Thru-Hull Nightmares

Photo of Yacht "Fluke" heading to the bottom after thru-hull failure.


Related story

http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage

I have some questions as to why the crew didn't discover their boat was sinking and why they couldn't stop the water before the boat was lost.

Usually, boats sink at the dock from thru-hull or hose failure.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/sinking/default.asp

My boat has a marine head with a holding tank. The thru-hulls and hoses were replaced about 5 years ago. Still, that damn head causes me some worries. Sometimes I wonder if I've forgotten to close the seacocks after I've left the boat.

There is some advantage to having a porta-pottie.

I'm thinking maybe I could make the lower part of the head area reasonably watertight. Maybe epoxy some partitions on the sides so the water would have nowhere to go. Caulk the edges of the front panel.

I would only need to contain the water in the area below the waterline, which is about halfway up the bowl. Once the water filled that area, it would stop coming in.

Note the waterline

Reading thru that story my 1st impression is," they gave up awfully fast "
My good friend Buzzy Barkley , in the wee hrs. of the morning ,struck a semi-submerged container about 3 days out of the UK headed for ChesBay . He was sailing a Swan 40 something . He quickly went to the opposite tack & stuffed some spare T-shirts in the 8"x8"x8" triangular hole that was about 1 1/2' below the waterline just forward of the mast . Pulled a spare working jib out of the lazarette , hauled it under the boat like a bandage . Then put a mattress against the hole backed up by a locker door ,with the boat hooks and boarding ladder applying pressure . He got the leak slowed down to 5 minutes of pumping every hour kept the bilge clear and sailed on to the US where he hauled out about 48 hrs after arriving .
He says they headed back to the UK for about 2 hours , until he realized the leak was now in check then put her about and headed for home .

That sounds like a fine feat of seamanship.

Of course its easy to second guess the crew of the "Fluke" from here. A failed underwater fitting will admit an enormous amount of water. But, what gets me is the quote "We realised we could not repair it and abandoned ship immediately" Huh?


I guess a boat named "Fluke" was bound to flounder...er... founder

I agree that it is easy to second-guess, but my first thoughts were similar to Mike's. There were three of them. Seems to me that one could've jumped over and plugged the thru-hull from the outside while another plugged it from inside and the third continued to bail.

Maybe it's me, but there are things that just don't make sense in this article. With "open ocean experience" one would think that these guys would've checked everything before they left, had adequate parts on hand and the experience to handle this sort of situation. And one of the guys is swearing off boating after 20 years because of this? Granted it is a traumatic experience, but if that is the way this guy feels, he may not have been prepared for this kind of journey in the first place. And what kind of boating has he been doing for 20 years that he can swear it off just like that?

My dad, who was a tank commander in the Army, has always wondered of paratroopers, "Why jump out of a perfectly good airplane?" I have the same thoughts about putting holes in the hulls of perfectly good boats; I've already dumped the old toilet and purchased a porta-potti.

The port seacock on #66 was replaced at some time in its history. Seems like a nice unit, but the starboard one looks like the original bronze. Both will be going, as I have no inboard and no need for a thru-hull.

Pete, If you cannot get rid of the thru-hulls, boxing in the head sounds like cheap insurance.

The link above is no longer good. Here is the story:

Terror on the high seas


Farewell: A crewman from the Fluke watches the sailboat nose under from the relative safety of a liferaft. Note the upside down US flag - the international sign of distress. The Fluke had taken on some three feet of water through a failed through-hull fitting below the waterline.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Tania Theriault
ttheriault@royalgazette.bm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The shores of Bermuda were a welcome sight for three sailors yesterday morning after experiencing a night of terror at sea Thursday that left one vowing never to set foot on a boat again.
Three American crew from the yacht Fluke out of Rhode Island arrived safely in Bermuda on a Russian tanker some 12 hours after they watched their boat sink like a stone in the mid-Atlantic, from a life raft just metres away.
The trio of sailors had set out from Gloucester Point, Virginia on Sunday afternoon intending to sail to Antigua and while away the winter months Caribbean-style.
But Fluke had to change course after a few days at sea due to mechanical problems, The Royal Gazette was told.
The crew intended to sail to Bermuda and make repairs before continuing south but ran into unrelated but far more serious problems Thursday evening. The yacht began taking on water before sinking fast some 140 miles west of Bermuda.
“We went below at around 6 p.m. to do a positioning,” Captain David Alves said. “We were motor sailing but at around 7 p.m. the power failed. When I checked it out there was water all over the battery.
“I told the crew we had better abandon ship.”
Mr. Alves had two other men on board - Roger Wallace and Thomas Stone. While the three men all had open ocean experience, nothing could have prepared them for the experience of watching their vessel swallowed by the sea.
“It would be impossible to mentally prepare for an experience like that,” the captain said.
Fluke had taken on about four feet of water in her hull when they contacted Bermuda Harbour Radio.
The crew began madly bailing in an attempt to find the leak.
They discovered that the source of the leak was a failed, through-hull fitting below the waterline.
“We realised we could not repair it and abandoned ship immediately,” Mr. Alves said.
The three men piled into a life raft, snapping pictures of the vessel Mr. Alves had owned for five years as it began its descent to the ocean floor.
“When I bought the life raft I said to the guys in the shop ‘I hope I never see this again',” Mr. Alves said. “You buy it but you definitely don't want to use it. I am very glad I had it though.” The shock of finding themselves at the mercy of the North Atlantic left the men terrified and nervous.
“Right now, I would never go on a boat again,” Mr. Alves said before taking a flight back to the United States. “In a few weeks, I might change my mind because you tend to only remember the good things.
“But I have been boating for over 20 years and now, I say never again.” The Fluke crew were lucky not to have been caught in the worst of the storms that have been rampaging about the North Atlantic brings winds and rains to the Island.
Conditions were fairly calm when the boat sank.
“It was not too bad. It was blowing between 15 and 20 knots,” Mr. Alves said. “But we knew there was a low coming and conditions were going to get very serious.”
Mr. Alves was in contact with Bermuda Harbour Radio by satellite phone from the time the leak was discovered.
On the life raft, the crew had the phone and a VHF Radio.
He praised the Harbour Radio officer on duty for calming talking the men through the situation. “We were in contact with Harbour Radio,” he said. “The officer, unfortunately I don't remember his name as it was such a stressful situation, was so helpful.
“He calmly and coolly laid out our options.” The US Coast Guard also dispatched a C-130 rescue aircraft to keep an eye on the crewman in their lifeboat as well.
“The plane came to us and stayed over us,” Mr. Alves said. “Everyone was so helpful.” About three hours later a Russian tanker, Genmar Star, which had left Delaware City sailing for Northern Europe, came to the aid of the stranded men.
“The captain was so nice,” Mr. Alves said. “He brought us to his cabin to drink vodka.
“He said a few vodkas would relax us and allow us to go off to sleep. And he was right. We had a few and they certainly did.”

Other features:

Thursday Dec 5th 07:53 am Bermuda Harbour Radio received a satellite telephone call from the 39 foot U.S. registered sailing vessel Fluke stating that they were 170 miles West of Bermuda taking on water. There was almost 4 feet of water in the cabin below and the crew were preparing to abandon the vessel for their life raft. Weather conditions were calm. After a further investigation they advised that they thought that they had found the problem with a through hull fitting and had the situation under control by manually bailing.

Through the course of the morning however they were unable to bring the water level down sufficiently, and at 11:09AM they requested evacuation from the sinking boat which reportedly had only 1.5 feet of freeboard remaining. Use of the U.S. Coast Guard AMVER system had previously located the tanker Genmar Star within 40 miles of their position, while a U.S. Coast Guard C-130 aircraft on standby also launched from Coast Guard Airstation Elizabeth City with a life raft and pump kit. The Genmar Star, enroute from Delaware City to Europe, was successfully contacted and diverted to the Fluke's position - removing the sailboat crew by 4:30PM.

The Fluke departed Gloucester Point, Virginia and was enroute to the Caribbean, when the mishap occurred. The Genmar Star landed the uninjured crew in Bermuda at 7:00AM Friday morning before resuming her voyage.

This allows for a more accurate timeline, but raises even more questions:

6:00 p.m. All is well (or leak not yet noticed)

7:00 pm Water over the batteries

8:00 a.m. the next day Distress Call issued by Sat-phone

Afterwards, the source of flooding was identified and they began to stem the sinking.

11:00 a.m. Flooding continues, requested evacuation.

???? Abandoned ship


Perhaps they spent too much time hand-bailing themselves into exhaustion rather than identifying and stopping the leak. But, I suspect it may be difficult to tell where the water is entering if the leak is already underwater.

From "The Practical Mariner's Book of Knowledge":

"Abandoning Ship The rule of thumb is never to abandon ship until you have to step up to your liferaft.
Unfortunately, this is much easier said than done. There is often great psychological pressure to escape from the responsibilities, physical labor, decision-making, stress and sense of failure that accompany a sinking situation in heavy weather. Many sailors suffering mental and physical exhaustion after a knock-down or a holing find the thought of drifting off in a rubber liferaft--and thereby abdicating all decision-making and physical labor--immensely appealing. But, all too often, the partially waterlogged yacht is found still floating, months or even years later, while the liferaft and its occupants are never seen again."

I guess that if they had only 1-1/2 feet of freeboard left, then they are stepping up into the liferaft.

An evil thought. Wonder if there was insurance involved ???

Regarding building a compartment to prevent water filling your boat in case of a head problem, take a look at what James Baldwin did to his Triton "Atom." I think he made exactly the modification you're thinking of. Its detailed on both his web page and the National Triton Assoc. pages.

www.yachtatom.com
www.tritonclass.org

Dan

That's the idea!

http://www.sailnet.com/images/conten...B_headshot.jpg


Shucks, I thought I had an original idea for once.

It seems like a fairly easy project on our boats (assuming the Ariel head area is the same).

Just epoxy in two pieces of plywood roughly shaped to block water flowing towards the stern.

I'm gonna feel real guilty if I don't complete this project. I'm not insured against sinking ;)

On the "Fluke" sinking, one lesson to be learned is that its important to know immediately that the bilge pump is pumping. When singlehanding, you might not go below for long periods.

Some people suggest putting an alarm on the bilge pump circuit.

I think another option is to run the discharge hose from the bilge pump so that it drains directly into the cockpit. You'll know when it starts pumping. Also makes for a short hose run.

If the boat starts sinking at the dock, I wouldn't put too much faith in a bilge pump to keep her afloat. The battery would probably be drained in a matter of hours. You might get lucky with a small leak.

My commander now has a bilge pump that I installed, I ran the discharge hose to the cockpit, guess it was a good choice. my Commander has a thru the hull knott indicator device that leaks a little water, on Mikes suggestion I'm going to pull the boat out this month and fill all of the thru-hull plumming openings. I don't trust any 37 y/o thru-hull plumming. Being new to sailing and this is my first boat since I was a lad I don't need any added worrys.

You know Bill, I had that very same thought...

Less than 200 miles from Bermuda...far enough to make getting "help" difficult but no so far as to make a rescue impossible.

Still, it seems far-fetched that someone would purposely sink a boat, especially so far from home and help. Then again, people kill for insurance money...

Funny you should mention the knotmeter.

Your reporter at large has just received an unconfirmed report that the Fluke sank due to a failed thru-hull knotmeter and they carried no wooden plugs.

Stuff a sock in it already.

Not only do I carry a set of tapered wooden plugs, but I'm one of the few people to have actually used one.

The story does not involve any crisis at sea and heroic rescue efforts. Instead, I was performing some exploratory surgery on my sink drain plumbing while the boat was in the water at the dock. Took off the bottom piece and water started coming up like a bubbling brew. D'oh

ARC yacht abandoned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was another drama in the ARC rally last night when one of the yachts taking part was scuttled some 1,200 miles from St Lucia after her jury rigged rudder failed and she began taking on water. The crew of F2, a Hunter Legend 450 owned and sailed by British couple Peter and Zara Davis was abandoned at at position 17.01N 040.44Wl. They and their German shepherd dog Ellie transferred by liferaft to Lorriegray II, one of three ARC yachts that had been standing by to assist. Crew and pets are safely on board Lorrigray II and are continuing to St Lucia.

Despite attempts to sink the yacht it is still believed to be partially afloat and a securite alert has been issued.

The situation has been monitored throughout by MRCC Falmouth. F2 lost her rudder last week and was helped by the Jubilee Sailing Trust ship Tenacious, which returned to help fabricate a replacement. This arrangement failed again yesterday and her owners decided to abandon ship when they began making water.

The Davises had been talking by satellite phone to a marine surveyor and their insurance company and, according to rally organisers World Cruising Club, have been told by the company that their decision to abandon and scuttle the boat will not prejudice their claim.

Lorriegray II, a Dix 65 sailed by South African Graham Parkinson, has already been involved in the dramas of the past week, when they put one of their four crew on board Toutazimut, the boat whose crew David Hitchcock lost his brother overboard. Toutazimut was also one of the three that diverted to assist and another was Muskrat. This group of boats has been sailing in the same area and keeping close tabs on each other.

Andrew Bishop, general manager of World Cruising Club, comments: "Making the decision to abandon a yacht at sea, especially when it is ones home, is extremely difficult. Our thoughts are with Peter & Zara at this time. We are pleased that fellow ARC participants have been able to provide support and assistance, and that Peter and Zara are safe well. I am sure that they will get a rapturous welcome when they arrive at Rodney Bay Marina, St Lucia. "


Yachting World, 9 December 2002

F2 (another unfortunate name...?) is left floating. Wonder what attempts to keep the yacht from sinking might have produced? Not to beat an old seadog, but abandoned boats end up being found weeks, months later still drifting around - long after the drama has ended and the actors have departed the stage.:(

If one survived ramming that half-submerged boat in the middle of the night, would you sue their insurance company?

[Report from one of the crew of the Fluke follows. Story gets stranger all the time]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In my words (quick summary)- Again I was relieved by the owner at 4am and quickly fell into a deep sleep very easy to do . The wind had died and we were motoring so the boat motion was very easy. Someone said he was hit in the head by the boom, not quite. Smacked in the nose buy one of the back runners. We had a couple of accidental jibes in 30 knot winds and the boom was starting to crack at the goose neck. He had a bloody nose, thats it. Someone hit the nail on the head with his lack of sailing enthusiam. He had been terribly seasick and the bloody nose was the icing on the cake. He had by this point missed a couple of watches. I can only think he was thinking what have I done left a good job, etc,etc, for this . I can only think when he came on watch he immeadiately fell asleep. I dont think the sinking was planned , because his later actions were not at all captain like(first on the life raft, first on the tanker, and first off Bermuda. I suppose I am somewhat venting whatever . At 7am I was awoken with wake up were sinking. I was in a total daze and could not believe this was happening. We went into a total abandon ship mode. After a couple of minutes I asked what happened did we hit a whale ,floatsam whatever. I think at this point he was not of sound mind. He kept saying dont go below its to dangerous. I have to believe at this point he was thinking I have seriously messed up and at least I dont want anyone to drown. I went below anyway and checked all of the seacocks , everything was fine but the knotmeter was off. This was located right in front of the v-berth. Right away I yelled I got it, at this point approx a foot and a half of water in the boat and everything was sloshing around pretty bad.He kept saying I dont want anybody to die. I put the meter back on and we started bailing. Ater a while he did not want anybody below but his bailing was extremely slow and I jumped back below to help. He kept saying were taking on water somewhere else. I would have thought he would have checked my repair and hammered in a bung . I kept saying theres no way. Me and the other crew member had even pounded a bung into the exhaust. The water was still rising and I said several times the meter must have been knocked off again. I am positive thats where the water was coming in. He went forward and said yes it had fallen off and said he took care of it. We bailed a little longer , but the water was still rising. I cant be sure what he did up there or if we were taking on water elsewhere, but I doubt it. In his mind at that point he had given up.We were already in contact with the Cg and knew a ship was a couple hours away so I was basically like$%^# it. Its your boat . Again all I can think was he knew he messed up and at least knowbody was going to die. I have held my tongue for over a week , and will accept whatever happens for telling the truth. This was preventable, If he had not fallen asleep the water source could have been easily seen,and properly plugged. thanks thomas

:( IMCO

I wonder what this "owner" was doing during those three hours befor dawn. Not only loosing his cookies but loosing his cool too. With careful reading of his crew's account it is patently obvious to me the owner (not 'skipper') lost his marbles as well.

Don't you think the account suggests this guy willfully scuttled his ship?

This guy should loose his freedom. Sounds like fraud and endangerment and what other crimes they could charge this fluke with.

Isn't 'fluke' something you shouldn't get in yer liver?

SOB...perhaps we were right after all.

It sounds like the "crew" had more experience than the "captain" who obviously bit off more than he could chew.

Pete, Where/How did you get that confession?

That was on the Cruising World Bulletin Board. I feel for the guy. He was following the "captain's" orders, but probably should have taken over.

Its been said that a series of mishaps such as seasickness, equiptment failure and injury can set off a domino effect of increasingly poor decisions, if not panic.

This appears to be one of the worst examples.

Often the most important thing is to keep your wits about you.

Sometimes I think its best to grow up sailing boats that are always falling apart.

I have sailed with a lot of owners who weren't the captain , regardless of what they thought . Some of these folks were savy enough to realize it and some weren't . If there is a real crew and they know he hasn't got a clue , they just do what has to be done and ignore his raving . But sadly a lot of crews aren't that savy either . I used to race on a Pearson 42 or 44 (forty something ) with a crew of 8 and all were capable of being the captain if called upon to do so including the owner . I wouldn't hesitate a minute to go anywhere with those folks .
I know some guys I wouldn't cross the harbor with if I wasn't at the wheel .

An interesting contrast is the tale of the Westsail 32 "Satori" that was caught in the "Perfect Storm." The captain was forced to abandon ship by the crew.

On top of that, the captain gets reviled in the book and film simply for trying to ride out the storm.

This is his side of the story:

http://world.std.com/~kent/satori/

Earlier in this thread, I had been talking about building a watertight head compartment. The idea is to contain the water that might enter from a failed thru-hull fitting or hose on the marine head.

I created a "tub"in that area so that any water that enters would fill the tub up to the level of the water outside. Once the tub filled, no more water would enter if none could escape.

I had to do some work on the head, so I removed that first. I then glassed over the opening where the water tank spigot enters. I also smeared some sealant here and there whenever I saw any gaps.

On the port side, I built a partition under the V-berth. I used a triangular piece of 1/4 inch plywood, glassed it in place, and coated it with epoxy.

Then I painted everything with Kilz primer and wrestled the new head and hoses into place.

The starboard side of my boat has the holding tank, so I didn't need to build a partition there. There is a front cover you see sitting loose.

I ran a bead of sealant around the cover and screwed it in.

I did the same with the middle front cover. The middle cover was originally faced with wood-grain laminate. I had roughed that up with 80 grit and painted it with Brightsides.

The level of the water outside the boat is not even halfway up the bowl. Even if the tub were filled with water, it wouldn't lower the boat down very much.

Hopefully, I'll never have to find out if this works.

Maybe I'm a little paranoid, but the marine head uses the two thru-hulls and nine critical hose connections. Failure at any point could otherwise sink the boat at the dock in a matter of hours.

Those with a Porta-Pottie have less to worry about.

'Lo C'Pete,
just for the purpose of discussion here:
If the seacocks were easy to access, and given that one (or two) doesn't use the throne all that continuous, why not shut the valves off as part of the routine?

I do shut them when I leave the boat, but sometimes I forget. Other times I start driving home and can't remember whether I shut them or not. Must be getting old.

I don't know how it happens, but the thru-hulls can also fail. The previous owner of my boat told me that one of the seacocks had failed while underway and nearly sank the boat. The Coast Guard responded and gave him a bunch of oakum to shove in there (no plugs?). He replaced both seacocks, but maybe his wife didn't like the boat too much after that.

Still have the oakum.

But if you used them all the time, you'ld have a good idea what shape they're in!

[Brightwaters. Is that next to Bayshore?]

Ebb you are a worldly fellow.

Brightwaters is a little village right next to Bay Shore.

Too small to show on the map. This shows the Great South Bay on the south shore of Long Island. Access to the Atlantic is through the Fire Island Inlet. Depths in fathoms.

nay, neighbor, not so worldly -
spent my youth on George St in West Islip
and Robbins Av in Babylon,

and we had a town beach on Fire Island,
and you guys didn't, nghaa nghaaa!


But to take care of business: Are seacocks meant to corrode and freeze up or is there a good brand one can depend on that is engineered to be opened and closed for the life of the head?

Ebb
Sorry, not since the folks in marketing met with the folks in engineering...

Ebb:

I'm no expert on seacocks, but my current boat has Spartan Marine seacocks, which are a vernerable design and are still made. They consist of a bronze body, a slightly tapered bronze plug, a handle, an end plate and two nuts. No gaskets to wear out, etc., like some newer seacocks. You simply tighten them enough that they don't leak but not so tight that they require a lot of effort to open. They require an occasional disassembly and greasing, and that's about it. If they get pitted, you can smooth the plug with emery paper and lapping compound.

Heres' a link to the Spartan catalog: http://www.spartanmarine.com/

Of course, who knows whether even bronze seacocks will last as long as a Commander.

Al

Thanks, guys'
will look into Sparten.
338 intends to have very few underwater thruhulls. One or two will be unavoidable. And I will try to place them where I will have no excuse not to see them and use them.

I've always leaned towards Marelon because of corrosion and the bonding controversy. Was going to ask Forespar at the recent boat show why their Thruhull didn't match their seacock, but they were only flogging spars there along with 17 other spar makers. "Why you got white thruhull that look like cheap plastic for your expensive black seacock?" I would have asked. Also the skinny white thruhull doesn't LOOK like a match for the beefy black valve - to my eye. So I haven't committed yet. I wish they had asked me befor they made such a stupid marketing mistake!

Then too, there are the stories of the hollow 3-sided handles breaking off! That's because of infrequent exercise and lack of lubricant, I read somewhere. Still,,,,

9 (nine) "critical" hose attachment points - those are more worrisome then the thruhulls, for sure....

Brought home some literature for the NICE tidy Airhead from the show. Airhead is the way to go. For 800 smackaroonies.

We have talked this one thru pretty good on previous pages and posts.


Other 'unprotected' no valve shut offs: The two cockpit drains, the two glassed in deck scuppers outside the cockpit that exit at the waterline, the rudder tube the rudder shaft goes through. Damage by hitting something could cause leaks in these places. Depth sounder is open if it gets scrapped
off.
Perhaps a chart of the vessel's every hull penetration could be laminated and tacked to the inside of a locker door or lid to help the panic stricken locate a source when water is over the cabin sole.
If you are refurishing the interior, it would be good to imagine what your access will be to a thruhull or seacock in an emergency will be.

All through hulls below the water line are evil and should be resorted to only when imagination fails. They are an insidious viper coiled and waiting to strike. They represent one of two things I will never invite inside my boat -- fire and water -- unnecessary through hulls and propane tanks (I cook with a microwave).

One of my "seaworthy" bronze ball valves to the head (the bigger one for the outlet - of course) failed at night in the middle of the SF Bay. The seal around the ball failed. The only good part was that it happened while I was on board - not while the boat was tied up unattended at the dock. I stuffed the hole, from the outside, with plumber's epoxy putty. It sets underwater quickly. I bought the putty at Home Depot. My foresight in carrying that putty, and a wetsuit, saved my boat. Once set, the putty didn't admit a drop of water.

There was no other alternative. The hole had to be sealed from the outside. Although I carry wooden bungs on board, I reasoned that unless I needed to seal a perfectly round hole, and only from the inside (how does one swing a hammer in the dark under water?) that bungs are rather useless. I can't imagine using a hack saw in that tiny space to saw the valve off from the inside before, amid gushing water, I hammered a bung into the hole. The putty worked perfectly, and would be useful for sealing jagged irregularly shaped holes as well.

It took me a while, but I had the through hulls for the head removed and glassed in. The putty held up in the meantime, and was still firmly attached to the ball valve after it was cut out of the hull.

I now have a porta-pottie. It cost less than 40 bucks, and fits perfectly in the space under the V berth. Yeah, some dainty people don't like it, but if they aren't salty enough to use it, they can just stay ashore. It's more comfortable than the traditional marine "head" on the bowspirit.