Coronial Inquiry-Sinking of Eliza 1

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Next time after I move back from the yard to the home slip I will test that. Pretty easy, just step on and click the watch to when it peaks again. I'll stay perched on the gunnel for the test and that's 225 pounds at full beam.
 
Also common in American courts, where they are called: "inquests". I think Karl's point is that despite our shared origins in English Common Law, the language has diverged.

Yeah good pickup. I missed that!
 
With respect to dynamic weight, the report even talked about the interconnected fuel tanks (valve being open vs closed) on each side of the vessel, with ability for the free flow of fuel from the high side to the low side when the vessel rolls.

This is not something I had thought about.

I did think about that - back when I had Lotus. Because she had what I considered a good idea re fuel. The return flow just went back as far at the main separator filter. The tanks were interconnected by a line which was just fuel-line sized, so allowed the tanks to level up over time, and allow any refuel, (other than a full fill-up, which I never needed), to be done from the most convenient side filler, but there could never be a fast enough flow from one to the other to upset stability. The tanks also drained from the bottom, so no crud could ever build up. Beautifully simple - and safe.
 
What is the relationship, if any, between these Halvorsens and Island Gypsies? Or is it just a coincidence that the company originally selling the boat was call "Island Gypsy Pty"? If they are the same, then Island Gypsy owners should take note too....
Island Gypsy owners should not be concerned. My IG36 was hit by a large wave while changing course, it was thrown almost on its beam ends, no green water came onboard and it promptly recovered from the roll.

The issue is,is simple terms, modifications made the boat top heavy.
I`ve been on an Integrity 426 which uses the IG 40 hull, in gale conditions, at WOT, it behaved impeccably. There are many IG 40-44s around, and Integrity 426s(the extra 2ft6" comes from making the swimstep part of the hull, like the 36 I owned replaced by the 386 I now own), with zero reports of instability.

As the Findings show, the company Island Gypsy P/L was associated with Mark Halvorsen who it appears played no part in the Inquest despite information being requested.
IMO the Halvorsen Coastal Cruiser is an aberration to the Halvorsen traditions.
 
Last edited:
Yes it looks like that is the Peta Emma mentioned in the report and shown in the photo washed up on the beach.
It`s advertised with Naiad stabilizers fitted( plus a rebuilt engine and new genset!), the broker seems to prudently suggest it is ideally suited to cruising the largely protected waters of Pittwater and the Hawkesbury River.
 
Last edited:
Huh. I've worked in (American/US) courts my entire career and didn't know "coronial" was a word. Apparently in regular use in New Zealand and Aus, but rarely elsewhere. Learn something every day on this forum.
Coroners here essentially do Death, and Fire, Inquests. I`ve only been involved in a few Inquests.
You`ll note the evidence was taken over 2 days with Findings delivered on day 2. It`s apparent there was a lot of work done by the Coroner before the actual hearing, in a way it`s an administrative process and a judicial one.
The Findings may have benefited from a proofread by a marine expert, but essentially, and with respect, I`d say the Coroner "nailed it".
 
It`s advertised with Naiad stabilizers fitted( plus a rebuilt engine and new genset!), the broker seems to prudently suggest it is ideally suited to cruising the largely protected waters of Pittwater and the Hawkesbury River.

Yes, but at the very bottom of the ad it also says this;

"In conclusion, the 44ft HALVORSEN Motor Cruiser is an exceptional vessel that is perfect for families seeking a luxurious, comfortable, and safe cruising experience."
 
Yes, but at the very bottom of the ad it also says this;

"In conclusion, the 44ft HALVORSEN Motor Cruiser is an exceptional vessel that is perfect for families seeking a luxurious, comfortable, and safe cruising experience."
I noticed that, one word too many? Maybe with the stabilizers on. The other problem is the words "Coastal Cruiser" in the name of the boat, despite the brokers effectively "protected waters" statement.
I have to say, looking at the advert, it`s an "awkward" looking boat. Here`s a photo of an Integrity 426. Quite different.
0_4.jpg
 
@BruceK Thanks for posting.

A very interesting/educational read.
Following seas, top heavy; autopilot and 21st wave came to mind.
There was no mention of whether the fuel taken on was split and the tanks level after fueling. In hindsight, they should not have left the boat, as it was found a meter under water.
 
@BruceK Thanks for posting.

A very interesting/educational read.
Following seas, top heavy; autopilot and 21st wave came to mind.
There was no mention of whether the fuel taken on was split and the tanks level after fueling. In hindsight, they should not have left the boat, as it was found a meter under water.

I have always been taught that leaving the boat is the VERY last thing to contemplate! i.e when it is just about to disappear. Lots of vessels found still partially afloat with no sign of the souls on board.

Hopefully I will never have to make the decision though.
 
This past May I did a roll test by accident and it scared the hell out of me. I was in the Gulf ICW sailing from New Orleans to Corpus Christi Texas. I ran up on a submerged piling on the port side, the boat rolled to what seemed like a 45 degree angle and I was looking at the water through the starboard door. All the stuff on the port side came off and hit the deck and I was thinking "we're about to roll over". She then slid off the piling and grounded. I managed to back her out to deeper water with no damage done except to the new paint job on the bottom. The ICW has many hard lessons to be continuously learned.
 
I would like to read the report but the link is not working for me. Could someone post the report on this thread, please?
 
I would like to read the report but the link is not working for me. Could someone post the report on this thread, please?

Here you go;
 

Attachments

  • Inquest_into_the_death_of_Allan_Beeby.pdf
    953.9 KB · Views: 51
Thanks Serene - this is a nicely written report.

I am now curious to know how well my boat (a Grand Banks 42) measures against this ISO standard. Does anyone here know the stability numbers for the GB42?
 
Really appreciate BruceK posting on this very unfortunate but instructive incident. There are several take-aways from reading the inquest report, even if only when considering the purchase of a newly-built recreational vessel whose designer and builder represent it as safe.

Then there is the marketplace of used boats. Like humans, boats gain weight as they age. I don't mean to suggest that wet deck or deckhouse cores are enough to destabilize a boat that was stable to begin with. As the inquest states, that should not have fatally compromised the Eliza 1. However, it can be another straw on the camel's back. Over time, most of us add things to our boats, whether it be tools, accessories, systems or enhancements to the deckhouse / flybridge. As the decades pass and weight increases above the original center of gravity, the location of the CG follows. Typically the process is gradual enough to go unnoticed, until external forces like wind, swells, or an unusually large number of passengers converge at the wrong moment.

Whether it's our own boat or one we're considering buying, one of the lessons here is that even if a vessel floats on her lines at the dock, ultimate stability cannot be taken for granted. Even experienced boaters such as Alan Beeby and his son Scott seemed to have been confident of the Eliza 1's stability, although the inquest report does say this: "According to Scott, he observed Eliza 1 to be immaculate and well cared for, however Scott says he did notice the vessel listed slightly as they stepped aboard" (p. 11, paragraph 37). Many of us, including me, might have taken a slight list upon boarding as evidence of nothing more than some initial tenderness.

If there is any cause for question, some sort of fresh stability assessment would deliver peace of mind, at a minimum.
 
30 years back in time, when we bought the drawings to build our boat, we received a stability calculation with a description of how the calculation was performed. On the boat we placed a mast with a 25 kilo radar at a height of 4.5 meters. For this change of concept, I contacted the architect and had the stability recalculated. Last year, paravanes were mounted on the boat (a subject dedicated to this at the TF) as compensation: 300 kilos of lead were applied to the keel.
I think it's important for people to think about what kind of impact it has when things are added to the ship.
Often over the years you see that all kinds of things are added on board, often small things, sometimes larger things, but all those things together add up to a considerable weight with a possible impact on stability.

oBKmEYh.png


Greets,

Pascal.
 
[SNIP]

Even if not just design changes, sometimes it could be what owners do to their boats how they load them. Then even things like soggy decks (how many times does that topic come up on older boats?) that could affect stability occur?

The concept of weight placement, etc. all makes logical sense with respect to stability, but in practical terms, being around boats for 50 years, I don't think I have ever seen or heard of anybody taking steps to test their vessel when they make changes.

I read about the roll test in this thread with respect to stepping on the gunwhale and roll period vs beam, but is this the best we can do short of a full Naval Architect study?

If testing a vessel had some sort of practical exercise that made it easy, which was able to provide real results, I am sure we would all do it more often.

This thread has definitely made me think!
 
The concept of weight placement, etc. all makes logical sense with respect to stability, but in practical terms, being around boats for 50 years, I don't think I have ever seen or heard of anybody taking steps to test their vessel when they make changes.

I read about the roll test in this thread with respect to stepping on the gunwhale and roll period vs beam, but is this the best we can do short of a full Naval Architect study?

If testing a vessel had some sort of practical exercise that made it easy, which was able to provide real results, I am sure we would all do it more often.

This thread has definitely made me think!

From practical sailor....I included some to show it's not just stepping on the gunnel...

https://www.practical-sailor.com/safety-seamanship/diy-stability-check#Conclusions


"In 2009 the Westlawn Institute of Marine Technology proposed a simplified method of stability testing. The boat would be heeled as much as 15 degrees using weights, avoiding some of the need for detailed knowledge of buoyancy and weight distribution. This would be called the Inland Stability Standard (ISS).

ISS and Wind Heel
According to the ISS, heel induced by wind alone “wind heel” should not immerse more than ¼ to ½ of freeboard in the strongest expected wind, and the heel angle should not be more than 14 degrees. The strongest wind that you’ll use for calculation varies depending upon whether you are in exposed waters or protected waters. This is based on CFR 170.170.

The extent of freeboard immersion varies with the amount of floodable cockpit; a boat with a sealed cockpit can safely heel farther than one with a large open cockpit.

In exposed waters:

Immersion limit =

f(2LOD-1.5CL)/4 x LOD

In protected waters

Immersion limit =

(2 x f x LOD-CL)/4 x LOD

where :......."
cut for brevity

f means freeboard

CL means cockpit length

LOD means length on deck

Heel angle = (wind pressure)(average distance from center of windage to center of resistance)(53.7) /((GM)(displacement in pounds))

where:
 
From practical sailor....I included some to show it's not just stepping on the gunnel...


"In 2009 the Westlawn Institute of Marine Technology proposed a simplified method of stability testing. The boat would be heeled as much as 15 degrees using weights, avoiding some of the need for detailed knowledge of buoyancy and weight distribution. This would be called the Inland Stability Standard (ISS).

ISS and Wind Heel
According to the ISS, heel induced by wind alone “wind heel” should not immerse more than ¼ to ½ of freeboard in the strongest expected wind, and the heel angle should not be more than 14 degrees. The strongest wind that you’ll use for calculation varies depending upon whether you are in exposed waters or protected waters. This is based on CFR 170.170.

The extent of freeboard immersion varies with the amount of floodable cockpit; a boat with a sealed cockpit can safely heel farther than one with a large open cockpit.

In exposed waters:

Immersion limit =

f(2LOD-1.5CL)/4 x LOD

In protected waters

Immersion limit =

(2 x f x LOD-CL)/4 x LOD

where :......."
cut for brevity

f means freeboard

CL means cockpit length

LOD means length on deck

Heel angle = (wind pressure)(average distance from center of windage to center of resistance)(53.7) /((GM)(displacement in pounds))

where:
Sailboats are bit different than power boats.
My suggestions are directly from Dave Gerr's book
The Nature of Boats, Copywrite 1992, Pages 114-115. Dave Gerr pretty much was Westlawn.
For existing power boats he believes the roll test is pretty accurate and recommends it before and after you make any changes in top hamper.
 
Last edited:
Sailboats are bit different than power boats.
My suggestions are directly from Dave Gerr's book
The Nature of Boats, Copywrite 1992, Pages 114-115. Dave Gerr pretty much was Westlawn.
For existing power boats he believes the roll test is pretty accurate and recommends it before and after you make any changes in top hamper.

Copied from the linked article....

"The simplified method does a fair job of predicting the stability of unballasted powerboats, but not ballasted sailboats. At 10-15 degrees of heel they are similar, but at extreme angles they are very different."

 
Copied from the linked article....

"The simplified method does a fair job of predicting the stability of unballasted powerboats, but not ballasted sailboats. At 10-15 degrees of heel they are similar, but at extreme angles they are very different."

When it comes to the roll test, sailboats have the problem of having a fair amount of weight aloft with the sails up, especially if they are wet. The problem is the sails, even if not set, skew the test because they catch the wind and slow the roll.
Wide flat bottom hulls also skew the results as there is such a wide diversion between initial and ultimate stability.
 
I know a bit about stability.....just answering a posters question and posting what I have found. If people read that linked article in PS mag or Gerr writings on stability they will see it explained. Also that many other factors that may be even as or more important than initial stability as I put in post #6.

I have seen the effects of stability because of icing on deck and aloft. The quick rule of thumb on the vessels I was on was the "roll test" to a degree... hang time differences are real easy to "feel". One can do the same with their own vessel as it ages and gains weight/mods.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone hired someone to do a stability test? I don't think they are very difficult to do, provided the person doing it is also equipped to run the numbers afterwards. I think most of us just assume it's OK.

We had a stability test performed down in Tacoma during the process of designing a hard top. It was a lot more straight foward that I suspected it would be. Few guys first getting weighed, then standing in various positions around the boat while architect takes measurements with a fancy level device he brought with him.

The calculations are fun to look at and we did pass as long as the top was under a specific weight which meant carbon fiber for our design.

-tozz
 
Has anyone hired someone to do a stability test? I don't think they are very difficult to do, provided the person doing it is also equipped to run the numbers afterwards. I think most of us just assume it's OK.

I've had incline tests done on sailboats where weights were used to determine initial stiffness, I.e. how much force is required to heel the boat a few degrees. That data is then fed into the computer with the hull design to give a calculated full stability curve.

Without the complete hull shape I'm not sure how much the limited incline test tells you. If I understand the report correctly that information was not available, which is why they sought out the sistership for measurement.

My layman's take on this is that if a NA has the detailed plans the initial stability test has value, but if there are no plans available the dockside test may not be very useful.
 
My layman's take on this is that if a NA has the detailed plans the initial stability test has value, but if there are no plans available the dockside test may not be very useful.

+1
 
My layman's take on this is that if a NA has the detailed plans the initial stability test has value, but if there are no plans available the dockside test may not be very useful.

I would ask if you have the opinion that the roll test is an initial stability only test? If yes, then I can understand why you made the statement that you made.
 
I would ask if you have the opinion that the roll test is an initial stability only test? If yes, then I can understand why you made the statement that you made.

I wasn't thinking of a roll test. I'm interested in your earlier point, but I was thinking more in terms of getting AVS and other stability related capsize factors. Im my mind that's not directly related to roll period. Seaworthiness is probably a function of both.

Just thinking out loud here: You could probably use a roll test in lieu of a static stability test and arrive at the same set of conclusions with a known design. Either one gives you the position of the CG, assuming you have accurate plans and measurement. If the roll period is higher than design it should start setting off alarms, just as an increase in tippiness at rest would.

My quick take on a roll test as a generic test on an unknown boat is that it's like the 'tipiness test'. Neither tells you much in isolation in terms of capsize risk.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom