105' yacht sinks off Fort Lauderdale
- Thread starter River Rat
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
RT Firefly
Enigma
Greetings,
I'm unwilling to speculate but we know these facts for sure:
1) NO loss of life (the most important).
2) Water was entering the vessel faster than it was being emptied, IF in fact (speculation) it was being emptied at all.
3) I'm going to have to re-evaluate the pump system on our boat.
I'm unwilling to speculate but we know these facts for sure:
1) NO loss of life (the most important).
2) Water was entering the vessel faster than it was being emptied, IF in fact (speculation) it was being emptied at all.
3) I'm going to have to re-evaluate the pump system on our boat.
psneeld
Guru
how does that compare to the chart I posted? (to lazy to do the reverse math right now
)but with a square root that results in 3.16 would be around 1 feet deep, the chart I posted would show that to be a little over a 4 inch hole...which9s not what I get when I reverse math it...more like a 2.25 inch hole.
My math could be off as I am whooped...
Last edited:
how does that compare to the chart I posted? (to lazy to do the reverse math right now
24.9% higher.
To me the variation of numbers makes sense as these are all just means of approximation. I would still like to know where the brackets belong on the Navy formula.
As to the formula used on your chart, you now do have me curious. Might have to reverse engineer that.
Last edited:
how does that compare to the chart I posted? (to lazy to do the reverse math right now
but with a square root that results in 3.16 would be around 1 feet deep, the chart I posted would show that to be a little over a 4 inch hole...which9s not what I get when I reverse math it...more like a 2.25 inch hole.
My math could be off as I am whooped...
Here's what I get on your chart.
Q = 20 x sq of diameter (which is area if square) x sq rt of depth
So 4 inches at 10 feet would be
20 x 16 x 3.16227 = 1012
stubones99
Guru
Sorry, I messed up the number. At the bottom of the page it says 7-24. on the PDF, it is 207
I found it....np
To sum up the water flow issue-if you have a 4" hole in your boat, lots of frickin' water is coming in your boat really, really fast!
I have to say I like the idea of the guy in the bunk as an early warning system! Just don't let him drink too much!
I have to say I like the idea of the guy in the bunk as an early warning system! Just don't let him drink too much!
Maybe someone wanted the boat to sink. I know of an airplane in Hawaii that suffered an engine "problem" that put it in the ocean in a thousand feet of water, a ditching that was very convenient financially to the air cargo company that owned the plane.
Never say never......
Never say never......
Capt.Bill11
Guru
Not likely with the owners on board. And 6 or 7 crew. To many to pay off, to many that could talk.
stubones99
Guru
The best two days of your life: when you finally get to buy "The Boat", and when you sell "The Boat" or settle with the insurance company for the loss of "The Boat"
psneeld
Guru
My favorite "was it an insurance job?"
Get a SAR call at daybreak....80 foot fishing vessel sinking 40 something miles off Atlantic City. It's March or April so the water temp is in the 50s if I recall.
We do our search as a Brooklyn USCG helo does their half of the search area for an hour plus.
We are low on fuel and declare bingo fuel to return to base to refuel. The brand new crewman says over the intercom...."sir, whats that off our port side?". Back in the day the Jersey coast was filled with trash and it looked like a line of trash way out. Even though this was the crewmans first rescue....he was pretty adamant (pretty gutsy considering the rank difference and the copilot was tapping the fuel gauge) that we investigate.
So I slide the helo over and sure enough, one guy laying prone in a survival suit, 4 guys in regular life jackets and street clothes clinging to him, and one guy with no life jacket in street clothes laying across the guy in the survival suit. Fortunately it was fairly calm (maybe 3-4s).
We hoisted 3 or 4 and the Brooklyn helo grabbed the rest.
We flew them to Atlantic City airport where ambulances staged and checked them out for injuries and hypothermia.
As the last one was taken off to the hospital in an ambulance with now a pretty big crowd forming, a reporter walks over to me and asks "do you think it was an insurance job?".... I turned to her and replied "if it was, it was some pretty poor planning on someone's part"...
Both helos were about to leave the area for at least an hour while refueling and restarting a search that probably would not have sighted them until well into the next search where it overlapped the first.
Several of the crew would not have lasted another couple hours in that water....they were VERY lucky...and no it wasn't the captain in the survival suit IIRC.
So whether or not this yacht was an insurance job, as Capt Bill pointed out, planning for contingencies is important in insurance fraud...
Last edited:
It was built to ABS Class.
menzies
Guru
sunchaser
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 10,194
- Location
- usa
- Vessel Name
- sunchaser V
- Vessel Make
- DeFever 48 (sold)
So that being the case, it could not have been the stabilizer area sinking the vessel. A strike would not have sunk the vessel. Unless of course incorrect maintenance, corrosion or faulty construction occurred.
It would seem the case. Now, their class was terminated in December. It may just be deciding not to renew as many do. However, it may mean that the normal survey that would have been done last year was not done.
Still, the stabilizer story, while possible, sure doesn't sound likely.
OP
OP
River Rat
Senior Member
The article from PassageMaker / Soundings says
"Thirteen people were rescued from a 106-foot yacht that sank Monday evening in the waters off Fort Lauderdale.
A family of six from Brazil, who owned the yacht, and six crewmembers were rescued and were not injured."
What am I missing? 6 +6 = 12 not 13. Just a typo?
"Thirteen people were rescued from a 106-foot yacht that sank Monday evening in the waters off Fort Lauderdale.
A family of six from Brazil, who owned the yacht, and six crewmembers were rescued and were not injured."
What am I missing? 6 +6 = 12 not 13. Just a typo?
Captain.
They repeatedly list it as family of six, crew of six, and one captain. Don't ask me why they just don't call it family of six and crew of seven.
OP
OP
River Rat
Senior Member
120 foot expedition yacht sinks off Fort Lauderdale
I'm always cautious about rushing to judgement in cases like this, however, even if all the facts are never revealed, there is at least one good lesson here. Based on the first officer's comments, the chain of events went something like this, ‘We noticed a list, the captain went below to check the bilges and reported flooding, we got the owners into the first life raft. It happened pretty quickly’.
If that's true, high water alarms either weren't present or they weren't operational. It takes more than a small amount of water to cause a vessel of this displacement to list, and as such I'd expect alarms to have sounded. Because of the water depth, over 1,200 feet, the vessel is beyond salvage, which means it's unlikely we'll ever know exactly what occurred.
Regardless of what transpired in this case, if you haven't tested your high water alarms, and bilge pumps lately, do so. The most effective, real-world test involves controlled flooding of bilges, allowing rising, preferably fresh, water to set off alarms and trigger pumps (be sure to include crash or high volume, higher mounted pumps in the test). Simply lifting the float switch to confirm the pump runs is of limited value.
A few years ago I inspected a 60+ foot vessel that was equipped with four 3700 gph electric bilge pumps. When "tested", every pump ran and the owner reported he did this periodically. However, every pump discharge was equipped with a bronze swing check valve located adjacent to the pump, used to prevent back flooding and pump short cycling. Fortuitously, while I was aboard a fresh water hose burst, flooding one of the bilges. The electric pump in that compartment dutifully kicked in and began running, however, I noticed that while there was turbulence around the pump, the water level wasn't dropping. I went on deck and looked at the discharge, and was surprised to see no stream of water. Upon closer inspection I determined that the weight of the water between the check valve and the overboard discharge was great enough to prevent the pump from being able to overcome it upon start up. This is an especially insidious problem in that the first time the pump was tested, with a dry hose presumably, it would work, however, once water became trapped in that hose, the pump would not be able to discharge water thereafter. And thereafter, if the pump was “tested” by simply lifting the float switch, it would indeed run. For this and other reasons, I have strong reservations regarding check valves in bilge pump discharge plumbing. These check valves are also prone to become seized either in the open or closed position. ABYC guidelines prohibit the use of check valves in pump discharge plumbing if it is the sole means of preventing back flooding from other pumps or common manifolds.
In testing I've done, I've determined that some check valve designs, the swing gate variety, can reduce water flow by as much as 60%.
Here are two links to articles about the sinking...
Superyacht Serena III sank on 13 nautical miles off Fort Lauderdale | Maritime News
The video interview is viewable here
VIDEO: Yacht sinks off Fort Lauderdale coast | Trade Only Today
I'm always cautious about rushing to judgement in cases like this, however, even if all the facts are never revealed, there is at least one good lesson here. Based on the first officer's comments, the chain of events went something like this, ‘We noticed a list, the captain went below to check the bilges and reported flooding, we got the owners into the first life raft. It happened pretty quickly’.
If that's true, high water alarms either weren't present or they weren't operational. It takes more than a small amount of water to cause a vessel of this displacement to list, and as such I'd expect alarms to have sounded. Because of the water depth, over 1,200 feet, the vessel is beyond salvage, which means it's unlikely we'll ever know exactly what occurred.
Regardless of what transpired in this case, if you haven't tested your high water alarms, and bilge pumps lately, do so. The most effective, real-world test involves controlled flooding of bilges, allowing rising, preferably fresh, water to set off alarms and trigger pumps (be sure to include crash or high volume, higher mounted pumps in the test). Simply lifting the float switch to confirm the pump runs is of limited value.
A few years ago I inspected a 60+ foot vessel that was equipped with four 3700 gph electric bilge pumps. When "tested", every pump ran and the owner reported he did this periodically. However, every pump discharge was equipped with a bronze swing check valve located adjacent to the pump, used to prevent back flooding and pump short cycling. Fortuitously, while I was aboard a fresh water hose burst, flooding one of the bilges. The electric pump in that compartment dutifully kicked in and began running, however, I noticed that while there was turbulence around the pump, the water level wasn't dropping. I went on deck and looked at the discharge, and was surprised to see no stream of water. Upon closer inspection I determined that the weight of the water between the check valve and the overboard discharge was great enough to prevent the pump from being able to overcome it upon start up. This is an especially insidious problem in that the first time the pump was tested, with a dry hose presumably, it would work, however, once water became trapped in that hose, the pump would not be able to discharge water thereafter. And thereafter, if the pump was “tested” by simply lifting the float switch, it would indeed run. For this and other reasons, I have strong reservations regarding check valves in bilge pump discharge plumbing. These check valves are also prone to become seized either in the open or closed position. ABYC guidelines prohibit the use of check valves in pump discharge plumbing if it is the sole means of preventing back flooding from other pumps or common manifolds.
In testing I've done, I've determined that some check valve designs, the swing gate variety, can reduce water flow by as much as 60%.
Here are two links to articles about the sinking...
Superyacht Serena III sank on 13 nautical miles off Fort Lauderdale | Maritime News
The video interview is viewable here
VIDEO: Yacht sinks off Fort Lauderdale coast | Trade Only Today
Marlinmike
Guru
Also discussed here:
http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/105-yacht-sinks-off-fort-lauderdale-24385.html
http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/105-yacht-sinks-off-fort-lauderdale-24385.html
RT Firefly
Enigma
Greetings,
Mr. SD. Thanks for the news information. Hmmm...raises a LOT of questions. Bottom line-all aboard safe.
Mr. SD. Thanks for the news information. Hmmm...raises a LOT of questions. Bottom line-all aboard safe.
Further to Steve D's comments, A good friend of mine had his 36' sailboat sink at the dock. Luckily, the security is good enough that he was called when the low in the water position was noted and was able to get the boat secured before it went to the bottom. The insurance investigator determined that it was a failure of a check valve in the discharge line from the bilge pump that was the problem. Everything was fixed, without re-installing a check valve and the boat sails still.
Capt.Bill11
Guru
So where was the water coming in from?
Northern Spy
Guru
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,075
- Location
- Canada
- Vessel Name
- Northern Spy
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 26
The ocean.
Capt.Bill11
Guru
Last edited:
