Comments
Questions from the professional yachting community
BYM has received a number of questions from those in the professional yachting community who have read the Mirabella V Casualty report.
The weather forecast was quite clear and given out on the Monday preceding the grounding. It is given out in English, on VHF, by Cross Med. Why is there is no mention of whether a VHF watch was being kept?
The readings give the constant wind velocities at the stated times but why is there no mention of the gust velocities?
Why is there no mention of the Affaires Maritimes report and no Addendum listing Authorities and/or Administrations which took part in the investigation?
Were questions asked as to why so many key crew members were ashore whilst the yacht was anchored on a lee shore during increasingly adverse conditions?
A recent magazine report, written after the magazine had spoken to the owner, says that the yacht received a warning about worsening conditions and that Iain Bradshaw suggested to captain Johnno Johnson that they should move; adding that it seemed that, by then, the anchor was already dragging. This appears to contradict the sequence described in the report (1.3.10.1 to 1.3.11.1). Which version is correct?
Clearly, the Admiralty Chart should indicate a weedy bottom and the Sailing Instructions (Pilot Book) should state that this is bad holding ground in certain conditions, and specifically East/South East. What measures have been taken, by the IOM, to ensure that relevant changes are made?
What lessons have been learned regarding “you are standing into danger” communications between anchored yachts and shore stations, given that St Jean plotted the Mirabella V (presumably as an at risk vessel) for several days?
The report says “The weather conditions used in the Narrative of Events are as stated by the crew on board the yacht.” Did the crew actually record these conditions? Why weren’t official figures, recorded by St Jean Semaphore, used?
The report states “damage to the anchor suggests that it was in sufficiently good holding ground and firmly secured in the seabed. The holding capacity of the anchor was clearly used to its full extent, taking the equipment to its failure limit.” “The nature of the damage indicates a very high transverse pull bending the shank.” It is possible that this high transverse pull would have been cyclical, induced by the yacht swinging around the anchor. This would have the tendency to work the anchor from side to side, breaking it out from its holding position.” It is concluded that the anchor was pulled out from its holding position by a large transverse pull on the anchor shank as the yacht swung about her anchor.
There is, in fact, no means of knowing when the anchor was damaged. It may have happened on an earlier occasion. If it happened in Beaulieu Bay, it may have occurred when the Big Roy was attempting to tow the Mirabella V off the rocks with the anchor down.
These questions have been passed to the IOM. BYM has also asked the MCA to comment on matters of training referred to in the Report.
The MCA reply