130’ S/V "My Song" fell off ship deck?

The cradle was probably designed taking the static load of the yacht into consideration plus a safety factor of 50% to 60%. In extreme and adverse weather conditions the apparent weight of the yacht, or its dynamic load, could reach twice its weight. The cradle most probably failed because the dynamic loads exceeded it's load capacity.

Well for so many reasons actually, the yacht was en route to a regatta therefore the owner maybe decided to forgo the long voyage on the yachts own bottom and shipped the yacht so it's crew is fresh and ready to win the race, and/or the weather was showing a rough ride. There are so many reasons why you could prefer either way, losing your beloved yacht shouldn’t be the end result, but unfortunately accidents do happen...

Here is the last image of the yacht undamaged
https://www.instagram.com/p/ByFb81rl4Oq/?igshid=1mnml0of6nlmv

I'm not an engineer.... (and doesn't look like any of us here are) so I am going to be very hesitant to have an opinion on this. I do know that the inertia/wind resistance of that VERY tall mast at sea, and the resulting torque when the rolling starts in a blow is a lot.....

I hope for the owners sake that he can pass the buck to an engineering firm that signed off on this.

My Song at the dock in Palma. Photo credit: WinchWorks Palma


MOD NOTE; Hotlinked pictures with copyright are removed...

Amazing they were able to get it back to shore and haul it. I'm betting that's a total loss. Carbon Fiber tends to shatter upon impact, no?

The mast that keeps being mentioned, in my opinion was no factor because it was offset by a 36 ton Keel bulb. IN the up position the boat still had a 15'6" Draft ,2 meters more in the down position.

Thanks for the pics

That's indeed an impressive looking piece of gear.

It is. I'm sure that yacht was extremely heavy coming out of the water with all of the water inside of her. She's obviously a total loss, but the biggest piece of the puzzle to determine what actually happened.

I'm surprised the ship didn't roll over that was carrying her when she fell off, as they experienced a huge change in stability and subsequent list too.

Having sailed as Chief Mate on US merchant ships, and loaded a lot of bulk cargo on Ro-Ro's, M1 Abrams (70tons), MRAPS, Helo's, Fire trucks, Semi Trucks, Containers, D6 bulldozersI'm amazed at the strapping on this 102 ton vessel. I don't know if 102 is gross or displacement tons, but let's assume displacement. I'll presume the 32 ton bulb keel does a good job of keeping the vessel upright. I'll presume the cradle is adequate in strength, and it was satisfactorily lashed down with chain, if you look at the picture. And I'll presume the safe working load of the straps is adequate for the weight of the cargo.

What is definitely causing me concern is the lack of athwartship angle on the straps. I see VERTICAL straps from the sides pulling the vessel tightly against the cradle, but nothing to prevent the vessel from racking port and starboard in a seaway. That's the problem!! When the cargo vessel started rolling in the storm, the acceleration of the rolls would set up dynamic stresses that could only be contained by 30-60 degree athwartship straps. If that vessel hit 25 to 30 degree rolls, it was game over.

Also, the only visible fore and aft angle strapping is aft on the starboard quarter; nothing forward. And again, there appears to be insufficient angle on the bow or stern to prevent movement if the cargo vessel was pitching heavily!

Here are some excerpts from a cargo securing manual:
"Cargo units containing hanging loads (e.g. chilled meat, floated glass) and very high cargo units are, because of the relatively high position of the centre of gravity, particularly prone to tipping. Whenever possible they should be located in positions of least movement i.e. on the centre line, towards amidships and on a deck near the waterline. [S/V Song was loaded furthest outboard, and furthers forward; right where the worst motion would be felt!]

Lashing forces are derived from accelerations of the cargo due to ship motions. The largest accelerations, and therefore the most severe forces, can be expected in the furthest forward, the furthest aft and the highest stowage positions on each side of the ship. Special consideration should be given to the securing of vehicles stowed in these positions. Generally the forces which have to be taken by the securing devices are composed of components acting relative to the axes of the ship, i.e. longitudinal, transverse and vertical direction. The two first are the most important to consider with respect to lashing since the main function of lashings are to prevent cargo units from tipping and/or sliding, in the transverse or longitudinal direction. [S/V Song was loaded furthest outboard, and furthers forward; right where the worst motion would be felt!]

The lashings are in general most effective on a cargo unit when they make an angle with the deck of between 30 ̊ and 60 ̊. When these optimum angles cannot be achieved, additional lashings may be required." [With the exception of the lashing on the stbd quarter, I don't see any other 30-60 degree lashing.]

When I was Chief Mate/Cargo Mate, the ship's crew was responsible for securing the cargo (and my alfa was on the line consequently).

Bottom line - the shipping company f@!ked up. Big League!!



[MOD NOTE; Hotlinked pictures with copyright are removed]

Was the boat pulled off the bottom or did it remain afloat ???

Question for MOD: Why were pictures pulled? They are available on other professional forums, such as gee captain. I'm not wishing to start an argument, just seeking the "why"?

Here is a comment from a colleague:
"As seen on the pic, the yellow straps are indeed too vertical, leading to an enormous compression on the boat’s hull.

I would retain the boat with some oblique ropes or straps from one of the upper spreaders to de cargo’s deck, to counter the dynamic forces. However, the boat being on the starboard extremity of the vessel’s deck, this could only be possible to the port side.

The mast is fixed on the boat for very strong lateral forces under sail, where the boat’s hull is not horizontally fixed, but gives way (by heeling immediately). Here the ship does not heel synchronized with the boat, it may even do it contrary to the boat’s need.

In this case, the welded cradle may induce overstretches on the boat’s hull and lead to a puncture. Then the whole system becomes lose…"

And from another colleague:

"That is a yard cradle at best, NOT a transport cradle. The base is quite narrow, so even on land rig-in there is a lot of force trying to knock the boat over and a very narrow base to fight it. Transport cradles have a lot more bracing and diagonals connecting the parts and are wider. You might maybe get away with the narrow cradle if the boat was in the center of the deck with the straps at 45 degrees from vertical. With vertical straps, no way. Even with better straps, this is the first transport cradle I have seen with no longitudinal bracing and it still might have collapsed fore and aft."

And one more:

THIS is a transport cradle:


Also note the correct angle of straps, and the mast was removed and transported laying flat!

In summary: Shipper guilty of bad strapping. Owner guilty of poor cradle and not dismasting prior to shipping

We were asked by the copyright holder to take them down, simple as that.