Trojan Boat Forum

captainmaniac wrote:

summer storm wrote:The yacht's owner, Kevin Treanor, who's related to some of the victims, bought it in April 2011, boating records show. There was no answer to calls at his home Friday.

Translation - just bought the boat, doesn't know a f'n thing about operating it.

summer storm wrote:An insurance company lawyer who's representing him, James Mercante, said he'd like to know if something mechanical was responsible, "if something gave way."
"Thirty-four-foot boats shouldn't roll over, with or without people on it," he said.

Translation - We are on the hook for MILLIONS if families sue our client for negligence, so we gotta find some way of blaming this on someone else. Thirty-four-foot boats shouldn't roll over with or without people on it (we'll ignore how grossly overloaded he was .. I just gotta find something else to blame it on !!)

Agreed

summer storm wrote:Mercante lambasted media reports that there were not enough life jackets on board when the vessel sank, noting that the three children who died were in the cabin, where no life vests were required by law.

In Canada, you need a life preserver for everyone ON BOARD. It doesn't really mater what part of the boat they are in or on... Does US law say you don't need a PFD if you are in the cabin? If it does, change your laws. If it doesn't, somebody, please fry this a$$hole's balls.

LIfe jacket for everone on board is the law . Chirdren must wear them unless in the cabin But they still have to have them .

what an absolute tragedy!

I'm sure all involved will suffer questions and self doubt for the rest of their lives. Am I the only one not ready to lynch the captian?

Not that I'd ever have anywhere near that many people on my F32- but this nonsense of name plate loading... I've not seen one on larger recreational vessels. Mine does not have one.

Trying to calculate max loading "W" using the coast gaurd regs based on max displacement, boat weight, and machinery weight is nearly impossible for most. Using the rule of thumb (length x beam /15) suggests the 34x12 Silverton was not overloaded with 27 passengers... although I can't imagine that many people on that sized boat. Every 4th of July- I see similarly questionable loading.

I have a lot of questions but I feel for all involved. punishment will not escape them but I hope prosecution is a measured goal.

Just my .02c.

The brother-in-law was a the helm - supposedly had 25 year of boating experience.

I know I would never have 27, 25 or 20 people on my F32. Legal? Maybe. But just too many people - especially when everyone is on the deck and bridge - very top heavy.

Wheres that video someone pasted a few months back where the people were all over the deck of a 25' boat and it rolled over?

rossjo wrote: Wheres that video someone pasted a few months back where the people were all over the deck of a 25' boat and it rolled over?

you mean this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gfQXJ4a ... re=related

Most I have had on my F32 is 17 (including myself and the crew), for a wedding. While traveling I made sure weight was distributed - some people in the dinette, some in the salon, some in the cockpit, balanced port and starboard as well, and no more than 5 total on the flybridge.

When we held the ceremony and I allowed people to move around, we were anchored in 4' of water.

I won't do it again. I could feel that boat wasn't moving right, and rocking side to side was sluggish.

Torcan wrote:

rossjo wrote: Wheres that video someone pasted a few months back where the people were all over the deck of a 25' boat and it rolled over?

you mean this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gfQXJ4a ... re=related

I still do not understand why the guy on the bridge with out his pants jumps after the boat is clearly stabilized.

Anyway, as a 32 owner I think a total of 12 people max on a f32 sounds about right and 8 on the f 25/26. What's everybody think? More, or less?

summer storm wrote:

Torcan wrote:

rossjo wrote: Wheres that video someone pasted a few months back where the people were all over the deck of a 25' boat and it rolled over?

you mean this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gfQXJ4a ... re=related

I still do not understand why the guy on the bridge with out his pants jumps after the boat is clearly stabilized.

Anyway, as a 32 owner I think a total of 12 people max on a f32 sounds about right and 8 on the f 25/26. What's everybody think? More, or less?

I would say thats about right just don't put them all on the fly bridge common sense is a key .

they do stability tests on inspected vessels ( like head boats) . they test the vessel and limit the number of passengers so it remains stable even if all persons on board were to go to one side ( it happens ) do you think a 34 silverton would pass for 27 people ? No way . I know 50' boats that are limited to less .

summer storm wrote: ... as a 32 owner I think a total of 12 people max on a f32 sounds about right and 8 on the f 25/26. What's everybody think? More, or less?

Sound about right. Also depends on the conditions.

Most I've had is about 12, spread out inside, cockpit and flybridge - went well.

On the other hand, I've had 6 on the fly bridge, planed out with tabs down some, and it was very unstable when we hit some large cross waves in a strong rolling tide. Raised the tabs and slowed slowly and all was well, but everyone felt it.

My wife and I got caught in a side current entering the harbor, strong winds (30-40knot) off the starboard side running opposite to a very strong tide at the mouth of the harbor, and it tilted us 30degrees or more - dumping her (and many dishes, etc.) on the floor on the saloon.

Was on a friend's Hatteras 36 with twin Cat 425's with a tall tuna tower. Great day offshore (many times in 4-5's), but fought it badly one day coming home through the jetties with winds/tides fighting each other and tabs down a bit.

27 may be "legal" but is very bad judgement. Seen 2 or 3 boats rolled her ein Charleston Harbor as well.

Any boat can capsize. That's why there's a capsize formula = Beam / (Displacement/64.2)1/3. Although normally used in sailboats it also applies to power. With double the allotted (and untrained) crew allowed, the boat was destined for a knock down. The sad difference is that powerboats don't recover. As for the weather or rogue wave, no other boats in the vicinity reported any abnormal wave or weather phenomena. To suggest that a wake capsized the boat is ridiculous when it was only a matter of moments before this overloaded, under equipped and ill prepared skipper was to sink his boat and sadly put so many in perilous and mortal danger. My sympathies to the families marred by this incident, but ultimately, stupidity is no excuse for the law.

Seahunter wrote:Any boat can capsize. That's why there's a capsize formula = Beam / (Displacement/64.2)1/3. .

Please explain

I have a F25 9'4" Beam
Boat weighs 5800 lbs

Thanks, I am interested in what this all means.
Please humour a 1 1/2 year old in boating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsize_screening_formula
I also found what this guy said some where else.

These formulas have limited utility in comparing boats that are very similar but are totally useless and misleading in most cases.

Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort or stability. Neither formula contains such factors as the vertical center of gravity or buoyancy, neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution, and neither contains any data on dampening all of which really are the major factors that control motion comfort or likelihood of capsize. Weight alone has no bearing on motion comfort and stability, nor does max beam, which in this formula is measured at a single point on the deck.

I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast but teak decks, heavy decks, wooden or steel spars can easily have that kind of impact.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth. That is why I see these formulas as being worse than useless

I've heard the argument of adding 500 lbs to ones mast produces a false reading, however along with the angle of vanishing stability formula (a formula gives an estimate of the angle of vanishing stability or the angle the boat can heel and still right itself), the length-to-beam ratio, along with the capsize screening formula can predict stability. These three formula are employed extensively by naval architects in hull design. As usual fault can be found in one formula by manipulating the math, but the results can be catastrophic in the real world. The capsize formula doesn't take into account the vertical position of the center of gravity IE weight and length of keel/ballast. There's also a conditional rule that states that any monohull can be “turned turtle” by a breaking wave on the beam with a height equal to 55 percent of her overall length, no matter what size the boat. Basically a 34' boat would be capsized by a 19' wave taken on the beam.
Torcan, based on your numbers, your boat is vulnerable at 2.11. Results less than a value of 2 indicate stability, greater than 2 the boat is relatively vulnerable to capsizing. This is a condition of many lighter powerboats. The capsize number for a 34 Silverton is 2.25, an F32 2.21. A 32 Hatteras has a result of 1.83, predictable stability. Basically the narrower the beam to a greater weight ratio produces greater stability. EG, our 50' sailboat has a ratio of 1.56 again with predicted stability.

Seahunter, if your avatar is your boat I think you have a 321 sedan and not a 320 express. The easiest way to tell them apart is the sedan has sliding glass doors and express is open to the lower helm.

summer storm wrote:Seahunter, if your avatar is your boat I think you have a 321 sedan and not a 320 express. The easiest way to tell them apart is the sedan has sliding glass doors and express is open to the lower helm.

Great, Thanks. I was just going by the owners manual. I had my doubts too.

"James Mercante, an attorney for the boat's owner, has insisted that overcrowding was not a cause of the accident."

Notice, he didn't say is was "NOT THE CAUSE".
He went as far as to "INSIST" that overcrowding wasn't even "A CAUSE".
BS!

Look at the height of that radar arch as well - lot of weight up high as well.





"...
James Mercante, an attorney for the boat's owner, has insisted that overcrowding was not a cause of the accident. He also said the vessel was equipped with the required number of lifejackets for all 27 passengers. The children who died were not required to be wearing lifejackets because they were in the boat's cabin, authorities said. Adults are not required to wear lifejackets, but all vessels must have one available for every passenger.

Sal Aureliano, who was at the helm of the vessel, has said he saw two lightning bolts and then a wave suddenly hit the boat. The National Weather Service said a thunderstorm moved through the area about 20 minutes after the first 911 call at 10:10 p.m., and winds never exceeded 10 to 15 mph.
..."

Read more: http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/artic ... z20QYatcz6