# 3 Dead in Sailing Yacht Crash in Race from Newport California to Mexico.



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Another tragedy

Aegean Yacht Crash Leaves 3 Dead, 1 Missing


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

I was just going to post this....I watched the boats leave on Friday from Newport Beach. Wow....RIP to those lost and condolences to the families. Not a very good start to the racing season...I was just telling my wife that I was going to enter next year....

More info here...

http://newportbeach.patch.com/artic...nsenada-yacht-one-still-missing#photo-9757111

Speculation is that a MUCH larger ship hit it.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

The investigation on this one should be informative. Why were they in a shipping lane? Did a large ship run them down and why? AIS, Radar, reflectors on both ships? Having been almost run down by a foreign flagged tanker last year on a clear day, not in a shipping lane with miles of open space for this ship to overtake me with all the clearance in the world, I have little respect now for the seamanship of commercial vessels. I hope, for the families of these folks that this is thoroughly investigated and resolved. RIP.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

lectroniclatitude 38----
SPECIAL REPORT: Fatalities in Newport-Ensenada Race

April 29, 2012 – Coronado Islands, Mexico


(Click on the photo to enlarge it.) 
The Newport to Ensenada Race, which started on Friday, has reported that three sailors are dead and one is missing. © 2012 Lexus Newport-Ensenada Race

For the last two weeks, the California sailing community has been reeling over the loss of five of our own, and yesterday we lost at least three, but probably four, more. Rich Roberts, press officer for the 65th Annual Lexus Newport to Ensenada Race, reported late last night that the Hunter 376 Aegean apparently collided with a large vessel off the Coronado Islands.

"The first indication of the incident was at 1:30 a.m. Saturday when the boat's image vanished from the online race tracking system in place for the race," Roberts wrote in a press release. "A Coast Guard search was launched that led to discovery of the boat's wreckage, including the rear transom with the boat's name on it.

"An investigation was continuing, but it appeared the damage was not inflicted by an explosion but by a collision with a ship much larger than the 37-foot vessel."

A USCG helicopter directed a Vessel Assist boat to two bodies and a third was later retrieved. A fourth is still missing. The search for the fourth crewmember has resumed this morning. Names have not been released pending notification of the victims' families.

The annual race, which had 213 entries, started on Friday off Newport Beach. Many boats finished on Saturday, while the rest were expected in today. Roberts reports the weather conditions were lighter than usual in the area of the accident, with boats reporting 1-2 knots of wind.

"These would be the first fatalities in the 65-year history of the race," Roberts said.

We'll have more in tomorrow's edition of 'Lectronic Latitude.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

*3 Sead in Saling Yacht Crash in Race from Newport California to Mexico.*

1. The race goes through shipping lanes. It seems in socal going up or down the coast will always cross shipping lanes

A sailing buddy that has done this race and route many times thought it could be a foreign freighter that didn't have proper lights. They were near the border when this happened.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

SPECIAL REPORT: Fatalities in Newport-Ensenada Race

April 29, 2012 – Coronado Islands, Mexico


(Click on the photo to enlarge it.) 
The Newport to Ensenada Race started on Friday. © 2012 Lexus Newport-Ensenada Race

For the last two weeks, the California sailing community has been reeling over the loss of five of our own, and yesterday we lost at least three, but probably four, more. Rich Roberts, press officer for the 65th Annual Lexus Newport to Ensenada Race, reported late last night that the Hunter 376 Aegean apparently collided with a large vessel off the Coronado Islands.

"The first indication of the incident was at 1:30 a.m. Saturday when the boat's image vanished from the online race tracking system in place for the race," Roberts wrote in a press release. "A Coast Guard search was launched that led to discovery of the boat's wreckage, including the rear transom with the boat's name on it.

"An investigation was continuing, but it appeared the damage was not inflicted by an explosion but by a collision with a ship much larger than the 37-foot vessel."

A USCG helicopter directed a Vessel Assist boat to two bodies and a third was later retrieved. A fourth is still missing. The search for the fourth crewmember has resumed this morning. Names have not been released pending notification of the victims' families.

The annual race, which had 213 entries, started on Friday off Newport Beach. Many boats finished on Saturday, while the rest were expected in today. Roberts reports the weather conditions were lighter than usual in the area of the accident, with boats reporting 1-2 knots of wind.

"These would be the first fatalities in the 65-year history of the race," Roberts said.

We'll have more in tomorrow's edition of 'Lectronic Latitude.

- latitude / ladonna


thy were in a shipping lane as that is where ye sail on west coast between newport and ensenada. is a busy coast. shipping lanes on starboard side and ROCKS on the port side.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

*3 Sead in Saling Yacht Crash in Race from Newport California to Mexico.*

My initial question and it may be naive or dumb since I have never raced. If you see danger would you think the freighter must see me, or would you power up the motor and fly out of danger just in case? My personal thoughts are it was no wind. At some point the 2 ships see each other and each ship will think the other will alter course. For the sailboat it was too late when they realized the freighter wasn't altering coarse and similarly for the freighter. Are you disqualified if you fire up the engine to get out of harms way? Is it the "manly sailor" who doesn't turn the engine on that thinks he is a better sailor for it? I have seen idiots in the harbor trying to sail back to their slip just to say thy never turned the motor on. Meanwhile they re tacking in very tight areas and at times through mooring fields. Not very safe. Similar thing in racing?


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

It is pretty easy to be run down by a ship, almost happened to me twice. My dad & I were going out the San Francisco Ship channel in our commercial fishing boat at about 4 AM, dark, and very rough. As we were taking a beating our focus was ahead. I looked back and saw a wall of lights coming coming down on us. Made a hard turn to starboard and just missed being run down. Another time in SF Bay in our Coronado 25 we lost our wind in the lee of Angel Island. After arguing way too long with my Dad about starting the motor I pushed by him and got it started. The ship went by WAY too close, my fault for waiting. In both cases the ships never gave any indication they saw us even though the commercial boat had a large radar reflector in the mast. Wondering if this boat had radar or AIS on? Ships look big and slow. They are big but VERY fast.

Paul T


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

dabnis said:


> Another time in SF Bay in our Coronado 25 we lost our wind in the lee of Angel Island. After arguing way too long with my Dad about starting the motor I pushed by him and got it started. The ship went by WAY too close, my fault for waiting.
> Paul T


This is my point...why is there so much bravado about NOT starting the motor to get clear of danger? I am mister quick start...the key stays in the ignition and its ready to fire up in an instant.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

NewportNewbie said:


> This is my point...why is there so much bravado about NOT starting the motor to get clear of danger? I am mister quick start...the key stays in the ignition and its ready to fire up in an instant.


Hard to say, just a personality thing I guess. My Dad was extremely stuborn about starting the motor when we were sailing although he didn't mind the 2hour run under power, each way, to go outside to Duxberry salmon fishing Who knows?

Paul T


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

Sailing can be as dangerous as mountaineering or back-country skiing or more so.....R.I.P....condolences to the families for the loss of these people...hope the missing are found soon...lets wait a while and get more info....the thread will be here


----------



## SJ34 (Jul 30, 2008)

Very sad. 

Several things jumped out at me when I first read the story.

The boat was a rental. Was the crew experienced? This is a very fun race down to Mexico and a lot of crew don't take it as seriously as they should. Not saying that's the case here but could be a factor.

The accident happened at about 0130. Was there a proper watch, was the watch well rested and alert or were they a bit bleary eyed from a long day of prep and racing a 37 footer a bit short handed.

I know from personal experience you can't expect to be seen by large commercial traffic. And even if seen the pilot may assume you will give way and if they wait until too late to take evasive action....
My bet is that they weren't even seen. 

Extremely tragic and I can only hope that the Coast Guard won't overeact and suspend offshore racing like they did after the San Francisco tragedy.


----------



## WDS123 (Apr 2, 2011)

Newport,

It is difficult to imagine just how fast commercial ships travel compared to our little vessels. 

It is also difficult to imagine how easy it is for a commercial ship to not see a small sailing vessel - even with a careful watch. 

Also note, the Navy and US Black Ops guys use the area extensively for training. the black ops don't show up on AIS


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

WDS123 said:


> Newport,
> 
> It is difficult to imagine just how fast commercial ships travel compared to our little vessels.
> 
> ...


In my earlier post I described our experience in SF Bay. The day was clear, about lunch time, in the winter, very little boat traffic on the Bay. The ship never blew it's whistle, or varied it's speed or course, I can only imagine the skipper assumed a boat our size would have a motor and that we would get out of the way. Had our motor not started we would have been run down. Yes, they go really fast.

Paul T


----------



## CaptainChris (Apr 29, 2012)

SJ34 said:


> Very sad.
> 
> Several things jumped out at me when I first read the story.
> 
> The boat was a rental. Was the crew experienced? This is a very fun race down to Mexico and a lot of crew don't take it as seriously as they should. Not saying that's the case here but could be a factor.


A few details...

This boat was part of the charter fleet of Marina Sailing in Redondo Beach (I charter boats from them occasionally). They don't own the fleet themselves but rather act as more of a management company. From what I can tell in the articles, it sounds like the boat wasn't chartered during the race but was actually being used by the owner.

I took sailing classes through Marina Sailing and they were pretty extensive. They require ASA certification to charter boats and have someone walk through all the features of the the boat before you can take it out.

In case anyone was wondering about the boat, here are the details:
Marina Sailing


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

dabnis said:


> In my earlier post I described our experience in SF Bay. The day was clear, about lunch time, in the winter, very little boat traffic on the Bay. The ship never blew it's whistle, or varied it's speed or course, I can only imagine the skipper assumed a boat our size would have a motor and that we would get out of the way. Had our motor not started we would have been run down. Yes, they go really fast.
> 
> Paul T


Yes, same thing here--no signal, no radio, no change of course, no response to radio after he passed. I rode up on the stupid s.o.b.'s bow wave he was so close. Perhaps the CG needs to start monitoring the actions of commercial vessels which are clearly in violation of COLREG basic rules and start passing out some fines. I can understand the fact that large vessels cannot maneuver in restricted waterways which is covered in the rules but simply ignoring the presence of smaller, slower vessels in unrestricted waters is dangerous and unacceptable. These guys move too damned fast for sailboats to get out of the way unless they AT LEAST use horn signals to indicate "passing to starboard" or "passing to port." Maybe these captains get their licenses at Sears.


----------



## markleyg (Apr 29, 2012)

Here we go. Speculating on these poor lost souls. Did they die cause they were too macho to turn on the motor? Why were the dummies going through shipping lanes? Surely they did something wrong. Guess what guys. We have no idea what happened yet and it is extremely disrespectful to be disparaging these fines sailors when we don't even know if they did anything wrong. How about letting this get investigated before we start pointing fingers at our own fellow lost sailors.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

> If you see danger would you think the freighter must see me


Large or not, never assume you are seen


----------



## pgerst (Apr 29, 2012)

I suspect it was the owner, Theo Mavromotis. He sails in the same class (cruising gennaker) as my families boat; I have had beers with him after the race in 2009 which he won (he protested us.) He always places pretty high in the race standings, so he would have likely gone way offshore this year as no wind. Based on my conversations with him, seemed like a competent sailor. Note sure if had radar but race rules require a radar reflector. 

My guess: I agree with most everyone else, the freighter is at fault. I know that the US Nx to Mariners IDs the race and its is announced by both the CG and Mex Navy on radio repeatedly. So no lookout, no radar, and ran someone down.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

never ASS U ME you are seen--i learned very early inmy life that sailboats are INVISIBLE to other boats. rip to the souls, and PLEASE WATCH OUT WELL.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

markleyg said:


> Here we go. Speculating on these poor lost souls. Did they die cause they were too macho to turn on the motor? Why were the dummies going through shipping lanes? Surely they did something wrong. Guess what guys. We have no idea what happened yet and it is extremely disrespectful to be disparaging these fines sailors when we don't even know if they did anything wrong. How about letting this get investigated before we start pointing fingers at our own fellow lost sailors.


Not sure there is much to investigate unless AIS can identify any ships in that area at that time, have them hauled and inspected for the same kind of paint on their bottom that the sail boat had, somewhat unlikely? In any event, it appears that something big ran them down and they are not here to describe what they did or did not do or what they did or did not use. Pretty much the end of the story.

Paul T


----------



## markleyg (Apr 29, 2012)

Plenty to investigate. The sailboat was being tracked and its signal was lost. If they were hit by a legal commercial vessel their GPS tracking records will be compared to the sailboat track. Of course, if it was by an illegal Mexican vessel we may never know. Another possibility is a USN submarine. They surface at the mouth of San Diego bay all the time and sailboats make no noise. But even that scenario would have records.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Four man crew standing 2-on-2 watches with on-watch, 1 up/1 down. Charter boat with neither radar nor AIS, nor radar reflectors, nor mast-head tri-color lights I'll guess. Night sailing south with moon to the southwest 35º above the horizon at 0100 Saturday AM. Maybe a few beers with dinner dulling senses and and tired watch-standers after 18+ hours of sailing already less than alert, maybe looking around every 10-15 minutes while a southbound freighter/coaster is to the northwest making 20 knts and covering 3 miles every 9 minutes. Freighter/coaster watch-standers looking southerly (maybe) into moon-light reflections off the water making it hard to see yacht's likely sole, near water level, running light, and little or no radar return on the scope.

Frankly, by the time the watch-stander aboard the yacht would have heard the bow-wave of that ship behind him, he likely wouldn't have had time to do anything more than yell "Oh Shi(p)". Maybe enough time for the below deck watch-stander to make it to the cockpit before they were hit.

A 37' boat wouldn't even be noticed aboard the ship--maybe a little shudder as the debris went through the props.

Horrible. Absolutely horrible. Hopefully it was over quickly for those guys.

Maybe AIS ship tracks from San Diego can determine which ships went through the wreck zone and when--maybe there'll be paint-scrapes on the bows/hull as in the case of the yacht run down off Hong Kong a few years ago.

There but for the Grace....go we all.

I wonder whether the Coast Guard will now decide to ban ocean racing in SoCal.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

markleyg said:


> Plenty to investigate. The sailboat was being tracked and its signal was lost. If they were hit by a legal commercial vessel their GPS tracking records will be compared to the sailboat track. Of course, if it was by an illegal Mexican vessel we may never know. Another possibility is a USN submarine. They surface at the mouth of San Diego bay all the time and sailboats make no noise. But even that scenario would have records.


Right, I mentioned the AIS as a possibility of identifying the ship. It would be interesting to follow the scenario if the ship was identified. Even more interesting if it was one of our submarines. Mexican vessel, legal or otherwise, complicated. However, nothing will bring the people back, wrong place at the wrong time.

Paul T


----------



## pgerst (Apr 29, 2012)

N2E inspects the boats, radar reflectors are required and failing to use one is 60 minutes penalty. If it was Theo, he had a radar reflector; he protested us in 2009 for failing to turn in our engine log on time. I have seen his boat, albeit several years ago, and it was well kept. 

Also highly doubt USN as 1) they already sunk a fishing boat with a sub, and 2) they are well aware of the N2E race. I doubt they make the same mistake twice.


----------



## markleyg (Apr 29, 2012)

On accident in 65 years would certainly not warrant a cancellation of an international yacht race. Also, the Coast Guard would not have that authority. For the moment, we still are a free country with the rights to accept our own risk.


----------



## AlaskaMC (Aug 19, 2010)

markleyg said:


> Here we go. Speculating on these poor lost souls. Did they die cause they were too macho to turn on the motor? Why were the dummies going through shipping lanes? Surely they did something wrong. Guess what guys. We have no idea what happened yet and it is extremely disrespectful to be disparaging these fines sailors when we don't even know if they did anything wrong. How about letting this get investigated before we start pointing fingers at our own fellow lost sailors.


X2. I know it is in the interest of any risky sport to analyze accidents such as this but that is far different than outright speculation. Remember that family and friends of the deceased may be reading this and comments without information can be very upsetting. Again, analysis is very good and helpful, outright speculation like drinking or too macho to motor is a bit on the early side. Those can be very good discussions, but should be separated from an account of dead sailors. Rest in Peace.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

dabnis said:


> In my earlier post I described our experience in SF Bay. The day was clear, about lunch time, in the winter, very little boat traffic on the Bay. The ship never blew it's whistle, or varied it's speed or course, I can only imagine the skipper assumed a boat our size would have a motor and that we would get out of the way. Had our motor not started we would have been run down. Yes, they go really fast.
> 
> Paul T


You are right, they travel fast but they don't alter speed or course. How hard is getting out of the way if you really pay attention? At night and with bad visibility an AIS or a radar can make the difference. With waves it is really difficult to "see" a small sailboat....at least for me in my radar. A ship is a big spot, a sailing boat in the middle of 30ft waves is a small signal that turns in and out...as some of the bigger waves.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## RavenKing (Apr 28, 2012)

It is such a tragedy followed so close by what happened in San Fran. Lets hope some answers are forthcoming, but it still will not make up for the fact that 4 folks lost their lives during a race.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

markleyg said:


> Here we go. Speculating on these poor lost souls. Did they die cause they were too macho to turn on the motor? Why were the dummies going through shipping lanes? Surely they did something wrong. Guess what guys. We have no idea what happened yet and it is extremely disrespectful to be disparaging these fines sailors when we don't even know if they did anything wrong. How about letting this get investigated before we start pointing fingers at our own fellow lost sailors.


If u are referring to my post I NEVER said they were too macho to turn the motor on. I actually asked a GENERAL question about racing and if they did or did not do it. I don't know why happened to these guys and it's situation. I simply want to learn and be a safer sailor.


----------



## pgerst (Apr 29, 2012)

They were sailing in a cruising class so they can run the motor for propulsion ad not get DSQ, you fill out an engine log and take a time penalty (.4*SR of LWL). They were serious about the racing, won their class twice in seven entries, so doubt drinking was involved. 

That being said, I had seen the boat's condition (bristol) and talked to the skipper a few years back after he protested us and I have a hard time believing they "caused" their accident. I also read he was a ex-Raytheon/Boeing communications guy and had a substantial amount of modern electronics and communication on-board. Based on NOSA statements and press reports, sounds like he had AIS as NOSA was tracking his progress. We'll see.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Last I heard

Debri from the boat was washing up on the Coronados, two of the bodies recovered by CG/Vessel Assist had laceration.

Pieces ( most no larger than 6" ) of the boat indicated it had been threw a grinder.

Racer in the area heard communication between boat and ship others heard only the larger ship

Owner was onboard



Let us raise another cup to those we lost and say a prayer for those left behind


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

The comment on whether the Coast Guard might consider banning sailboat racing off southern CA was based on the fact that the Coast Guard HAS suspended permission for races outside of San Francisco Bay for now, in the wake of the Low Speed Chase tragedy.

Of course, the USCG never seems to have considered suspending commercial ship operations in San Francisco Bay after the Cosco Busan ran into the Oakland Bay Bridge in 2007 and spilled fuel.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

PCP said:


> You are right, they travel fast but they don't alter speed or course. How hard is getting out of the way if you really pay attention? At night and with bad visibility an AIS or a radar can make the difference. With waves it is really difficult to "see" a small sailboat....at least for me in my radar. A ship is a big spot, a sailing boat in the middle of 30ft waves is a small signal that turns in and out...as some of the bigger waves.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


You are right, it is always the smaller vessel's responsibility to stay clear. Our encounter in the ship channel was way before AIS & GPS. Because of financial limitations we didn't have radar, which of course, was our decision. As we had a large metal radar reflector high in the mast I have to believe the ship saw us, if someone was watching. A blast on the horn would have alerted us much earlier. Had I not looked back at that moment we would have never known what hit us. I know, my fault for not keeping a better watch behind us. Would have, could have, should have.

Paul T


----------



## BigMoe (Oct 24, 2006)

Hello Fellow Sailors:

I wonder if a mandatory AIS system and digital radar would help to avoid collisions in the future. Keeping radar on and alarms activated seem to be a good idea. God Bless the families of the sailors that have passed away.

Big Moe


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

smurphny said:


> Yes, same thing here--no signal, no radio, no change of course, no response to radio after he passed. I rode up on the stupid s.o.b.'s bow wave he was so close. Perhaps the CG needs to start monitoring the actions of commercial vessels which are clearly in violation of COLREG basic rules and start passing out some fines. I can understand the fact that large vessels cannot maneuver in restricted waterways which is covered in the rules but simply ignoring the presence of smaller, slower vessels in unrestricted waters is dangerous and unacceptable. *These guys move too damned fast for sailboats to get out of the way unless they AT LEAST use horn signals to indicate "passing to starboard" or "passing to port.*" Maybe these captains get their licenses at Sears.


This is my pet peeve with larger shipping... freighters, yes, but we also deal regularly with commuter ferries (as do many in Puget Sound) and tugs with long tows... We meet them often in restricted waters and even though they have fairly predictable routes, one is often faced with the choice to carry on, make one's intentions clear and cross their path with plenty of room to spare (often possible), or take avoidance action early, again to make our intentions clear.

Only rarely has any of these ships' skippers clearly shown *his* intentions with a simple signal that they wish to pass to port or to starboard. Such a signal would make it much easier to decide how to deal with them. Ferries around here travel around 22-24 knots.. they are on you soon after you spot them. Containers don't loiter either.. Cruise ships can travel quickly too.. and they all share our waters.

This double tragedy in racing is exactly that.. a tragedy. Condolences to all involved and affected.


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

Yes, we have a lot of commercial traffic. When they're in restricted/limited waters, they have the right of way, simple as that. In the Seattle area, it's a good idea to listen to VTS, then you'll know where they're going. It's not up to debate, it just is. All race instructions make it clear that is your responsibility to stay out of anythings' way that's commercial and in traffic lanes. We're the interlopers in this case. All that said and aside, no one wants to run into or over anyone. We've waited many times to cross the center sound in the afternoons when the cruise ship flotilla steams north. It's not something we mess with. Ever. Same for Ferries. Tugs are easier to deal with as they're going slower, but we've never had an issue that a radio call hasn't been able to resolve quickly.

As for the accident and the OP, tragic stuff. Hard to know about visibility on a clear night sometimes... cold water, warmer air. I'm betting that in the near future an AIS receiver and possibly transmitter will be required on all race boats for ocean events. That said, all the safety gear in the world might not have made a difference. We don't know as we weren't there. Again, obviously mistakes were made by someone on one boat/ship or both. Let us use it as a lesson to remind ourselves that this could happen to any of us in the perfect storm of timing and events. Once one makes peace with this, heightened vigilance follows.

Small rant here, but are there any tragedies that aren't 'needless'?


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

The "mother of all crazy harbors" has to be NY Harbor. Every time I white knuckle it with its strong current, dead-heads and flotsam all over the place, ferries, taxis, recreational and commercial craft of all ilks darting every which way, it is an exercise in avoidance and having eyes in the back of one's head. 

I bet investigators will be also looking for s.s. wire wrapped around someone's wheel(s). It seems very likely to me that if this boat was chopped into little pieces, it would be hard NOT to wrap rigging wire around shafts. Repair yards and commercial divers ought to be alerted because whoever ran these folks down will be wondering about what kind of evidence they left behind and will be going below to look.

A surfacing sub (which I've had my own "close encounters" with outside New London) would probably not have chopped the boat up as has been described.


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

Now there's a theory being discussed about possibly autopiloting into N. Coronado. Interesting... and wonder when facts will become more certain.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

Yes....The SPOT GPS track shows the boat doing 6.5 knots for 3 hours directly into N Coronado Island. It puts the boat just at the island the minute the tracking was lost.


----------



## jimmalkin (Jun 1, 2004)

It is hard to be emotionally removed when other sailors lose their lives. It is easy to be analytical in our desire to learn lessons from tragedies. The only thing my experience in busy harbors, especially NYC, would add is that that constant monitoring and hailing on VHF (9, 16 in dire straits and the local bridge to bridge channel... 72 on one side of Manhattan/73 on the other, go figure) is appreciated and helpful with commercial traffic. And "watch" means "watch" which means a 360 scan every two minutes in these areas especially in night/limited visibility.


----------



## JulieMor (Sep 5, 2011)

In 1993, we left Ft. Lauderdale at 10PM, heading for the Bahamas. Because the navigation aids at the time were so poor, we wanted to arrive in the morning so we would at least have good visuals. 

There was no wind and the ocean was dead flat, so we motored. I was on the 1AM to 4AM watch. One crew member was sleeping on the seats next to the helm. It was eerie quiet, not a cloud in the sky and a full moon. The only sound was the drone of the motor and the hull slipping through the glassy waters. I knew the boat well. I had logged over 7,000 miles on her.

It was just after 3AM when I heard a feint sound coming from astern. I turned to see a large freighter off to starboard, not more than 200' away. The shock of seeing something so large and so close, that could have mowed us over without even knowing it, caused my adrenalin to rush.

"How could this be? Did they not see us? We had our radar reflector up. All our running lights were working and properly displayed. Why would they risk coming in so close?"

As they passed us I had the eerie feeling they never saw us. 

Technology has come a long way since then. One would think far enough to prevent almost any type of collision, particularly in calm waters. I know they still don't know if the Aegean was victim of a collision but early evidence seems to indicate that.

When you're out on calm waters at night for hours on end, it can be disorienting and lull you into a sense of "all's well". Large ships can come upon you very fast, as I learned that night. I don't know what happened to the Aegean but I can understand how a collision could have happened.

The Chicago-Mac race had their first fatality last year, after 103 years. Then the Farralones deaths and now this. RIP.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

spot tracking isnt always dead on as to position--is close, but mine shows me in a 100ft away different place--like on land. spot could be off a lil, but is unknown. if they were autopiloting, could have missed a blip o nhorizon, appearing rapidly and coming on them too fast to respond. i dont understand, tho, why they would do that, as there is experience with this coast on board at the time. 
at 0130, many commercial ships may not be as spot on with their watch, either, so it is probably a double fault. would love to know exactly what happened but there is little way of knowing that. no one seems to have survived to speak for the lost souls who sailed that sloop. 
rip, agean. may your secrets be discovered to prevent similar accidents from happening in future.


----------



## mdbee (May 2, 2007)

A 100' either way, it looks like they had to hit that island. I wonder if search crews have inspected the island for debris? Maybe larger pieces can be found there.



zeehag said:


> spot tracking isnt always dead on as to position--is close, but mine shows me in a 100ft away different place--like on land. spot could be off a lil, but is unknown. if they were autopiloting, could have missed a blip o nhorizon, appearing rapidly and coming on them too fast to respond. i dont understand, tho, why they would do that, as there is experience with this coast on board at the time.
> at 0130, many commercial ships may not be as spot on with their watch, either, so it is probably a double fault. would love to know exactly what happened but there is little way of knowing that. no one seems to have survived to speak for the lost souls who sailed that sloop.
> rip, agean. may your secrets be discovered to prevent similar accidents from happening in future.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

Let's wait for the data but the SPOT track is interesting. It ends right at the island. That's not just a small island it's pretty big and if was off by 100' it still would end at the island. It's also a steady and straight speed at 6.5 knots. If you keep going through the bearing it takes you directly to Ensenada. So a theory. They sailed a bit. No wind. Fired tip the motor and autopilot and set a course for Ensenada. Autopilot course out them straight into the north side of that island which has sheer cliffs and gets big waves. Boat is battered by the waves against the north of the island. Debris drifts south n around the island which is consistent with the current and that's where the debris is found. South of the island.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

NewportNewbie said:


> Let's wait for the data but the SPOT track is interesting. It ends right at the island. That's not just a small island it's pretty big and if was off by 100' it still would end at the island. It's also a steady and straight speed at 6.5 knots. If you keep going through the bearing it takes you directly to Ensenada. So a theory. They sailed a bit. No wind. *Fired tip the motor and autopilot and set a course for Ensenada.* Autopilot course out them straight into the north side of that island which has sheer cliffs and gets big waves. Boat is battered by the waves against the north of the island. Debris drifts south n around the island which is consistent with the current and that's where the debris is found. South of the island.


Yup, that's what I'd put my money on, knowing what we do at the moment...

Interfacing an autopilot to a waypoint - IMHO, one of the most dangerous practices in common use today...

Especially, if used in conjunction with electronic charts _alone_... Even some pretty big pieces of rock can disappear, depending on the scale being used... Such a course should never, EVER be set without a close look at the appropriate paper chart. Hopelessly old fashioned, I know, but...

Just a hunch, of course... It is rather strange, that none of the initial reports I saw noted the proximity of the debris to the island, is there a significant amount of current running thru that area?


----------



## ehmanta (Sep 12, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Yup, that's what I'd put my money on, knowing what we do at the moment...
> 
> Interfacing an autopilot to a waypoint - IMHO, one of the most dangerous practices in common use today...
> 
> ...


This is a good theory, and perhaps another wrinkle could be that they glanced off a rock causing massive flooding, the boat then drifted a bit then the freighter hit it? It seems to me that even being battered on the rocks would not have chewed up the debris into that small of pieces. Boats that I have seen on the rocks have pieces several feet across, plus the mast and rigging would be nearby? 
I am hoping that they will find the fourth person. My condolences to their families.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Interesting info lately... but what's amazing to me is that in the initial reports of the loss of signal no mention was made of any significant islands in the vicinity.. that should have been observation #1, no??

How did that start out so quickly as being run over by a large vessel??

The major destruction so quickly is yet another mystery.. if she piled into the beach that alone doesn't really explain the 'shards of wreckage' floating over a large area'.. It usually takes a while to pound a boat to pieces.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Wow, the plot thickens. I wonder how little the pieces were. Where is the rigging? Who owned the Spot transmitter? Where was it? Could someone with the spot have made it to the island? In something other than the sailboat doing 6.5 knots? The 4th person perhaps? Holmes, where are you? Would this experienced cap set a course through an island? If there was no wind, the sea was calm, and the boat ran aground there, some or all would likely have made it up on the rocks somewhere or at least into a liferaft or would have called in a mayday on a handset. Something doesn't sound right.


----------



## cb32863 (Oct 5, 2009)

Could the Spot have floated over to the island after the initial accident in debris?


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

If that track is legit (the way it was first reported on SA is a little sketchy), it looks like a collision with another vessel can be ruled out. However, the track is so straight that they would have to have been motoring with an autopilot engaged. It's basically a cliff face there, so maybe the keel was ripped off by the impact, or soon afterwards, and the hull bashed against the rocks until it was ground to splinters.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Then there's this report..

*
Witness Says Cargo Ship Caused Yacht Crash*

For the sake of the families I hope they figure this out soon..


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

A quote from that piece says, in an exculpatory way, that the large ship "may not have seen" the sailboat. MAY NOT HAVE SEEN???? In an area of admittedly high traffic, in a shipping lane, with a regatta going on, NO ONE IS WATCHING? The ship is not slowing down? Signaling? "Altering course to avoid collision" B....S! IF it turns out they were indeed run down, there is no excuse and someone needs to be dragged off in cuffs.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

smurphny said:


> A quote from that piece says, in an exculpatory way, that the large ship "may not have seen" the sailboat. MAY NOT HAVE SEEN???? In an area of admittedly high traffic, in a shipping lane, with a regatta going on, NO ONE IS WATCHING? The ship is not slowing down? Signaling? "Altering course to avoid collision" B....S! IF it turns out they were indeed run down, there is no excuse and someone needs to be dragged off in cuffs.


This is all from memory so some of the details may not be spot on however, I think it is pretty close.

Many years ago a trawler out of San Francisco "disappeared" while dragging off of Point Reyes in heavy fog. A suspected ship was hauled and inspected. Paint scrapings, net and rigging were found on the ships bottom. IIRC, a fine was issued to the ship's owner, end of story.

Paul T


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

dabnis said:


> This is all from memory so some of the details may not be spot on however, I think it is pretty close.
> 
> Many years ago a trawler out of San Francisco "disappeared" while dragging off of Point Reyes in heavy fog. A suspected ship was hauled and inspected. Paint scrapings, net and rigging were found on the ships bottom. IIRC, a fine was issued to the ship's owner, end of story.
> 
> Paul T


That sounds like the _Jack Jr._ back in the mid-eighties. As I recall, they were even in contact with the freighter via VHF right before the collision.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> That sounds like the _Jack Jr._ back in the mid-eighties. As I recall, they were even in contact with the freighter via VHF right before the collision.


Yes, you are right. Didn't remember the radio contact but that may very well be how they identified the ship? Do you know the final outcome other than the fine?

The State - Los Angeles Times

This article mentions the radio contact;

San Francisco Last Voyage of the Relentless - SF Weekly

Paul T


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

dabnis said:


> Yes, you are right. Didn't remember the radio contact but that may very well be how they identified the ship? Do you know the final outcome other than the fine?
> 
> The State - Los Angeles Times
> 
> ...


As I recall, the folks on ship originally claimed that they thought they missed the Jack Jr. Then the CG (or someone) produced a tape of the radio transmissions, and some of the crew admitted to seeing debris. The shipping company made a multi-million dollar payout to the families, as I recall. But I don't remember anyone being held criminally liable.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Here, courtesy of Panbo, courtesy of Susan Hoffman, is a pic of the Agean at the start of this ill-fated voyage.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

SlowButSteady said:


> As I recall, the folks on ship originally claimed that they thought they missed the Jack Jr. Then the CG (or someone) produced a tape of the radio transmissions, and some of the crew admitted to seeing debris. The shipping company made a multi-million dollar payout to the families, as I recall. But I don't remember anyone being held criminally liable.


OK, sounds right, good memory!!

Paul T


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Why are y'all getting down the throat of a ship that didn't hit the Agean, despite early saber-rattling before the SPOT tracker from the Hunter came to light?

I get it, we're all Davids, commercial ships are Goliaths, Goliath never stands a good watch, David always does.

Uh-huh.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

the spot track shows sloop noot in the shipping lanes. lso--my spot keeps me more than 100 yards off where i truly am. dont depend on spot for accurate position. 8s a bit off. mine shows me on land near a fuel dock in la cruz de huanacaxtle, nayarit mexico. i am actually over 100 yard west and sl north of the position on google earth.
i woul drul eout the spot track as accurate--is not so. is close butnot the cigar. there is not a shipping channel that close to coronado norte. is ocean side of island, farther out to sea.
there are steel fishing boats there, as there are fish pens close by. if thwre was a freighter, it was off course.
dvid doesnt always stand watch--often gets complacent and sleeps thru disasters...
if the woman witnessing saw for sure, WHY DIDNT SHE CALL someone for helping the sailboat in distress.uscg goes there.
crew surely didnt see -- why is the operative word--in a race, there is a lot of adrenaline flow. why is it no one saw anything?? is need there for active eyeball watches. complacency of many years of same course can do much damage. what REALLY happened--mebbe we never know.
is truly sad.


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

As has been mentioned before, sailors would rather blame just about anything other than actions of the crew. It's very much of a "There but for the grace of God" sort of scenario that strikes close to home. To many, it would seem harsh and unfair to blame those who cannot defend themselves any more until all other likely causes have been examined and ruled out.


----------



## meteuz (May 13, 2010)

Neither the Spot track nor the witness account seem particularly reliable. I imagine the reason everyone seems to focus on the collision scenario is that it would be difficult to imagine the hull breaking up so quickly even on a rocky shore that the transom would be drifting free. It was a relatively calm day too. That makes a collision or an explosion the likely cause IMHO. May they rest in peace. 

Such a sad start to the season. Let us hope the superstition that disasters come in groups of three does not come true. I know I will be extra careful and try avoid being in the statistics. I think it was a couple of weeks ago that John Vigor was asking in his blog whether we have made sailing too safe and taken the sense of adventure out of it. I guess it is plenty clear now that we cannot do such a thing.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Agree with you about the witness, but what's wrong with the Spot Track?

Collision with what vessel? Has to be something both big enough to have AIS and foolish enough to be that close to North Coronado Is., yet do unnoticed by the other racers in the area.

Was it actually "calm" sea where ocean meets rock cliff? Or a swell that breaks there with unexpected force?

Occam's Razor here, even if we don't like the thought that we can't blame "some ship out there", which latter seems to be the knee-jerk reaction (even after the Spot Track diagram).


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

nolatom said:


> Agree with you about the witness, but what's wrong with the Spot Track?
> 
> Collision with what vessel? Has to be something both big enough to have AIS and foolish enough to be that close to North Coronado Is., yet do unnoticed by the other racers in the area.
> 
> ...


I would think that there must be some historical AIS data of ships in that area at that time. Not sure if all commercial vessels are mandated to transmit at all times? Some vessels, "legal or not" may not?. The SPOT track looks "genuine", don't think someone would fabricate it? and for what reason?
Kind of looks like they just ran into the island or blew up?

Paul T


----------



## meteuz (May 13, 2010)

nolatom said:


> Agree with you about the witness, but what's wrong with the Spot Track?


I just don't know the source so I am not sure if it can be trusted. I have nothing against Spot itself.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

I have looked at Aegean's SPOT Track and at our own SPOT Tracks from our various trips, which I have compared with our track logs on our GPS for the same trips. While the SPOT Tracks tend to be off somewhat, likely due to the lesser precision of the GPS receiver in the basic SPOT device, they are not in error enough to allow one to assume that Aegean might have sail past North Coronado Island and later been hit by a ship. It is entirely possible that the yacht might have had an encounter with a ship--explaining the radio transmissions reported by the alleged "witnesses"--and then sometime later, ran into the island. If so, however, one would think that the yacht's track would have varied if only momentarily, yet it is, for all intents and purposes, arrow straight right into the Island's northwest face.

For whatever reason, perhaps empathy, perhaps denial, one (or at least I) tend to reject the idea that someone could pile up ones yacht on an island so well known and only 15 miles from the Coronado, rather than having been a victim of some (presumed) malevolent ship-driver. Yet, that appears to be the case. For some reason, being "run down" seems a preferable explanation for the event than that the victims--or one of them--simply lacked diligence/vigilance. Perhaps toxicology tests will reveal that they were effected, and may have been knocked out, by carbon monoxide poisoning, perhaps due to light following winds as they motored along, tho' I find that unlikely as well. Sometimes one makes mistakes--sometimes with only inconvenient consequences, sometimes worse. I have been lucky in that regard as I have made some really stupid mistakes yet I/we have escaped largely unscathed, thanks, only, to the grace of the good Lord.

Hopefully the families of the crew will be able to find some peace at some point.

FWIW...


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

For those questioning the spot track. The data is from SPOT themselves. SA has a direct link to the active SPOT website that is still updating every 10 minutes. So it's not a fabricated image. Excision has been RULED OUT by the USCG as there was no evidence in the debris. Here is a scenario. The boat slams into north Coronado at 6.5 knots. Then waves continue to slam the boat against the rocks for hours. I have seen calm seas generate 15-20 foot high waves against rocks. So the boat break up. Has debris floating. The keel and MOST of the boat sink at the north shore of Coronado. What's left that floats gets carried by the current south where it's found 8 hours after the impact to Coronado island. Everyone is saying that it's hard to see such damage done but how much debris was recovered? Small amounts that you can hold in your hand and things that float like interior and galley stuff. So I think there is a big piece somewhere attached to the keel. how much force does it take to put a hole in a Hunter 37? I don't think that's all that outlandish.


----------



## robmo (Feb 7, 2012)

That sounds like a very plausible analysis. Fiberglass doesn't stand a chance against rocks


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

svHyLyte said:


> For whatever reason, perhaps empathy, perhaps denial, one (or at least I) tend to reject the idea that someone could pile up ones yacht on an island so well known and only 15 miles from the Coronado, rather than having been a victim of some (presumed) malevolent ship-driver. Yet, that appears to be the case. For some reason, being "run down" seems a preferable explanation for the event than that the victims--or one of them--simply lacked diligence/vigilance. Perhaps toxicology tests will reveal that they were effected, and may have been knocked out, by carbon monoxide poisoning, perhaps due to light following winds as they motored along, tho' I find that unlikely as well. Sometimes one makes mistakes--sometimes with only inconvenient consequences, sometimes worse. I have been lucky in that regard as I have made some really stupid mistakes yet I/we have escaped largely unscathed, thanks, only, to the grace of the good Lord.
> 
> Hopefully the families of the crew will be able to find some peace at some point.
> 
> FWIW...


Yes, CO impairment in such conditions could be a very real possibility...

Another likely scenario could be...

In the picture of AEGEAN, it appears to be without the typical Hunter stern arch - thus offering no secure handhold or brace at the stern quarter, and those stowed Bimini support bars would only afford a very poor substitute...

Not to mention, there's a lot of "crap on 'de back" of that boat - barbecue, stowed outboard motor, and whatnot...

The lone person on watch goes back there to pee over the side, perhaps somewhat awkwardly, and falls overboard... Just as likely - if not even more so - to occur on a relatively calm night...

Nobody below is awakened, AEGEAN continues on her merry way under autopilot...

Could also explain why one victim remains missing, not found in company with the rest of the crew...


----------



## Wappoo (Apr 30, 2012)

Seems once divers can find the keel there at the base of the cliff all of this will be mute....


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

meteuz said:


> ....I imagine the reason everyone seems to focus on the collision scenario is that it would be difficult to imagine the hull breaking up so quickly even on a rocky shore that the transom would be drifting free. It was a relatively calm day too. That makes a collision or an explosion the likely cause IMHO. M.....


A number of years ago, on a sunny Saturday morning I saw a Hunter 42 break a mooring in Marblehead harbor and end up against a seawall, being worked by a 2 foot chop. A crowd gathered on the sidewalk to watch the sea slowly take the boat apart. Later that afternoon, all that was left of the vessel at low tide was the keel stuck in the mud (the power company had come for the mast as it feel across a telephone pole...). Everything else was broken up and taken by the tide.


----------



## Sailboat Mary (May 3, 2012)

> >>Another likely scenario could be...
> 
> In the picture of AEGEAN, it appears to be without the typical Hunter stern arch - thus offering no secure handhold or brace at the stern quarter, and those stowed Bimini support bars would only afford a very poor substitute...
> 
> ...


That scenario along with the one where they might have been overtaken by CO seem to be most likely what happened.

He'd just installed a new engine. Could it not have been vented correctly? Could the following wind have blown it back into the cockpit and cabin?

I think it more likely that he fell overboard.

He checked in with an "Ok" at 6:25, at 6:41 and then at 7:49. He would have to physically push the button to send that. After the last one at 7:49, he made a slight adjustment to the track and changed the heading slightly. Then at 9:46, the boat slows down a bit and from then on, it's a steady go.

With the engine running, if he'd called for help, they wouldn't have heard him.

I've found my SPOT to work incredibly well. I can track where I've walked and it's very accurate. Same thing when I've been out sailing. My kids also have SPOTS for when they're out riding or hiking. We've gotten used to punching the OK button at least every hour. I wonder if they made the same sort of arrangements with their families.

So sad. RIP Aegean crew.


----------



## Leocat66 (Dec 11, 2010)

There is a new post over at SA relating to a private diver checking the area in question with negative results. It was apparently done very recently.


----------



## MITBeta (May 13, 2011)

Regarding the CO theory: diesels usually run very lean, which means they make lots of NOx and hardly an CO. My experience comes from cars, but I guess sailboats must be similar.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

MITBeta said:


> Regarding the CO theory: diesels usually run very lean, which means they make lots of NOx and hardly an CO. My experience comes from cars, but I guess sailboats must be similar.


It's my understanding that as a general rule diesels produce far less carbon monoxide than do gas engines. If it's CO poisoning, the medical examiner should have been able to tell just by looking at the bodies, or via a pretty simple lab test if they had been in the water too long. Since we haven't heard anything to that effect, I doubt that CO is to blame.

Further, I don't think we really need to invoke any complicated CO poisoning or MOB scenarios here. If the SPOT track is valid, and it's looking more and more like it is, then they got tired of making little progress in the light winds, fired up the engine, set the autopilot for the Ensenada waypoint (which was probably already in the GPS), and started dreaming of hot showers and cold cerveza. They probably had two guys "on watch". But, with the motor and the autopilot doing all the work, the two guys on watch simply split the watch; one guy crawled into his bunk while the other stayed in the cockpit. The guy in the cockpit either fell asleep, wasn't paying attention to what was dead ahead, went below to use the head or get something to eat and lost track of time, or just plain didn't see an unlit island on a dark night (or some combination of all of these). Hell, they could have all been watching a DVD in the cabin. We'll probably never know for sure what happened.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

I don't know about the relative production of CO in diesels, but this seems like a viable theory. If the boat struck hard, pulled the keel off immediately, sinking in seconds, it could explain why no one got out if they were below sleeping. I believe at least some of the crew, if awake, would have made it to shore. People in survival mode can get out of a mild surf and onto rocks. In the Google Earth .jpgs, it looks as if there are some places to get out. In a light following wind, my cockpit can get uncomfortably loaded with diesel fumes. Calm conditions/night/falling off to sleep with diesel fumes--seems plausible although being experienced, with only one person awake at the wheel, on auto-pilot (essentially single-handed), they probably would have have been using an egg timer or such to counter the well-known dozing-off problem.

_"We pulled a lot of boats off the rocks over the years and boats that hit the rocks, they don't look like that. This was almost like it had gone through a blender," said Lamb, 62.

A Coast Guard helicopter circling overhead directed him and a partner to two floating bodies. Both had severe cuts and bruises, and one of them had major head trauma.

Two race participants who were in the area at the time the Aegean disappeared said they saw or heard a freighter._ From Fox News. I still think they were most likely run down.


----------



## lancelot9898 (Dec 30, 2008)

I understand it was light winds and the decision was probably made to turn on the iron jenny. Was this a typical decision for other boats in this race? From the little that I've read it seems the captain was pretty competetive about winning races and it would seem that this boat would be one of the last to give up on sailing??


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

They were racing in the cruiser class so engine is allowed at night with a time penelty on the handicap timing. according to the spot tracker there is little doubt they were motoring, they were doing over 5 kts. when there was no wind


----------



## JulieMor (Sep 5, 2011)

If the SPOT is correct, the boat made a B-line to the rocky shore and broke up there. The only way I can see experienced sailors intentionally doing something like that is if the boat had been holed or seriously damaged and was rapidly taking on water and they saw no other option.

If that had happened, one would expect someone to send out some sort of notice, VHF, flares, activate the EPIRB or do something to call for help. And then get the life raft ready, make sure everyone has flotation vests, survival suits or whatever they have on board, on their persons and prepare for the inevitable.

I have read nothing to tell me there's any evidence that happened. In fact, I haven't seen any mention of an EPRIB going off. I read the alert was put out only after someone saw boat pieces floating.  Did I miss that an EPIRB alert was actually sent?

Being hit by a passing ship doesn't work for me because the SPOT path shows them continuing on an arrow straight line to the island. So if they were damaged by a ship collision, they would have sent out alerts immediately. And there's no way a SPOT device would have continued on a straight line on its own (after the boat sunk) so it was still on a floating vessel that was motoring toward the rocks. 

The CO thing doesn't make sense to me either. If you're at the helm, you're exposed to a lot of fresh air. Even if the engine exhaust was being blown back on deck, I can't imagine anyone breathing it in until they pass out. Diesel exhaust is pretty nasty. And in no way can I imagine all the crew sleeping below leaving an unmanned helm.

Did the person at the helm fall asleep or fall overboard while the rest slept? Did something else happen that caused the crew to lose consciousness? 

It seems in all likelihood they had turned on the iron jenny and set the autopilot. And they ran straight into the rocks. 

What I'd like to see is what their course had been earlier and if their earlier path could tell us anything else.


----------



## MITBeta (May 13, 2011)

If the boat was motoring at 5 knots in light winds, how could the exhaust be blowing forward onto the deck?

If the wind was sufficient to blow the exhaust back onto the deck, why were they motoring?


----------



## cb32863 (Oct 5, 2009)

MITBeta said:


> If the boat was motoring at 5 knots in light winds, how could the exhaust be blowing forward onto the deck?
> 
> If the wind was sufficient to blow the exhaust back onto the deck, why were they motoring?


I think the CO theory refers to INSIDE the cabin as it was night and most of the crew was sleeping possibly. Though, as has been mentioned, there has not been any report of the bodies showing any CO poisoning as of yet.

We may never know the true cause of this.


----------



## JulieMor (Sep 5, 2011)

> _...after responding to reports of small pieces of debris by a passing boater, the U.S. Coast Guard found the bodies of three of the Aegean sailors floating in a roughly 2-mile-wide debris field southwest of North Coronado island, about 15 miles south of San Diego.
> 
> Kevin Eric Rudolph, 53, of Manhattan Beach, died of blunt-force trauma to the head and neck, according to the San Diego County Coroner; Joseph Lester Stewart, 64, of Florida, died of blunt-force head injuries, and William Reed Johnson, 57, of Torrance, succumbed to multiple blunt-force injuries, according to the coroner.
> 
> A search for the body of skipper Theo Mavromatis, 49, of Redondo Beach, was called off Sunday after 28 hours._


Why no mention of an EPIRP signal being activated. 


> _DEAD WINDS
> 
> Brewer was aboard the 40-foot Heartbeat during the famed race, but about 22 miles further out to sea than the Aegean around the time its last transmission was sent out.
> 
> ...


Mystery of fatal yacht race accident continues | aegean, brewer - News - The Orange County Register

It certainly seems more likely the skipper was at the helm and either fell overboard or fell asleep, with the boat on autopilot. Once the boat hit the rocks, the rest of the crew would have been between 4-6 foot waves and a rocky shore.


----------



## Nicklaus (Apr 23, 2012)

JulieMor said:


> It certainly seems more likely the skipper was at the helm and either fell overboard or fell asleep, with the boat on autopilot. Once the boat hit the rocks, the rest of the crew would have been between 4-6 foot waves and a rocky shore.


Agreed. Since the skipper is the one still missing it seems like this tragic accident could go unsolved. I've thought all along the most likely scenario - especially when combined with the GPS data - is the skipper fell overboard, maybe had a heartattack, and the crew continued sleeping through his watch.

Doesn't really explain why their GPS went until 4 am and the race lost their signal at 1 - which I think I read somewhere, but as we all know, equipment sometimes malfunctions...


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

1-how , in the face of racing and adrenaline rush effect, can anyone sleep during a racing event.
2-spot trackers are not accurate on the money measures of exact location. mine shows me 100 yards off where i am presently located. gps does same thing. spot showed me sailing THRU cedros island. i only stopped in cedros island villoage for 4 days, yet my spot showed me sailing THROUGH the island. real accurate--
3-they were NOT in shipping lane when gone. shipping lane goes way to outside coronado norte.
4-was not a whale
5-was not an alien invasion
6-where is the man who was at the helm--is only one not found. will he be found sometime with pants around ankles and zipper down...
7-was advised the time in area was 2048, not 0130. EASILY able to see coronados from 20 miles away. 
so--WHERE WAS EVERYONE??? were they playing video games and hovering over some screen somewhere instead of being in cockpit LOOKING for the stuff to be concerned about when sailing a lee shore filled with dangerous rocks and visible islands????? reminds me of some kind of alien invasion--very very mysterious.....
what happened and why werent the souls inside the boat WATCHING for trouble, which occurs on west coast ?????? 
very mysterious. i hope someday this is cleared up and straightened out so it doesnt happen again.
the man who was owner or skipper or whatevr, was in newport ensenada race and did well a coupla few times before--did he become complacent with prior victories so that he let down his guard and left the sloop to sail or motor into trouble??????
enquiring mineds want to know....there is way too much weirdness with this bunch of scenarios.

they were using gmt/utc time--means not 0130 but 2030..is still with visibility. los coronados are VERY visible at that hour, as well as all day long. how is it that no one on board saw any sign of a big island in their way??????????

no pn pan or mayday call is more important to note than the automatic epirb --no call no signal--alien invasion is sounding much more plausible daily.....noone in fleet , even alleged witness to alleged collision couldl make a call to uscg???? they do answer to coronados, as does mexican navy. channel 16 WORKS. why not used.....


----------



## Sailboat Mary (May 3, 2012)

zeehag said:


> was advised the time in area was 2048, not 0130. EASILY able to see coronados from 20 miles away. ...


It was 1:30 a.m. PDT.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

zeehag said:


> 2-spot trackers are not accurate on the money measures of exact location. mine shows me 100 yards off where i am presently located. gps does same thing. spot showed me sailing THRU cedros island. i only stopped in cedros island villoage for 4 days, yet my spot showed me sailing THROUGH the island.


You need to take a look at your DATUM setting in the setup page and make sure it agrees with the chart that is being used. Also, the tracks are recorded at some time interval and do not represent continuous minute by minute records. I get the same phenomena when I look back at my tracks and they have me traversing land to get to my slip, yet the real time location always shows me to be sailing in water (whew).

GPS is very accurate when accurately used. I don't know about SPOT.
John


----------



## BigDawgz (Jul 7, 2006)

I ASSUME, that since the Skipper ( possibly the owner ) is the only person that is missing, foul play has not been ruled out. I mean, movies are made of these scenarios.

As far as the boat breaking up on the rocks, and comparing it to the accident up north a couple of weeks ago, anything is possible. The boat up north wasn't torn apart, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Different entry points at different locations could have vastly different results.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

My GPS is very accurate, within 100' MOST of the time but I have noticed, on occasion that it can be off by a considerable distance. Maybe land echoes, atmospheric conditions, etc?? I have only noticed it close to land. Once, it showed me on a road alongside the Cape Cod Canal. The Spot track, though, shows the track as being straight for a long time so GPS error is probably not a factor. Things just do not add up. That Spot device got to the island. Whether it was before, after, or during the disappearance of the boat is a question. The timeline is the unknown and evokes all sorts of possibilities. "Blunt force" injuries to the head??? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## cb32863 (Oct 5, 2009)

Could be 4th body found. No confirmation yet.

Link


----------



## StoneAge (Sep 28, 2007)

GPS is not that accurate in Mexico. Showed us a mile inland more than once. Sailing along the coast by Manzanillo and in Huatulco area. When we passed the Coronado's GPS was fairly accurate but still a few hundred feet off. Seems that the farther you get away from the US the worse it got. VERY accurate in busy ports, but NOT everywhere else. In Mexico Sail (rest of Central America too) with YOUR EYES please. GPS is good but it's not God. 

Very sad to hear the deaths of 3 - 4 of our own. (Sailors.) Always a sad thing. Will there ever be a solution - Possibly not, but I would also guess the skipper would be found in a "peeing" position. We don't tend to tie ourselves on when the wind is only a couple knots...


----------



## arf145 (Jul 25, 2007)

StoneAge said:


> GPS is not that accurate in Mexico. Showed us a mile inland more than once.


I would say that the GPS is likely accurate but the maps/charts are off. So that GPS _systems_, such as chartplotters, are inaccurate in some places, but it is not the GPS coordinates that are wrong, but the representation of the land and features on the chart.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

arf145 said:


> I would say that the GPS is likely accurate but the maps/charts are off. So that GPS _systems_, such as chartplotters, are inaccurate in some places, but it is not the GPS coordinates that are wrong, but the representation of the land and features on the chart.


I agree. 
Charts from around the world and over time are built to different "datum" which Garmin defines as a "mathematical model of the Earth". Several "datums" are in use for marine cartography and the one selected for the GPS device must be the same as the one which is used by the chart maker. 
Additionally, you must select the position format to match your plotting method when transferring coordinates from GPS device to chart. 
For example when I first started using my Garmin GPSmap 76C, it was preset to the incorrect DATUM for the mapset I downloaded from the Garmin site. The result was the device showed me docked in a downtown parking lot some distance from the marina. This was easily corrected by entering the correct DATUM in the setup page. 
Also, when I would take the coordinates and plot them on my chart, I would be located in the parking lot of City Hall because the device displayed:
North degrees.minutes.decimal of minutes
West degrees. minutes.decimal fo minutes
and I plotted
North degrees.minutes.seconds
West degrees.minutes.seconds.
So I had to decide which plotting approach I wanted to use for transferring coordinates to chart. Decimal seemed easier even though I learned degrees.minutes.seconds. 
Most of the time I am receiving data from eight or more sattelites. The string of ones and zeros that are used to compute my location are very accurate and any dithering by time distance and atmospherics are minimized. As a result I often see "accuracy +or- 6 feet.
John
ps. Too bad this discussion is burried in the wrong thread. Maybe a Moderator can pluck out this GPS discussion and create a new thread.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

Leocat66 said:


> There is a new post over at SA relating to a private diver checking the area in question with negative results. It was apparently done very recently.


A more recent post today in the same SA thread says the opposite, these divers found wreckage at the likely allision site on N. Coronado:

Quote:

View PostCarcharodon megalodon, on 07 May 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:
We launched from Shelter Island at 0630PDT this morning, arriving off the northern tip of Isla Coronado Norte at ~0715. Using the GPS we were able to locate the exact SPOT track impact point. We spotted a piece of wreckage wedged into the rocks almost exactly at the impact point. It was barely visible--showing only when swell sucked out. I put on wetsuit, mask, snorkle and finned to within 15' of the object but was unable to get closer due to turbulence. However I did see debris-- on the bottom when breaks occurred in the turbulence. Seems unlikely that it would be from any vessel other than the Aegean. I had a GoPro camera with me on the end of a 4' extension...hopefully examination of the video clip will afford illumination. Bottom line...there is evidence of wreckage at the impact site.

Unquote

I don't know who or how, so can't vouch for whoever posted, but if it's indeed factual then the earlier 'doubt' about "why no wreckage" may be erased.

Nothing to cheer about at all here except maybe the uncertainties are becoming fewer about this very sad accident. And, the early finger-pointing at merchant ships was premature.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

NewportNewbie said:


> Yes....The SPOT GPS track shows the boat doing 6.5 knots for 3 hours directly into N Coronado Island. It puts the boat just at the island the minute the tracking was lost.


If this track is correct, this is were they grounded










Depths in this area would allow the boat (any boat) to hit this side of the island at speed


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Authorities have now positively identified the body found floating in the vicinity of the Coronados as that of Aegean's (till now) missing owner. Hopefully the coroner will be able to determine the cause of death and/or whether the victim sustained any of the blunt force trauma suffered by the other crew members. If not, the man overboard hypothesis, and yacht continuing under autopilot into the island while the balance of the crew slept below would seem to be supported.

Frankly, I cannot decide which is the lesser of two evils--MOB and unmanned helm, or tired, inattentive or even napping (intentionally or otherwise) helmsman steering the yacht into the island and not realizing or wakening to the fact (if at all) until too late to escape. I have a hard time believing that an awake crewman would not have seen the island soon enough the divert. There was nearly a full moon well up at the apparent time of the incident. While it would have been almost directly forward of the yacht, the island is essentially barren and would have reflected enough light to have been seen as would the surf around it's base. Closer aboard, it is high enough that the looming black hole in the horizon would have become evident quite soon enough to still have diverted and escaped. To me, for some reason, the idea that the yacht was hit by a ship was/would have been a more acceptable explanation than colliding with the island, with a manned helm or otherwise for if the latter, the injury/loss is/was, would have been largely self inflicted. Failing to be tethered to the yacht, or worst, drowsing at the helm.

In any case one must ask "What are the lessons learned/relearned?".

Above all maintaining a proper watch, observing safety procedures--tethers--which are often most valuable when they might seem to be least needed (spoken by one who has suffered the indignity of being pitched off the fore deck of a yacht in a calm sea) and perhaps calling for relief/backup when tiredness wears away ones endurance even if a change of watch isn't due. My wife and I often travel alone and so split night watches. Our rule is that one always calls the other for backup if one is struggling to remain awake, regardless of the watch schedule. We also set a timer we wear on a lanyard for 10 minute intervals to remind us to do a 360º scan and radar check for incoming traffic and set a safety zone of 6 miles around the yacht that the radar sweeps at 30 second intervals and sounds and alarm in the event of an intrusion. Generally a fast mover will be observed well outside the 6 mile range but that at least gives us a little time to react/avoid.

The loss of Aegean and her crew is very disturbing. There go we all save for our own preparations and the Grace...

FWIW...


----------



## GMFL (Jun 9, 2010)

An update, although I think the outcome was pretty clear, although in the comments people still think otherwise...

Panel: Newport-Ensenada sailors ran aground | aegean, race, pane - News - The Orange County Register


----------



## cyasurfin (Jun 12, 2012)

there is an update on sailing anarchy forum that includes photos of wreckage that may be the "Agean".


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Yeah I saw that. Thanks cya. Pretty convincing stuff. But I'm still puzzled how even crashing into the rocks at 6 knots killed all 4(?) with the amount of trauma they mentioned. From what I recall, there was a swell from the north - but it was otherwise pretty calm.

Still mysterious that there would be that much destruction that quickly.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

Did you see Low Speed Chase? That was all damage with it hitting the rocks ONCE. Imagine if the boat was sideways and hit the rocks repeatedly. Like 3 times a minute for 6 hours. It's been said that the force of the water against the sheer cliffs even in calm seas shoots water 30 feet up. If that's the case and the boat hit the island head on. That threw whoever was on deck off. If you were down below, you were probably thrown around and knocked unconscious. Then it was tossed against the rocks repeatedly by the surf. In 6 hours it would have hit the sheer cliff 1080 times. That's not odd to me for it to get pulverized.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

You'd be surprised how nasty that side of the island is. I've posted a photo of it before


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

There are still too many unknowns to make any conclusions. Until some definitive physical evidence is uncovered, this is still a mystery. Thus far, everything is supposition and although it seems logical that the boat simply ran into the island, there are a number of different possibilities.


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

Well..we know it wasnt run over by a ship and the tracking device magically keep powering itself into north Coronado...drug-smugglers? What scenario would make sense there either? I agree it's hard to believe that a moderate pacific ocean wave set could grind her up like that quickly but...hopefully the NTSB is spending 1000's of man hours on this and re-constructing the boat pieces in some hangar in San Diego and running scale model hydro-dynamics testing in a tank in Bethesda so we can rule out Piratical alien drug-smugglers and/ or bomb-toting dolphins...The Chinese Navy...etc...etc...Sometimes bad things happen...the ocean at night is sometimes a strange place...I just hope the families can have peace soon...without too much more speculation on this tragedy..


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

the coronados are cliffs and rocks and nothing else except for some goats, and they wont tell. there is a southerly drift current as well as the speed at which the boat crashed into rocks. if all the crew nd skipper were sleeping, then yes, a crash is inevitable, with the direction and waypoint they seemed to have been using. 
the islands are visible for many miles in daylight. is hard to truly believe that someone allegedly experienced in sailing kali and mexicoasts would actually make this error. 
is very very sad


----------

