This is disturbing! (new Cutwater boat)

sunchaser said:

Spray coated on one side only and reversible? The boat was made in Washington with initial service work and commissioning done about 150 miles away in Port Alberni on Vancouver Is. The sponsons were opened up by dealer.

As PSN says, many dots to connect. One thing we know for sure, this boat took on lots of water.

Click to expand...

To me, the question of it being seaworthy or not lies in how did the boat take on water, from where, at what rate over what period of time and should the boat have automatically removed it?

I have seen plenty of seaworthy boats sink because no one really paid close attention to them for weeks.

Of course the "floated away" question remains....never saw that one even with sunk boats tied on with shoe laces.

1. 42' liner built sailboat - proven that liner was never bonded to the hull.
2. 38' express cruiser - 100sq.ft of balsa core turned to compost in 2 yr.old boat.
3. High end 20' aluminum fishing boat - motor well lip below water with three people onboard, near sinking.

I did investigations in these three cases. In all three, shortly after lawyers were called in I was informed by the owners that the matters had been resolved and I need no longer concern myself. They would not provide any other information. In all three cases, the boats disappeared from their respective marinas and were never seen again.

The chances of anyone on this forum ever hearing the real story are very, very slim unless it goes to trial.

Boatpoker- I second that. I have participated in many marine loss investigations and at some point, I get the call or email or text stating "your services are no longer needed, send us the bill". And I have no clue how it was resolved.

So yes, we can speculate til the cows come home. But we likely know nothing about the final resolution. My curiosity is certainly piqued, but that's it.

twistedtree said:

OK, the plot thickens.


Those deck plates WERE changed at some point. In his photo showing the separated steering tie rod early in his ownership, the deck plates are visible and they are beige colored. In the later survey photos they are black.


So WHEN were they changed, WHY were they changed, and did the change degrade the water tight integrity of the sponson?

Click to expand...

Good eye Sherlock! However, if you compare the two photos, an inspection port is not next to the drain in the first picture showing the steering rod connection, but is in the surveyors report....so the black ports must have been added. Perhaps when the boat went back into the shop to fix the numerous leaks discovered in the first 20 hours of usage?

Is it too late to call in CSI for fingerprint analysis and DNA testing?

With this saga reverberating around various boating websites (including TF) and Facebook, even after resolution the innuendos and chat will continue. Which is possibly why Fusion needs to address the issue in a different manner than we might have seen just a few brief years ago.

Delfin said:

Steve, you are certainly an expert, and certainly a disinterested party. Given the "self drain" outlet on the starboard side of the sponson they bolted onto the transom to provide offsetting flotation for the weight of the outboards, and it's position on the underside of the swim platform, does it surprise you that water flowered into that outlet as waves lapped under the swim platform? You need not answer if you don't want to get in the middle of this conversation.....

Click to expand...

Delfin, no problem, I've followed this thread with interest. I began to write a few replies but then chose not to post because it's pretty clear all the details and circumstances are not available; based on this I don't want to speculate. For example, Sky-guy argues that the sponson is not used for flotation... If that's true it changes the lay of the land considerably.

Indirectly related to this case, check valves fail, which is why their use is prohibited by ABYC for preventing water ingress where bilge pumps are concerned. It's probably wise to assume every check valve will fail at some point, either in the open or closed position. If the sponson was used for flotation, and if the drains relied on check valves...I'm speculating...then that could be a problem. More on check valves https://www.proboat.com/2017/04/many-weaknesses-raw-water-check-valves/

Steve DAntonio said:

Delfin, no problem, I've followed this thread with interest. I began to write a few replies but then chose not to post because it's pretty clear all the details and circumstances are not available; based on this I don't want to speculate. For example, Sky-guy argues that the sponson is not used for flotation... If that's true it changes the lay of the land considerably.

Indirectly related to this case, check valves fail, which is why their use is prohibited by ABYC for preventing water ingress where bilge pumps are concerned. It's probably wise to assume every check valve will fail at some point, either in the open or closed position. If the sponson was used for flotation, and if the drains relied on check valves...I'm speculating...then that could be a problem. More on check valves https://www.proboat.com/2017/04/many-weaknesses-raw-water-check-valves/

Click to expand...

Thanks Steve. As has been pointed out, since the sponson is hollow and substantially below the water line in normal use, stating that it provides no needed flotation has the same basis in physics as saying the 26 knot, 30' long Cutwater has a displacement hull.

Delfin said:

Good eye Sherlock! However, if you compare the two photos, an inspection port is not next to the drain in the first picture showing the steering rod connection, but is in the surveyors report....so the black ports must have been added. Perhaps when the boat went back into the shop to fix the numerous leaks discovered in the first 20 hours of usage?

Is it too late to call in CSI for fingerprint analysis and DNA testing?

Click to expand...

The pictures below show what I'm taking about. Depending on the picture, you can see the deck plate frame and/or the cover. In the earlier picture when the steering failed, the deck plate frames are clearly white/beige. I don't see the covers in that photo, but I don't think there is any doubt about the frame color.


Then in the pictures from the two survey reports, the frames are black, and you can see the lids in some pictures too and they are black as well.


So someone modified the access plates at some point, and it begs the question of why, and whether the change contributed to water ingress.

I'll play. On his blog. 5.1 Fixlist after sea trial, he has listed under "things to fix": "6.Both accessory covers on the stern pod are cracked and need to be replaced."

I'm guessing that they got replaced. Shrug.

Northern Spy said:

I'll play. On his blog. 5.1 Fixlist after sea trial, he has listed under "things to fix": "6.Both accessory covers on the stern pod are cracked and need to be replaced."

I'm guessing that they got replaced. Shrug.

Click to expand...

Maybe you just solved the mystery and cracked the case! The replacement covers were the wrong color causing aesthetic interference with the float switches in the hull extension which allowed it to fill with water sinking the boat.

Oh. And as far as the docklines go. You can see that the cleat is pulled out of the dock. It is resting on the bottom of the hull, amidships behind the first chine. Still tied up to a black spring line. One black fender bobbing up from the boat, as well.

So she was tied starboard too, stern towards the top of the photo. So it appears that it pirouetted as it sank. Just like if the pod was flooded, and was restrained by the dock line.

If those access plates have the opportunity to be under water in anything but extraordinary conditions, it only speaks badly for the design/build. Those are Beckson (or similar) screw in plates and shouldn't be anywhere near the waterline. Even on the upper deck they are prone to leak.

Yes, but used successfully in dozens of kinds of boats in motor splashwells.

Continuously under water no, but frequently under a few inches, pretty common.

You just can't let the little water that does get in accumulate.

Sky-guy said:

, the sponson can be swamped, and the waterproof control conduits sit above the waterline inside the sponson, then stovepipe up 10 inches inside the hull. last time I checked, water cant travel uphill

Click to expand...

From the pictures in both surveys, the conduits don’t stovepipe up 10 inches. Are the conduits different in your boat?

Have you ever flooded your sponson and noted any difference in how your boat sits on her lines?

Both surveyors noted that the 3 penetrations where the conduits pass through are not waterproof.

Northern Spy said:

So she was tied starboard too, stern towards the top of the photo. So it appears that it pirouetted as it sank. Just like if the pod was flooded, and was restrained by the dock line.

Click to expand...

Solves that mystery...

Sky-guy said:

I know as I own a 2018 302. I've put 140 hours on her over the summer since I took delivery in June. I watched my hull(#56) built from the fiberglass up through multiple phases of the build and know this boat inside and out.




I created an account here on TF to dispel some of the incorrect info here. First, The sponson does not provide buoyancy , just like any other sponson or offshore bracket. The hull provides adequate bouoyancy and the sponson serves as a mount for the engines and step, just like the words definition in the dictionary.


Secondly, the sponson can be swamped, and the waterproof control conduits sit above the waterline inside the sponson, then stovepipe up 10 inches inside the hull. last time I checked, water cant travel uphill


Third, this was not a outboard conversion on Cutwaters regular 30 hull. The cutwater 30 with volvo's is a displacement hull. The 302 is a completely different mold and a planing hull with a double step and flow interrupters. Entirely different beasts...


While it is curious that he removed the plates and ran the boat without them, or replaced them with different plates...it doesnt have any bearing on the boat sinking. I surmise it likely contributed to the rate the boat took on water in a compromised state. That state being that he left the boat moored or anchored for over a month without shore power. Who knows how much water was already in the hull when the bad weather "happened"

Click to expand...

As TF discussions move along, it is interesting to re-read Sky Guys post again. He has been posting the same on other boating forums.

After he mentioned the black plates, I re-read the sinker's owner comments a few days ago, quite intrigued by the commissioning work list. As noted by Spy (ever vigilant) it is quite plausible the Port Alberni dealer installed those post factory build.

At this point, Sky Guys statements seem a bit shakey.

SoWhat said:

Agree, but...

Alec Spiller, Marine Surveyor
Spiller Marine Services

or

Port Credit Marine Surveys
Wallace Gouk
Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors, Seal #757
ABYC[emoji768] Standards Certified, #10952
ABYC[emoji768] Certified Corrosion Analyst
Transport Canada Licensed Master
Transport Canada Tonnage Measurer
BoatUS[emoji768] Approved Marine Surveyor

It is completely up to judge as to who is an expert witness. I expect the defense would vigorously contest Spillers qualifications while running up the plaintiffs bill. (Spiller is actually a cargo surveyor)

Click to expand...

Really? Not from BC, are you? The Spiller family is well known up and down the coast. I'd venture that none of the boats that he built sank at the dock due to a builders defect. [emoji3]

Edit: Not meant as a slight to boatpoker. But Mr. Spiller used to own Wahl (yes, THAT Wahl) Shipyards and Meadow Marine Surveyors. He has built and designed some wonderful boats in his long history. He is an accredited Canadian Steamship Inspector as well. His son is carrying on the tradition and owns Commodore’s Boats.

sunchaser said:

As TF discussions move along, it is interesting to re-read Sky Guys post again. He has been posting the same on other boating forums.

After he mentioned the black plates, I re-read the sinker's owner comments a few days ago, quite intrigued by the commissioning work list. As noted by Spy (ever vigilant) it is quite plausible the Port Alberni dealer installed those post factory build.

At this point, Sky Guys statements seem a bit shakey.

Click to expand...

With a faint whiff of corporate counter PR, which may be why no questions are answered, nor challenges responded to. Cutwater's target market may be folks who don't know what the term displacement hull means.

Sheesh, tough to keep up with the demanding schedule here.... Sorry I wasnt sitting around all weekend waiting to answer your questions. I had things to do! Further, I am not affiliated with Cutwater in any way other than being a customer. I am an engineer and have worked for a Major Telco for 21 years.




First, I mis-spoke about the regular 30' being a displacement hull. Most of the other Cutwaters are far slower than the 302 and it was a bad descriptor. My Point was true, that the regular 30' and the 302 come from completely different molds.




I'll repeat that the sponson in this boat is used to mount the engine package and swim platform. True some of it sits below the water line, but that's simply because of its size and how its mounted to the hull. That doesn't mean it has a role in providing buoyancy.


The dealer also installed a Panoptix Garmin transducer, and I spoke to Port boat house about their installs while I was researching the best transducer install point for my boat while commissioning. I know they prefer to put these transducers on fisherman's boats and I wonder if they accessed the sponson during the install for some reason, breaking his factory white access hatches. I cant even get my sponson hatches off by hand, so maybe they broke them trying.


Regardless, I maintain the hatch issue doesnt have any bearing on why or how this boat sunk...its not germane to the conversation. This guy clearly had other issues going on with his boat and my readers digest summary is that he had no battery power left &dead bilge pumps due to neglect, and the boat had some water in it already when the weather event occurred. The boat took on water through the back door over a period of time, eventually flooding the hull.


Thats my theory. Shoot torpeedos at it if you want to.

Sky-guy said:

Sheesh, tough to keep up with the demanding schedule here.... Sorry I wasnt sitting around all weekend waiting to answer your questions. I had things to do! Further, I am not affiliated with Cutwater in any way other than being a customer. I am an engineer and have worked for a Major Telco for 21 years.




First, I mis-spoke about the regular 30' being a displacement hull. Most of the other Cutwaters are far slower than the 302 and it was a bad descriptor. My Point was true, that the regular 30' and the 302 come from completely different molds.




I'll repeat that the sponson in this boat is used to mount the engine package and swim platform. True some of it sits below the water line, but that's simply because of its size and how its mounted to the hull. That doesn't mean it has a role in providing buoyancy.


The dealer also installed a Panoptix Garmin transducer, and I spoke to Port boat house about their installs while I was researching the best transducer install point for my boat while commissioning. I know they prefer to put these transducers on fisherman's boats and I wonder if they accessed the sponson during the install for some reason, breaking his factory white access hatches. I cant even get my sponson hatches off by hand, so maybe they broke them trying.


Regardless, I maintain the hatch issue doesnt have any bearing on why or how this boat sunk...its not germane to the conversation. This guy clearly had other issues going on with his boat and my readers digest summary is that he had no battery power left &dead bilge pumps due to neglect, and the boat had some water in it already when the weather event occurred. The boat took on water through the back door over a period of time, eventually flooding the hull.


Thats my theory. Shoot torpeedos at it if you want to.

Click to expand...

No torpedoes intended, and thanks for responding.

The vessel was moored in front of the person's home as near as I can tell, and we don't know how long someone wasnt there to see it each morning, so assuming it was neglected is an assumption. Further, if the bilge pumps were working and did run the battery down, the boat was taking on rather a lot of water over some period of time.

Finally, the only difference in the hulls as advertised is that the 302 has an extra step. A different mold, yes, but the same displacement, same length, so weight distribution consequences of removing 775# inboard of the transom and adding 1200# or so 30" outboard of the transom means some additional flotation in the stern is going to be required. The sponson provides that, so it's watertight integrity is pretty important.

Just because a boat has a sponson, doesnt mean it is required to compensate for the engine weight redistribution to the back . Isn't it true this could be accomplished in other ways within the boat? A lot of boats with dual outboards don't have a sponson or offshore bracket adding buoyancy to the tail end, and that because the hull and weight distribution have been calculated out during design.

I have a feeling that the end analysis is going to be a great example of SCM (Swiss Cheese Model) incident causation. Might make for some relevant learning. Too bad we’ll probably never know.

Wonder if there is any money to be made in RCA of events like these? Might be a good retirement gig. Kepner -Tregoe, Taproot, fishbone diagrams! Think of all of the fun one could have.

Hmmmmm...

Sky-guy, maybe you can answer some questions about the sponson bilge pump.


- Which battery is it powered from?


- Is there an On override switch for it, or is it totally automatic? And is there an indicator light to show when it's running?



- The outlet hose runs from the pump back through one of the holes to the main hull bilge, and then to one of the hull outlets. The survey thinks it goes to the port side outlet, just forward of the swim platform. Is that correct?


- What is the routing of that bilge pump hose inside the main hull? Is there, for example, an anti siphon loop & valve?


- I see that all the bilge pumps are Rule 27SA. Those are notoriously failure prone. I have personally had more than one get stuck on and drain a battery.

Sky-guy said:

I'll repeat that the sponson in this boat is used to mount the engine package and swim platform. True some of it sits below the water line, but that's simply because of its size and how its mounted to the hull. That doesn't mean it has a role in providing buoyancy.

Click to expand...

Perhaps what you are saying is that the vessels stability and vulnerability to taking on water is not dependent on the added buoyancy of the sponson, and further that it wouldn't be degraded by the additional weight of a fully flooded sponson? Because that's the only wiggle room you have here. The flotation provided by the sponson is equal to the weight of the engines. So removing the sponson flotation would be equivalent to hanging TWO MORE engines off the back of the boat. And fully flooding the sponson would be equivalent to hanging FOUR MORE engines off the back of the boat. That's going to change the waterline on the boat - it's physics and there is simply no doubt about it. The second surveyor even calculated how much the waterline would change, and as I recall it was about 170cm, or 6-7". And that's just flooding to the waterline in the sponson, so only removing the added flotation (equivalent to adding two more engines).


You don't seem to understand this, so I don't think you are a good judge of it's impact. I think the two marine surveyors, both of whom concluded it would have an impact, are more reliable judges.

Sky-guy said:

The dealer also installed a Panoptix Garmin transducer, and I spoke to Port boat house about their installs while I was researching the best transducer install point for my boat while commissioning. I know they prefer to put these transducers on fisherman's boats and I wonder if they accessed the sponson during the install for some reason, breaking his factory white access hatches. I cant even get my sponson hatches off by hand, so maybe they broke them trying.


Regardless, I maintain the hatch issue doesnt have any bearing on why or how this boat sunk...its not germane to the conversation.

Click to expand...

Anything to do with the Panoptix transducer is a Red Herring. Both survey's inspected all the hull fittings and concluded all were in good shape.


It may be true that the hatches had nothing to do with the sinking, but I think they remain a candidate. We know the hatches were damaged at some point and replaced - it's called out in one of the work lists. That's no big deal and happened well before the sinking. The only question would be whether the replaced hatches were improperly installed, or of a different design than original that was inappropriate for the application. And the ultimate question.... if awash in water, do they leak?

Sky-guy said:

This guy clearly had other issues going on with his boat and my readers digest summary is that he had no battery power left &dead bilge pumps due to neglect, and the boat had some water in it already when the weather event occurred. The boat took on water through the back door over a period of time, eventually flooding the hull.


Thats my theory. Shoot torpeedos at it if you want to.

Click to expand...

So far, there is absolutely nothing factual to back that theory up, so at this point, complete fiction.


Regarding the time the boat was at the dock, the boat owner said



"After such a long trip we got lots to catch up with and the boat only gets used occasionally here and there for a short cruise. Never mind, we still enjoy a drink every day on board at the dock and see the blue beauty through the living room window......"


So the boat wasn't abandoned and neglected. To the contrary, he was on it daily, and had eyes on it daily. If it had been taking on water I have to believe it would have been noticed. Besides, isn't the cockpit self-draining without aid from the bilge pumps? If it had taken on some water over time, where was it coming from?



My similar sized Grady, for example, sits on a mooring in a much more exposed ocean location for a month or more at a time and the cockpit self-drains and bilge stays dry. And if a slug (or repeated slugs) of water come in through the transom door, they just wash across the cockpit deck and drain out the drains with no bilge pump operation.


Are you saying that in the Cutwater 302, water in the cockpit from rain or waves goes into the bilge and needs to be pumped out of the boat rather than just draining out?


What you are speculating only points further at a vulnerable drainage and pumping design.

Northern Spy said:

Really? Not from BC, are you? The Spiller family is well known up and down the coast. I'd venture that none of the boats that he built sank at the dock due to a builders defect. [emoji3]

Edit: Not meant as a slight to boatpoker. But Mr. Spiller used to own Wahl (yes, THAT Wahl) Shipyards and Meadow Marine Surveyors. He has built and designed some wonderful boats in his long history. He is an accredited Canadian Steamship Inspector as well. His son is carrying on the tradition and owns Commodore’s Boats.

Click to expand...

Spy
Once I noted who the owner's surveyors and legal counsel were, I thought humm there is something serious afoot here. I will be spending a bit of time this week at a frosty marina in BC. A Cutwater is on my view list.

Sky Guy- be very aware, there are many on this forum who are possibly near the top of the list for boating experience. Not just throwing a hook in the water or going to rendevouz activities either. Guys that have written very serious marine operating manuals, trained master builders and Mariners, worked with the best yacht architects on construction issues, rebuilt and maintained sea going serious yachts and yes, measured vessels for stability and immersion purposes. The list is much longer as to the marine expertise on TF.

For others reading this thread, three things I suggest. First, a thorough reading of the both surveyors' reports. Second, forget about the lines unattached red herring, the pictures say it all. Third, look at a Grady White, Osprey, Trophy, Kingfisher or CDory for a very good outboard motor to hull design - there are many others.

Very poor design clearly mfg design defects. Cable and electrical penetrations at or near WL good thing to avoid in any boat... We have owned outright several boats from 25 to 45 and would never go uninsured.

Sky-guy said:

Just because a boat has a sponson, doesnt mean it is required to compensate for the engine weight redistribution to the back . Isn't it true this could be accomplished in other ways within the boat? A lot of boats with dual outboards don't have a sponson or offshore bracket adding buoyancy to the tail end, and that because the hull and weight distribution have been calculated out during design.

Click to expand...

True, the builder could put compensating weight well forward reacher than having a sponson. And how do you think that would work out, performance wise? But this builder didn't rather than build a boat that would never get up on plane. This builder used a hollow sponson that provides buoyancy where it's needed. If the buoyancy wasn't needed, why go to the trouble/expense of building it in the first place with a bilge pump, wiring, etc? Remove that sponson, but add brackets to support the weight of the engines, and the stern of that vessel would very likely be underwater. That means that the cheesy bilge pumps, inspection ports and attachments stand between you and your boat sinking, as this one clearly did.

Were I you, I'd be first in line to have Cutwater install a raceway for the engine controls and fill the sponson with foam, as the surveyor suggested, rather than arguing that Cutwater found a way to nullify simple physics.

sunchaser said:

Sky Guy- be very aware, there are many on this forum who are possibly near the top of the list for boating experience. Not just throwing a hook in the water or going to rendevouz activities either. Guys that have written very serious marine operating manuals, trained master builders and Mariners, worked with the best yacht architects on construction issues, rebuilt and maintained sea going serious yachts and yes, measured vessels for stability and immersion purposes. The list is much longer as to the marine expertise on TF.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely true and one of the reasons that I check in on this forum with the frequency that I do, as there is a lot to learn.



That said, there are times when some folks post on this forum in a less than welcoming manner.



Jim

Sad story, no happy ending in sight.
I bought a brand new boat only once, 2.5 years ago, and made sure I had it surveyed in the dealers yard a few days before delivery.
Sure enough, a laundry list of 20-25 items needing corrective action:

(2016 Glacier Bay 2770, twin Yamaha 150s)

Some of the stuff was fixed before delivery, the rest before the 1 year bumper to bumper warranty ran out.

Always have a boat surveyed, new or used, good investment.

As for the boat in this thread: Seems like sloppy engineering, sloppy build quality, and perhaps a dose of owner inexperience.