstruction, then re-set the pilot... Now, here is where it could have been SO easy for the guy to have had the sort of lapse I've had a million times, and made the sort of mistake I've likely made closer to 2 million times... He may have simply put the pilot back in AUTO mode, instead re-setting it to TRACK...

Now, if the tide had already begun to run out of Penobscot Bay, he was no longer 'guaranteed' to maintain a zero XTE to the next waypoint, and could have easily wandered sufficiently off course into danger... Again, with having his attention divided among his various duties, running a route he had done before, on such a perfect day, all it might have taken was that simple pressing of the wrong button, and a minute's inattention...

I'm not arguing that the above is what likely happened, but my gut tells me it was something very SIMILAR to that scenario... These sophisticated systems are fantastic, right up until the moment they're not... And, they can easily bite even the best and most prudent of mariners, at any time... (Next time I see you, I'll give you my own most costly example ) The first circumnavigation attempt by Jeanne Socrates, after all, came to a disastrous end on a Mexican beach a scant 75 miles from crossing her outbound track, when the batteries in her autopilot remote died, thus putting the pilot into STANDBY mode just at the time she was below catching a nap...

I really feel for the skipper of ARCHANGEL, hopefully he has an established relationship with the owner, and might not have to be seeking a new job in a different field as a result of this... He likely made the sort of mistake any of us could have made, one that I personally have had the good fortune to have gotten away with more than once, and that only served to make me a BETTER sailor afterwards, for having survived it, and learned yet another valuable lesson... No question about it, ARCHANGEL's skipper is a _better_ sailor today, than he was a few days ago...


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> Actually, OVER-zooming can often present just as much of a danger to sailors relying on e-charts for navigating in close quarters, as well...
> 
> Nigel Calder, Ben Ellison, and John Harries are among the very few out there who have discussed these issues in depth... IMHO, the purveyors of electronic charting hardware, and software, do a VERY lax job in cautioning their end users about such potential dangers... The 'Plug & Play' mindset prevalent among many towards the use of these tools is scary...
> 
> The relevant chapters of Calder's HOW TO READ A NAUTICAL CHART really should be required reading for anyone using this stuff, it's by far the best overview that I've come across on this subject...


I have Calder's _Cruising Handbook_. It's got to be one of the most useful books for recreational boaters ever written. It's one I keep right on the boat. Have not read his chart book yet. Will have to get a copy.

Here's an example I thought of a while ago: I was headed, as I remember from the platform off Frying Pan Shoals, middle of the night, zoomed out to small scale to go long distance. It's getting fairly rough as the wind is increasing, just reefed down, no moon up yet. Pitch black. I see what appears to be a buoy. Nothing on the plotter. I zoom in to the next layer and there are the markers for some kind of fish sanctuary zones. In the middle of the night you don't need this kind of surprise. Lesson learned.


----------



## Roger Long (May 28, 2012)

JonEisberg said:


> No question about it, ARCHANGEL's skipper is a _better_ sailor today, than he was a few days ago...


Excellent point, one of the best to come out of the whole thread.

I'll bet dollars to donuts though that the next skipper will be less experienced. The insurance company will probably insist on it.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Bad news folks, without seeing more information I don't have a clue as to why the rig came down, other than the obvious, hitting a ledge stops a boat dead in its tracks. That means a lot of momentum pulling against the two backstays. 

I can speculate all day that some piece of hardware let go, or that some other element failed, but that would only be a wild and irrelevant speculation without more information. 

Clearly from the 'after' pictures, the large opening for the in-mast furling played a role, but my sense is that this was a secondary failure, meaning that before the mast failed at this point, the rig had gotten out of column, or at least deflected far forward, heavily loading that general area of the mast. The opening for the furler was weakened by the material removed and so was the perfect spot for the failure to occur due to the transition from all of the material in a full spar to a lesser amount of material where there was the cut out in the spar. 

But, while this may be the logical place for the mast to fail, it does not look like this was the sole cause of the failure, since this does not appear to be a compression failure. If everything else held, you might speculate that due to rig geometry, the rotation of the weight of the spar forward would create a huge multiplier creating a force trying to push the mast straight downward toward the heel. That vertical force would be far more than normal service loads and could in theory cause a compressive failure. But carbon fiber compression failures are generally pretty explosive, so you would expect the stump of the mast to be splayed out and sort of look like the end of Wile E. Coyote's blunderbuss after the Road Runner sticks his finger in it. I would at least expect to see shards of fiber peeled away from the front and side of the mast. There may be some of that, but at least in the small scale pictures, I don't see that kind of wholesale splaying. 

Failures in collisions are literally a lot of parts in motion, each playing their own 'special role'. For example, I might conjecture that I would expect the rotational force of the boom restrained by the mainsheet and compressing against the gooseneck creating a large force pushing against the aft face of the mast to be a factor rotating the aft face of the mast to windward, while the other forces of the sails and some of the rig try to rotate the aft face of mast to leeward. I doubt that would be the cause of failure either, but it would be a factor increasing the loading at this vulnerable spot if you see what I mean. 

Sorry folks, there just isn't enough info here to say anything very pithy except it really is a shame to see that kind of thing. I feel for the owner and the skipper and the people on board, who all have had their lives altered, perhaps permanently and probably not for the better. 

Jeff


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Maybe we're thinking the reverse of what happened. Maybe the mast came down first and in the ensuing confusion, the boat went aground???


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

smurphny said:


> Maybe we're thinking the reverse of what happened. Maybe the mast came down first and in the ensuing confusion, the boat went aground???


Sorry Murph...assuming that the article is accurate it said,

_"The Archangel hit the rocks between 1 and 2 p.m., while under full sail, said witnesses who were out on the water. The force of the crash caused the mast to fall. Sailors on the water estimated the boat was traveling at six or seven knots. The boat was apparently on a course for North Haven." _

Someone might be tempted to conjecture that something fell out of the rig distracting the crew so that the grounding and rig failure coincidentally happened at the same instant, but I wouldn't. 

Jeff


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

It is possible that something caused a distraction. If they were under full sail and the rig started to fail or the mast started to crack, it certainly would have been an awsheet moment. Focus would have been 100% on safety of the people on board. It's just hard to believe they simply ran her aground. With the weight and thrust of full sails, once something failed, it must have come down fast.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smurphny said:


> [/LEFT]It is possible that something caused a distraction. If they were under full sail and the rig started to fail or the mast started to crack, it certainly would have been an awsheet moment. Focus would have been 100% on safety of the people on board. *It's just hard to believe they simply ran her aground.*


Why is that so hard to believe?

Do you really think it's more plausible, that the helmsman might have been distracted by a _gradual, slow motion_ failure of the rig - imperceptible to eyewitnesses of the accident - on a $2.5 million sailing yacht, in 10 knots of wind? 

Sure, it's very likely the helmsman may have been distracted... My money, however, would be more on something like one of the charter guests just having spilled a glass of red wine on the teak cockpit sole, or Ultrasuede cockpit cushions...


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

The for sale ad on Yachtworld has yet to be revised CLICKY.

Expect a price reduction soon!

If the hull has only suffered minor scratching that would be a pretty good advert for Hylas.

There is a video around of the Bavaria boys bashing a Bav against all sorts of stuff with remarkably little damage. That was a pretty good advert for them.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

> That means a lot of momentum pulling against the two backstays.


That's kinda were I was headed a couple pages back, If her sails were loaded much like that picture of either her or a sistership, making 6-7kts one second and zero the next ?

I could understand the rig failing, that's a ton ( as in a sh*t load ) of presure on the rig, I'm sure well outside the design

But then, I can't use a hammer without smack'n my thumb, so I'm just jabbering


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> Why is that so hard to believe?
> 
> Do you really think it's more plausible, that the helmsman might have been distracted by a _gradual, slow motion_ failure of the rig - imperceptible to eyewitnesses of the accident - on a $2.5 million sailing yacht, in 10 knots of wind?
> 
> Sure, it's very likely the helmsman may have been distracted... My money, however, would be more on something like one of the charter guests just having spilled a glass of red wine on the teak cockpit sole, or Ultrasuede cockpit cushions...


I can imagine the helmsman looking at the goosneck-mast area and seeing it cracking under stress, maybe hearing it snap. In the few seconds that follow, being in the wrong place at the wrong time (as Murphy's Law would dictate), steering the boat would be forgotten. Perhaps heading up and trying to relieve pressure could have sent them into the rocks. I'm just saying until we hear from those on board, we really don't know what happened. When an experienced crew runs a zillion dollar rig onto the rocks on a clear day I think it's probably fair to give them some benefit of doubt. There just aren't that many experienced sailboat captains capable of such a monumental blunder. Maybe one of the charter guests had a distracting bikini...or none at all Even Kirk would have been distracted by that.


----------



## asdf38 (Jul 7, 2010)

poopdeckpappy said:


> That's kinda were I was headed a couple pages back, If her sails were loaded much like that picture of either her or a sistership, making 6-7kts one second and zero the next ?
> 
> I could understand the rig failing, that's a ton ( as in a sh*t load ) of presure on the rig, I'm sure well outside the design
> 
> But then, I can't use a hammer without smack'n my thumb, so I'm just jabbering


We're all speculating but I disagree. The carbon mast and sails just aren't that heavy and stopping them doesn't take a lot of force compared to what the backstay and rig are designed for.

The rig (1000lbs??) is usually moving/heeling/accelerating the hull (75,000lbs). The other way around, which is what happened here, is a piece of cake by comparison.

Also consider that the whole boat probably rocked forward on impact meaning the top of the mast would swing through an arc before stopping. That distance would significantly reduce any forces needed to bring it to a stop over that distance.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

asdf38 said:


> We're all speculating but I disagree. The carbon mast and sails just aren't that heavy


I would think it's not just the weight of the sails and mast, you also have 2200-2500 sf of sail area in a 10+kt wind, you have (WAG) 8-10,000lbs of air pressure moving that 70-80,000 lb boat at 7kt. Take all that mass and energy from 7kts to zero kts in the blink of an eye and all the energy escapes somewhere.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smurphny said:


> When an experienced crew runs a zillion dollar rig onto the rocks on a clear day I think it's probably fair to give them some benefit of doubt. *There just aren't that many experienced sailboat captains capable of such a monumental blunder.* Maybe one of the charter guests had a distracting bikini...or none at all


A "distracting bikini" in Maine??? What, made by L.L. Bean out of freakin' _FLANNEL_???

A far more likely distraction in the BVIs, I'd say... These sort of blunders by experienced charter yacht captains may not be quite as rare as you think...

Earlier this winter, the 178' Perini Navi PARSIFAL III sheared off 30+ tons of her keel on one of the most popular dive sites in the area... Amazingly, the captain apparently thought no one would notice...



> What is it like when a large Sailing Monohull (Parsifal 3) hits the Shoal and takes actually manages to take off quite a few feet of rock on top? The first thing you think is that they were on autopilot and going, as most of them do, towards SXM. Pure speculation on my part though
> 
> However, when this high end Perini Yacht did it in mid February here it apparently lost about 35 tons of lead out of the keel!
> 
> ...


----------



## asdf38 (Jul 7, 2010)

poopdeckpappy said:


> I would think it's not just the weight of the sails and mast, you also have 2200-2500 sf of sail area in a 10+kt wind, you have (WAG) 8-10,000lbs of air pressure moving that 70-80,000 lb boat at 7kt. Take all that mass and energy from 7kts to zero kts in the blink of an eye and all the energy escapes somewhere.


Yeah but the rig isn't stopping the hull here it's the other way around. So when looking at why the rig came down the 70-80000k lbs don't enter the equation. Not if you're just looking at the forces needed to stop the rig anyway.

Yeah the wind factors in too but we know 10kt of wind can't bring down the rig, even if the boat is stopped. Wind forces would also depend on the point of sail.

I still think it's possible that the hull flexed when it hit and put upwards pressure on the bottom of the keel stepped mast. Yes this is exactly what the mast is designed for but I could see this being much larger than the normal forces.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

It's times like this when I should have went to science class instead of chasing double overhead waves faces


----------



## asdf38 (Jul 7, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> A "distracting bikini" in Maine??? What, made by L.L. Bean out of freakin' _FLANNEL_???
> 
> A far more likely distraction in the BVIs, I'd say... These sort of blunders by experienced charter yacht captains may not be quite as rare as you think...
> 
> Earlier this winter, the 178' Perini Navi PARSIFAL III sheared off 30+ tons of her keel on one of the most popular dive sites in the area... Amazingly, the captain apparently thought no one would notice...


Interesting. I got a close look at a sister ship Fidelis, Perini Navi 56M in Boston harbor a few weeks ago. Beautiful boat.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Ben Ellison posted this to his Panbo blog, cites some of the comments made here... Good discussion and followup comments, although for some the only takeaway may be the headline  From a comment from one who spoke to members of the charter party (who, even though they were aboard, may not necessarily be the most knowledgeable source, of course) , sounds like dodging lobster pots played a significant role in this one... Still, that begs the question - if you're driven a 70-footer onto a Maine ledge as a result of dodging a pot/toggle, you may have been cutting that ledge just a _bit_ too close, no? 

btw, not that it's necessarily relevant to this story, but turns out the owner of ARCHANGEL is another who started out with a boat bigger than most... His _first boat_ was a Hylas 54... 

Panbo: The Marine Electronics Hub: Summer bummer, please don't blame charts or electronics


----------



## Tim R. (Mar 23, 2003)

I would think dodging granite ledges would take precedence over dodging lobster pots! At least they do in my boat.


----------



## deniseO30 (Nov 27, 2006)

I can't help but wonder... does insurance pick up the tab on something like this?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

If you have hull insurance, I can't see why they wouldn't pay. You could probably expect them to drop you and all the remaining companies to charge substantially more going forward.

Pretty standard hull deductibles are 1% of hull value. That's a $200k+ deductible.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Tim R. said:


> I would think dodging granite ledges would take precedence over dodging lobster pots! At least they do in my boat.


Another thing that would be interesting to know, was whether he was purely under sail, or perhaps motorsailng at the time...

That boat has a Variprop, which under sail would have been folded and have had little risk of snagging a pot warp... The rudder would have been the likely candidate for that...

If the engine was turning over, however, he likely would have been a bit more concerned about avoiding floats, even with a 260 HP Yanmar spinning a shaft undoubtedly fitted with Spurs/rope cutters...

My general rule about sailing in Maine: If you want to stay out of trouble, _SAIL_... Lobster pots will pose considerably less risk, and you will be far more likely to be forced to pay a bit more attention to your piloting, what the current is doing, etc., than when you're just motoring from one waypoint to the next... And, when the fog comes in, your ears become a pair of your most trusted tools, as long as the engine stays silent


----------



## lowtide (Mar 23, 2008)

asdf38 said:


> Yeah but the rig isn't stopping the hull here it's the other way around. So when looking at why the rig came down the 70-80000k lbs don't enter the equation. Not if you're just looking at the forces needed to stop the rig anyway.
> 
> Yeah the wind factors in too but we know 10kt of wind can't bring down the rig, even if the boat is stopped. Wind forces would also depend on the point of sail.
> 
> I still think it's possible that the hull flexed when it hit and put upwards pressure on the bottom of the keel stepped mast. Yes this is exactly what the mast is designed for but I could see this being much larger than the normal forces.


The forces on the rig would be far in excess of a accidental gybe, and they can certainly bring down a rig. At least with the gybe the boat can lurch, yaw, rock, and dissipate some energy.

When the boat is moving, the energy from the sails is transmitted smoothly to forward motion. With a sudden stop, the rig is shock loaded, and forces will be in multiples of what they were when the boat was at speed.

Not to mention the "whip" effect at the end of a long lever, as the top of the mast tried to keep going. Pretty obvious the part of the mast that is missing for the furler is the most stressed in this scenario, and there's only half a mast there, on the wrong side for those forces. It didn't break at the boot, it broke at the weak point above the boom, where the largest cutout is.










'


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I told my wife about this story, as she was with me when we toured a Hylas 70. It's conceivable it was this one, I just don't recall the name. I do recall it was named.

Her first reaction was "see what they want for it". She's great isn't she!


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> I told my wife about this story, as she was with me when we toured a Hylas 70. It's conceivable it was this one, I just don't recall the name. I do recall it was named.
> 
> Her first reaction was "see what they want for it". She's great isn't she!


If you saw it in Annapolis a couple of years ago, it would have been the same boat... Probably shown in Newport, as well...

Funny thing before the Caribbean 1500 that year, apparently the organizers were giving the owner a fair amount of grief, nitpicking about certain items for the Safety Inspection... It was the first year after Steve Black had sold the 1500 to the Brits, apparently they didn't recognize certain American items on the boat (which was undoubtedly one of the best equipped in the entire fleet), and word was the owner was pretty annoyed, he was like "are you guys freakin' KIDDING me?"

If someone was looking for a 70' marina queen, that boat could be a steal... However, despite the fact that Hylas obviously built a VERY tough boat, I have to believe the overall integrity of that boat may have been significantly compromised... I would be very surprised if much of the joinery has not been deranged, doors no longer making a perfect fit, and so on... Not so sure it would be a boat I'd want to find myself on, while being pressed hard midway to Bermuda in November, for example....

Then again, I'm way too much of a wimp to want to sail something that big offshore to begin with...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm sure you're right about joinery, etc. I'm not under any illusion that she was very serious. Just seeing the door crack open felt pretty good.

I suspect Archangel is going to find herself with a salvage title by the time they're done. If they really do a stem to stern re-fit and put her back to new, she would still have some discount in value for the salvage. I wonder how the insurance company is going to see it. There can't be more than a couple of those even made, limiting its resale value, so I bet it could quickly become a total loss.

Still that's just creepy how the mast split at the bottom of the furler. I wouldn't sail her across the Bay until I knew that couldn't happen again.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Still that's just creepy how the mast split at the bottom of the furler. I wouldn't sail her across the Bay until I knew that couldn't happen again.


Yes, as I said early on, I suspect the boys at GMT are not pleased about this one _at all_ 

Several lives are likely to have been altered by this unfortunate incident... Depending upon the owner's loyalty to, and confidence in, the captain, he may find himself having to return to his former career in 'upper level management' at a Fortune 500 company...

John Harries' experience with having a new mast built by GMT is a sobering, cautionary tale:

Expedition Sailboat Rejects GMT Carbon Fiber Mast


----------



## Eolienne (Mar 15, 2012)

Most cruising keel boats are designed to have weather helm by, among other thing, placing the mast forward of the keel. So is the Hylas 70. A keel stepped mast is somewhat of a misnomer in the sense that the mast is not on the top (read centerline) of the keel, at best it may be at the very forward end of the keel. In every Hylas I am familiar with, the mast sits on a very beefy SS beam that runs along the bottom of the hull and connects to the keel bolts. So in case of a collision between the keel and a solid surface, the keel is pushed back an rotated backwards, around the keel bolts, with the aft of the keel being pushed into the hull and the forward keel bolts being subjected to tension (not compression). So with the mast sitting at the leading edge of the keel or even further forward, there is no upward compression into the mast.

Also, when a carbon fiber tube is compressed above its limits, the crushing motion splinters the carbon. Looking at the picture of the mast stub, there is too little splintering to indicate excessive compression. 

I believe that once the boat hit the granite wall and came to an abrupt and almost immediate stop, the momentum of the mast overloaded the back stay(s). Speaking of back stays, most Hylas have split back stays about half way up, where they combine into a single stay, which is probably the one that failed.

Just my two cents..


----------



## asdf38 (Jul 7, 2010)

Eolienne said:


> Most cruising keel boats are designed to have weather helm by, among other thing, placing the mast forward of the keel. So is the Hylas 70. A keel stepped mast is somewhat of a misnomer in the sense that the mast is not on the top (read centerline) of the keel, at best it may be at the very forward end of the keel. In every Hylas I am familiar with, the mast sits on a very beefy SS beam that runs along the bottom of the hull and connects to the keel bolts. So in case of a collision between the keel and a solid surface, the keel is pushed back an rotated backwards, around the keel bolts, with the aft of the keel being pushed into the hull and the forward keel bolts being subjected to tension (not compression). So with the mast sitting at the leading edge of the keel or even further forward, there is no upward compression into the mast.
> 
> Also, when a carbon fiber tube is compressed above its limits, the crushing motion splinters the carbon. Looking at the picture of the mast stub, there is too little splintering to indicate excessive compression.
> 
> ...


The geometry of the keel occured to me after saying I thought it was upwards forces from the keel.

However I won't accept that the sudden stop did this by itself. Consider that the "Sudden stop" forces are on everything in and on the boat - people, stanchions, cup holders, cabinets - those things didn't fail. The boat was going fast but not that fast and the keel is hard but I guarantee it flexed and dented and absorbed some of the impact.

Also there's a reason why this event is notable - groundings often result in a sudden stop but don't often result in the rig coming down. So on it's face, it's just not a good explanation.

The mast doesn't weigh much and the backstay is designed to oppose this force and has a good angle to do it (unlike the shrouds which are at a very steep angles). Stanchions had the same sudden stop forces but needless to say, they didn't topple over.

That said, if we were to consider this further it is the case that the weight of the boom would have pressed into the mast right at the point it failed.

Also if we consider the forces you mention on the keel it's possible that the mast step flexed down on impact before snapping back up as the boat grounded.


----------



## mark2gmtrans (May 14, 2013)

smurphny said:


> I can imagine the helmsman looking at the goosneck-mast area and seeing it cracking under stress, maybe hearing it snap. In the few seconds that follow, being in the wrong place at the wrong time (as Murphy's Law would dictate), steering the boat would be forgotten. Perhaps heading up and trying to relieve pressure could have sent them into the rocks. I'm just saying until we hear from those on board, we really don't know what happened. When an experienced crew runs a zillion dollar rig onto the rocks on a clear day I think it's probably fair to give them some benefit of doubt. There just aren't that many experienced sailboat captains capable of such a monumental blunder. Maybe one of the charter guests had a distracting bikini...or none at all Even Kirk would have been distracted by that.


A distracting bikini designed for Maine weather....

Fur not flannel.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Eolienne said:


> Most cruising keel boats are designed to have weather helm by, among other thing, placing the mast forward of the keel. So is the Hylas 70. A keel stepped mast is somewhat of a misnomer in the sense that the mast is not on the top (read centerline) of the keel, at best it may be at the very forward end of the keel. In every Hylas I am familiar with, the mast sits on a very beefy SS beam that runs along the bottom of the hull and connects to the keel bolts. So in case of a collision between the keel and a solid surface, the keel is pushed back an rotated backwards, around the keel bolts, with the aft of the keel being pushed into the hull and the forward keel bolts being subjected to tension (not compression). So with the mast sitting at the leading edge of the keel or even further forward, there is no upward compression into the mast.
> 
> Also, when a carbon fiber tube is compressed above its limits, the crushing motion splinters the carbon. Looking at the picture of the mast stub, there is too little splintering to indicate excessive compression.
> 
> ...


That's a very interesting point that I hadn't really considered... One of the reasons I changed from the original 'shark fin' keel on my boat, was the extreme leverage moment that would be created during a hard grounding, the simultaneous downwards force on the leading edge, and the upwards force at the trailing edge...

So, perhaps indeed instead of a compressive force being placed on the mast, the hull was deformed sufficiently upon impact - it wouldn't take much, after all - that a sudden _slackening_ of the standing rigging occurred, sufficient to weaken the shrouds' support of the mast?

Or, perhaps some _combination_ of the extreme forces of slackening and compression in rapid succession? The few instances of a hard grounding that I've either experienced, or witnessed, seem to have involved such a combination... Initially, the forward momentum stopped abruptly, accompanied by a degree of lifting of the stern as the hull 'rotates' somewhat around the point of impact... This 'lifting' can even be assisted to some degree, by the boat's quarter wave continuing to move forward beneath the boat as it's stopped, allowing the boat to in effect 'bounce' over the initial obstruction... Then, there can be a secondary impact, the force of which would have a more vertical component, which might still exert a considerable compressive force on the rig...

Impossible to know given how little we know, of course... But my hunch would be that the rig failure may not have been simultaneous with the moment of initial impact, but rather shortly afterwards, during a second or third "bounce" off the ledge...


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

mark2gmtrans said:


> A distracting bikini designed for Maine weather....
> 
> Fur not flannel.


Is that a camel toe? Now, that is distracting!


----------



## Eolienne (Mar 15, 2012)

JonEisberg said:


> That's a very interesting point that I hadn't really considered... One of the reasons I changed from the original 'shark fin' keel on my boat, was the extreme leverage moment that would be created during a hard grounding, the simultaneous downwards force on the leading edge, and the upwards force at the trailing edge...
> 
> So, perhaps indeed instead of a compressive force being placed on the mast, the hull was deformed sufficiently upon impact - it wouldn't take much, after all - that a sudden _slackening_ of the standing rigging occurred, sufficient to weaken the shrouds' support of the mast?
> 
> ...


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Eolienne said:


> But just based on the little we know, it would seem that the whipping action of the mast at or shortly after impact provoked the failure of the backstay(s) which lead to a fairly clean break of the mast. Now it is also fair to say that the backstay failure is not normal, it should have been able to withstand that shock.


I'm on the same boat as this thought.


----------



## asdf38 (Jul 7, 2010)

poopdeckpappy said:


> I'm on the same boat as this thought.


What's meant by whipping action?

When the keel impacts, the whole boat will rock forward and the mast will swing forward both because the entire hull will swing (the stern will rise up) and because the backstay will stretch. It will then swing back as the hull settles and as the backstay pulls in (transferring some load to the forestay)

If this is what you mean by whipping this doesn't add to the forces - it decreases them because the mast comes to a stop over a larger distance. In terms of the magnitude of the forces involved this swinging motion is preferable to a complete halt (although swinging does add repetition).

If by whipping you mean flexing of the hull and the mast step then I'm with you (it may have flexed down then up on impact). I think the cause has to be at the step either directly, or indirectly (by slackening then tightening the stays and allowing the mast to flex in-between).


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

asdf38 said:


> What's meant by whipping action?


You know, like whiplash, ya got this mass of energy moving forward @ 7kts and you got several thousand pounds of pressure in the sail, once that boat hits that brick wall, that mast with energy in the sails and everything else except the hull and deck is going to continue moving forward @ 7kts for a split second, that put added stress on the backstays, and releases stress on the forestay, the mast then ( seeking a natural position ) springs aft unloading the backstays and loading the forestay, this happens over and over a half dozen times in a blink of a eye, stressing both stays until the weakest one lets lose and down come Raymarine, gradle and all.


----------



## mark2gmtrans (May 14, 2013)

krisscross said:


> Is that a camel toe? Now, that is distracting!


Must be a mink toe?


----------



## asdf38 (Jul 7, 2010)

poopdeckpappy said:


> You know, like whiplash, ya got this mass of energy moving forward @ 7kts and you got several thousand pounds of pressure in the sail, once that boat hits that brick wall, that mast with energy in the sails and everything else except the hull and deck is going to continue moving forward @ 7kts for a split second, that put added stress on the backstays, and releases stress on the forestay, the mast then ( seeking a natural position ) springs aft unloading the backstays and loading the forestay, this happens over and over a half dozen times in a blink of a eye, stressing both stays until the weakest one lets lose and down come Raymarine, gradle and all.


Ok and that's exactly what I described in the first two paragraphs you didn't quote (and I don't disagree on the mechanics) and what I'm trying to suggest is not a possible primary cause for a couple different reasons.

Again, the fact that the hull and deck stop immediately (by comparison) while the rig "swings" DOES NOT indicate increased forces on the rig - it means the forces are reduced by comparison because the rig slows over a larger distance.

How many other things on the boat do you think broke because of the forces of the sudden halt? Stanchions? Rails? - I think none, and certainly not the rig, ESPECIALLY when you consider that it had a larger distance over which to stop because of the swinging on impact.

On the other hand when you consider the location of the mast on top of the forward keel bolts (according to one poster) you can see that there is a whole other dimension to the forces on that mast which have nothing to do with those involved in bringing it to a halt.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

TomMaine said:


> Having sailed with a growing family aboard for decades, I wonder about the crew/passenger dynamics aboard during an accident like this.
> 
> My first thought was the captain has one crew, the cook. They've just left Camden, likely stowing provisions, stowing lines and generally turning over what is a high scale floating B&B for 6 guests, into the cocktail-dinner hour. He may have the anchorage ahead in mind, dinghy to shore, all the while entertaining the 6 passengers who are no doubt in the cockpit on the beautiful afternoon. He's also the lone pilot.
> 
> ...


Distracted crew is one of the leading factors in airplane crashes. Most infamously Eastern Flight 401 from NY to Miami in 1972. A burnt out lightbulb distracted the flight crew of this plane to the extent that the highly experienced pilots flew a brand spanking new airplane into the ground. If you had told anyone that, that was possible you would be met with a firm "No way!" The truth is, little distractions can have big consequences.

That crash led to the "Ghosts of Flight 401" stories. Fascinating in their own right, but subject for another thread.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

My own thoughts on this boat on the rocks? Wow, that's gonna leave a mark!!!! They should have kept the boat in Florida!

I go with the distracted skipper. There is no other explanation for this crash. The skipper was highly experienced and very familiar with the area. For whatever reason he got behind the boat. Regardless of vehicle, when the driver's head isn't in the same place as the that vehicle, bad things happen. And, seeing this beautiful boat on the rocks shows me, that no one is immune.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

TJC45 said:


> The skipper was highly experienced and very familiar with the area.


One obviously doesn't get to be a charter captain on a 70' Hylas by accident, and I have no doubt this man was a VERY competent sailor. When I first read this story, my first reaction was along the lines of "There, but for the grace of...", knowing full well I've likely made dumber moves in the past, could possibly make an even dumber one tomorrow, and have simply had the good fortune that the results of my miscues haven't remotely as calamitous as this one, or as public...

There has been a veritable explosion over the past 15 years or so in the numbers of yachts like ARCHANGEL now in charter service, and at least prior to '08, the supply of qualified crew was barely able to meet the demand, hence the high percentage of positions being filled by Australians, South Africans, and so on... Compared to many _lifelong professional mariners_ filling such positions in the charter industry today, however, perhaps _"Highly experienced and very familiar with the area"_ might be somewhat 'relative' terms, in this particular instance...



> _____, now in his early fifties, came to the yachting industry following a 25 year career in upper level management positions for several Fortune 500 companies around the US. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Management.
> 
> Having decided to pursue sailing as a vocation, Jim earned a USCG Master 100 Ton License and has held the position of captain in every job from the beginning of his yachting career. He has four year's experience with term charters on sailboats from 53 to 70 feet in length, as well as skippering day charter yachts, both sail and power, in St.Thomas. Most of his sailing has been done in the Caribbean and in New England waters - perfect experience for a charter captain.
> 
> _____ enjoys motorcycling, football, baseball and traveling. A genial host, he is thoroughly dedicated to his new profession and "will make every effort possible to ensure guests' total enjoyment of their charter on Archangel."


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Eolienne said:


> Let me just first say that anything is total conjecture since we have nothing to go by but a few grainy pictures. But just based on the little we know, it would seem that the whipping action of the mast at or shortly after impact provoked the failure of the backstay(s) which lead to a fairly clean break of the mast. Now it is also fair to say that the backstay failure is not normal, it should have been able to withstand that shock.
> 
> Since it is considered a "marine casualty" by the USCG, a very thorough report will be coming forth in a couple of month


No doubt the CG investigation will attempt to get at the root cause of the grounding, primarily centered around the navigational/piloting error that placed ARCHANGEL on top of that ledge... Not so sure how much of the focus will be on what caused the rig to come down, however...

Interestingly, GMT has responded to the discussion over on the Panbo blog... (emphasis mine)



> As to the Hylas 70 grounding, it is far too early for anyone to form an educated opinion on why the rig came down. *The vessel did sustain some damage internally*, and the loads associated with a grounding like this are enormous.
> 
> - See more at: Panbo: The Marine Electronics Hub: Summer bummer, please don't blame charts or electronics


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

I tend to look at these types of incidents in aviation terms. An area where crew dynamics has been well studied. In those term if this guy had been a professional pilot at any level ,flew the same category plane for four years, in the same region, he would be considered highly experienced. Are there pilots with two or three times the experience? Yup!!! Does that count for anything? Maybe. If the four year pilot bought the farm because something from the realm of you don't know what you don't know finally caught up with him, then yeah, it counts for a lot. But most likely, any pilot at that level who reaches the ground before they reach the airport, it's a human factors crash. A fancy way of saying he(they) effed up. Of course sometimes mechanical failure plays a role.

No doubt many here know a lot more about the rarified air world of high end charter captains than i do. But, relying on my ages old aviation experience, i can educate a guess that a mind not on the business at hand can end with similar results between the two. Or, in the words of the captain of ill fated Eastern Flight 401 10 seconds before impact "Hey, i think we did something to the altitude!" Did something to the altitude? Indeed!


----------



## Rick486 (Sep 14, 2010)

TJC45 said:


> I tend to look at these types of incidents in aviation terms. An area where crew dynamics has been well studied. In those term if this guy had been a professional pilot at any level ,flew the same category plane for four years, in the same region, he would be considered highly experienced. Are there pilots with two or three times the experience? Yup!!! Does that count for anything? Maybe. If the four year pilot bought the farm because something from the realm of you don't know what you don't know finally caught up with him, then yeah, it counts for a lot. But most likely, any pilot at that level who reaches the ground before they reach the airport, it's a human factors crash. A fancy way of saying he(they) effed up. Of course sometimes mechanical failure plays a role.
> 
> No doubt many here know a lot more about the rarified air world of high end charter captains than i do. But, relying on my ages old aviation experience, i can educate a guess that a mind not on the business at hand can end with similar results between the two. Or, in the words of the captain of ill fated Eastern Flight 401 10 seconds before impact "Hey, i think we did something to the altitude!" Did something to the altitude? Indeed!


Aviate,,,,navigate,,,,,communicate. I remember that Eastern accident. Nobody was aviating at the time.


----------



## TJC45 (Jul 10, 2013)

Rick486 said:


> Aviate,,,,navigate,,,,,communicate. I remember that Eastern accident. Nobody was aviating at the time.


Well said!

It amazes me that a captain could run a 2 million dollar boat onto the rocks.

There is a reason, but at the end of the day, no excuse!


----------



## Smier (Nov 14, 2012)

I just found this post by accident on the Compac sailboat site blaming the keel stepped mast being shoved upwards when the keel struck the rocks for causing a compression fracture of the mast:

"Anybody seen the online pics of the Hylas 47 that dis-masted in the northeast, after striking a charted rock?

It was on charter.

In an even smaller world story, the aunt of one of my customer's was aboard.

Dismasting, was hard to figure, until I got the second hand account from someone aboard. It was a compression fracture, just above the gooseneck (mast-boom joint). With the keel stepped mast, and a nice tight rigging plan (shrouds and stays); upon impact at approx. 7.5~8.5 knots, the keel came up. The mast, restrained by standing rigging, couldn't go up. BOOM. Blew out the mast.

Betcha there was a run on clean underwear shortly thereafter, to resolve the runs in the dirty underwear!"

Link to the post here:
Gunboat 66


----------

