Fate Is The Hunter

[C-Nile]

No matter how good we are, or how good we think we are, there comes a time when a series of events can lead to an accident. This happened to me last Friday. I was on the Thames River near high tide, traveling around 15 mph. I passed between the red and green cans located before a slight bend in the river to my right. My passenger, who had been using his iPhone navigation app to point out river obstructions and turns over the past hour decided to shut it off to save battery power just at that point in time. I got a crick in my back so I stood up while ensuring I was aligned with the two cans over 100 yards ahead, and keeping my eyes on them. Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam!...My skeg hit rock after rock. I looked down, and the rocks were approximately 8 to 10 inches below the water. The propeller was twisted beyond all repair and on the following dat discovered that my hull slid over rocks. With a look of shock on my face, I could not understand how it happened. I looked at my Raymarine chart, and there were no rocks marked, even though I went slightly out of the channel. As it turned out, I hit a dike, which was concealed by high tide. Frankly, marker buoys should be placed at the turn, and not before it. Fortunately, it was not a hull impact, but nevertheless, the rocks scraped through the gelcoat revealing the first layer of fiberglass across the center chine. Thank God that the Marinaut (as well as C- Dorys) have a shallow draft or else it would have been a far more serious calamity. As I said, the hull did not impact the rocks, but slid over them, so there was no major structural damage. I've posted photos of the damage in my album. One can say that this was the first Marinaut 215 accident. A series of seeming meaningless coincidences all contributed to this accident, in a manner consistent with the movie, "Fate Is The Hunter."



My main motor was unusable, but we got back to home port 20 miles away in less than 3 hours. I'll post specifics on this under a separate topic. Now to re-enter the single vs. twins debate, if I had twin engines on my Marinaut, or any other boat for that matter, both engines would have been taken out. My auxilliary was high and dry, and most importantly -- usable.

One of the workers at the marina said that it was a good thing I didn't hole the boat. Actually, had I holed the boat, I believe that the sealed inner sole would have kept the water from filling the boat in this type of accident.

Incidentally, when I climbed under the hull to look at the damage, I was surprised at how substantial the center chine is. It really protected the hull.

Rich

Here are the accident photos

http://www.c-brats.com/modules.php?...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php

 

[Sunbeam]

Ouch! I'm sorry that happened to you and your boat (although glad you are both okay!).

Thanks for posting about it - it's a good "sharpener" to read and also useful to read about how you handled it and how your equipment fared.

Sunbeam

PS: One question after looking at the photos. Does your boat have a keel guard type "rubber" strip running the length? It almost looks like it might, although perhaps that's scratching (?). If you do have one, it looks like it might have helped.

I would actually have expected worse (on both the boat and the engine) after running over a rock dike at 15 mph. Tough gear!

 

[rogerbum]

<stuff cllpped> Now to re-enter the single vs. twins debate, if I had twin engines on my Marinaut, or any other boat for that matter, both engines would have been taken out. My auxilliary was high and dry, and most importantly -- usable.
<more stuff clipped>

If you had twins AND you were in shallow water AND you were conservative, one of your twins would have been shut off and raise out of the water just like your kicker. That's what I've always done when in shallow water. E.g. I don't think that the damage done is necessarily a valid argument in the singe vs. twin discussion. It does however point out that it's useful to have one engine out of the water in certain conditions regardless of whether that engine is a kicker or 1/2 a twin.

 

[Sunbeam]

Although if I were running home up a reasonably large river in a navigable channel at 15 mph, I would think I'd have both twins down (?) In other words, I probably wouldn't "suppose" I'd be running over something (like I would do if I were poking around gunkholing).

(I don't actually have twins, but just thinking about the situation.)

 

[C-Nile]

Ouch! I'm sorry that happened to you and your boat (although glad you are both okay!).

Thanks for posting about it - it's a good "sharpener" to read and also useful to read about how you handled it and how your equipment fared.

Sunbeam

PS: One question after looking at the photos. Does your boat have a keel guard type "rubber" strip running the length? It almost looks like it might, although perhaps that's scratching (?). If you do have one, it looks like it might have helped.

I would actually have expected worse (on both the boat and the engine) after running over a rock dike at 15 mph. Tough gear!

I always get confused about the difference between a chine and keel with respect to a strip that runs lengthwise along the center line from bow to stern of the boat. But you are right: it saved the boat from significant damage. She's a tough boat.

 

[C-Nile]

Although if I were running home up a reasonably large river in a navigable channel at 15 mph, I would think I'd have both twins down (?) In other words, I probably wouldn't "suppose" I'd be running over something (like I would do if I were poking around gunkholing).

(I don't actually have twins, but just thinking about the situation.)

You're right. In our area of the country, New England, we travel in shallow rivers and Long Island Sound is shallow. Not only is Long Island Sound shallow, but it is rife with debris flushed down the rivers from the excessive rain we have been having. So a log in the water where you don't expect it can ruin your day.

One of the points I tried to make in general, though, in describing this accident is that accidents can happen due to a series of seeming innocuous events. For example, a person may routinely leave one engine up in a twin engine configuration when they know they are in shallow water. However, it could well happen that the one day one does not raise their motor in fresh water could be the day Murphy strikes and both engines are taken out. Murphy struck me. Look at all the coincidences:
1) Rocks are normally visible at low tide, but I entered at high tide and could not see them
2) My passenger shut off his iPhone boating NAV app only a minute or two before the boat struck the rocks.
3) My back had a crick in it and caused me to get up and stretch my legs at precisely the wrong time -- the only place on the entire twenty mile trip that could have gotten me in trouble.
4) My NAV chart did not show the rocks. Actually, that is not exactly true in that there was a very slight ( I mean slight ) dotted line present, but there were no labels. However, my passenger's APP had the rocks clearly marked!
5) The way the buoys were laid out, the first set of buoys were set before the bend started -- not at the bend. So you think you are dead in the channel. But immediately after passing by, one must turn the boat to starboard. Visually, when one passes through the first set of buoys, it appears that one is aligned with the next set, but it is an illusion. And the rocks are right near the very edge of the channel.

I've gone over it many times in my head: how could I make such a significant error while being fully alert? And the answer is: 1) over-reliance on chartplotter electronic charts, and 2) lack of pre-planning when traveling into unknown areas. Those C-Brats who are airplane pilots I'll bet do pre-planning prior to flights in unfamiliar areas. Flying in far more unforgiving then boating, but the risks in boating are not to be underestimated.

Rich

 

[C-Nile]

<stuff cllpped> Now to re-enter the single vs. twins debate, if I had twin engines on my Marinaut, or any other boat for that matter, both engines would have been taken out. My auxilliary was high and dry, and most importantly -- usable.
<more stuff clipped>

If you had twins AND you were in shallow water AND you were conservative, one of your twins would have been shut off and raise out of the water just like your kicker. That's what I've always done when in shallow water. E.g. I don't think that the damage done is necessarily a valid argument in the singe vs. twin discussion. It does however point out that it's useful to have one engine out of the water in certain conditions regardless of whether that engine is a kicker or 1/2 a twin.

Actually, true twin configurations have many benefits over singles, so perhaps the a case can be made that a kicker is a good thing to have regardless as to whether one has a single or twin configuration if one's transom can carry the weight.

 

[Will-C]

I don't get it. I mean, I'm sorry for your troubles but on our plotter it shows depths at mean low water, obstructions etc. No shallow water alarm? Your plotter did not show this shallow area? Telephone for main nav device? Sounds like fate didn't have a lot to do with it. Lucky no one got hurt.
D.D.

 

[Will-C]

This is a screen shot of the Thames river from my Coastal Explorer software which uses regular NOAA charts. In looking at the river I didn't notice any Active Captain hazard markers. I noticed a number of areas that show rocks and dikes well marked but close to the channel. Now I don't know where exactly you were, but this is the screen I look at when our boat is moving. I just try keep the boat icon in the channel. If Ray can't provide this type of information, I would park it till you find something that can.
D.D.

 

[dotnmarty]

EQ has a Honda 115 lower unit for $1800. Good luck with the repair.

 

[C-Nile]

If Ray can't provide this type of information, I would park it till you find something that can.
D.D.

Your comment put me into a slow burn -- not directed at you, but at Raymarine. You are so right! Please click on the below link to a screen print I had taken of my chart plotter screen after the accident. Then check out a screen print from an iPad APP that like your software, uses NOAA charts. The difference is night and day, and I think this comparison speaks for itself. Notice, too, that on the Raymarine, it showed that the area outside of the channel colored in blue shows 7 feet depth.

http://www.c-brats.com/modules.php?...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php

 

[DuckDogTitus]

your story made my stomach a little sick, I'm glad you and your boat are (mostly) OK. I'm quite the baby in shallow water. which is water under 30ft deep for me. I'd be moving at more like idle speed in 3-7ft, but I have encountered a lot of crap that seems to hide and on one lake in particular it is completely riddled with tree stumps (which I have been high centered on, at 4am, in the dead of winter, with duck hunting gear).

really glad you guys are OK.

 

[C-Nile]

your story made my stomach a little sick, I'm glad you and your boat are (mostly) OK. I'm quite the baby in shallow water. which is water under 30ft deep for me. I'd be moving at more like idle speed in 3-7ft, but I have encountered a lot of crap that seems to hide and on one lake in particular it is completely riddled with tree stumps (which I have been high centered on, at 4am, in the dead of winter, with duck hunting gear).

really glad you guys are OK.

Thank you so much for your concern and best wishes. As you are probably aware, we spent 3 weeks in Washington in the fall of 2011 on our boat. What shocked us was the depth of your waters. You can see 800 feet or more depths near San Juan Island. Yet in Long Island sound, our normal depths are less then 10 percent of yours. Not until we go past the continental shelf do we see truly deep water. So hallow water of 7 to 10 feet for us is routine. Usually, our bottom is sandy, but there are exceptions. Someone told me after the accident that the dike I hit had been man made by the Mohegans as a means of fish containment. It appears to be good, too, for ripping bottoms out of the boats of unsuspecting boaters. What prevented major damage was the shallow draft of the Marinaut and its keel. So a good fiberglass man should get the boat looking as good as new, since the damage was most cosmetic and not structural.


Rich

 

[DuckDogTitus]

you're right we do have very deep waters here. sometimes its eerie to me to look at the depth and realize that I'm floating 600ft+ above the sold ground. I'm sure if I grew up in shallow waters my approach would be much different but when I'm used to running down riggers balls so much deeper I immediately get redflags at waters that are still deeper than yours. :shock:

 

[ssobol]

Looking at the two screen images it looks to me that while the Raymarine screen cap has a somewhat different presentation (the scales are not the same), the same information that appears on the right screen is on the left. Looking at the two images it seems to me that as far as the marine portion goes, the Raymarine chart and the iPad chart have identical information.

The Raymarine chart does show a line representing the dike that is shown in the chart on the right. The dike marking appears to be in the same place on both charts. The dike is also shown at the exact place on the Raymarine chart where you hit it.

Based on the history track it looks to me like your heading was about 45 deg to the left of the channel heading.

There is no scale apparent in the screen images, so it is not clear how wide the channel is. However, given that the water on both sides is very shallow (I'm guessing the depths are in feet), and that there are plotted obstacles on both sides, I would have been very careful in this area.

 

[Will-C]

D.D.T.
The water is shallow on the east coast so when we sink our boats we can stand on top of them and flag down a passing boater for a ride. You can't do that in 600 feet of water. In most areas we have to head out six miles off the Jersey coast to get into sixty feet of water.
D.D.

 

[C-Nile]

Looking at the two screen images it looks to me that while the Raymarine screen cap has a somewhat different presentation (the scales are not the same), the same information that appears on the right screen is on the left. Looking at the two images it seems to me that as far as the marine portion goes, the Raymarine chart and the iPad chart have identical information.

The Raymarine chart does show a line representing the dike that is shown in the chart on the right. The dike marking appears to be in the same place on both charts. The dike is also shown at the exact place on the Raymarine chart where you hit it.

Based on the history track it looks to me like your heading was about 45 deg to the left of the channel heading.

There is no scale apparent in the screen images, so it is not clear how wide the channel is. However, given that the water on both sides is very shallow (I'm guessing the depths are in feet), and that there are plotted obstacles on both sides, I would have been very careful in this area.

SoCal,

I take responsibility for the accident. I had been looking at the plotter, but nothing really stood out. Believe me, that line is tiny, and unless you have your face right in it, it almost looks like a depth boundary. Remember, I got up to stand and looked forward at the cans. In those brief seconds, a boat going 15 mph in dead channel will go off into the rocks, because there is another bend in the channel toward the opposite banks. It happened so fast, it was unbelievable. I'm curious. Look at the two charts and tell me if you honestly think the Raymarine chart is adequate in warning about the impending dangers? Yes, in hindsight, I should have been more cautious, but it was a series of factors that led to the accident, which is why the subject was given that title.

Rich

 

[Sunbeam]

I'm quite the baby in shallow water. which is water under 30ft deep for me.

I know the feeling you describe. At one point I moved to the Chesapeake after years boating in deeper waters (Great Lakes). It took me a long time to get used to spending *all day* out boating (in deeper draft boats) and never seeing more than 18 feet on the depth sounder! :shock: Of course there, if you do hit bottom, it's likely to be soft mud, so that helps.

 

[Sunbeam]

Look at the two charts and tell me if you honestly think the Raymarine chart is adequate in warning about the impending dangers?

I took a look at the two (thanks for posting them side-by-side like that). My first reaction was "The Raymarine chart looks awfully 'simple'." My second was, "But let me look and really compare." Then "Well yes, the dike line is technically on the Raymarine chart, but I can sure tell you which chart I would rather use to pilot my boat by - the other one!"

It's clearly not an area to wander even slightly outside the channel, no matter what charts one is using, but.... I'd want the chart on the right.

One time a friend and I were heading up a section of the ICW. We had a 6' draft, and it was his first time on that waterway. I had stressed that we had to say not only in the channel, but near the center if possible (there is a lot of traffic, so it's not always). I'd no sooner gone below when "thump," we were aground. I think he'd gone about 1" outside the channel. After we kedged ourselves off, we continued on...

Sunbeam

 

[Jake]

As with DuckDogTitus, if I see 10 feet I'm worried, at 7 feet I'm sweating and at 5 feet I'm dead still in the water deciding which way to turn for deeper water. And that's with no tides and virtually no rocks or tree stumps. Don't think I could get myself to do much exploring there in the NE area. And as for the charts, I never would have seen (still don't) the dike on the Raymarine.

Jake