Salvage of the Nordhavn EYF that sunk in Mexico

Posted over here a while ago. http://www.yachtforums.com/forums/123604-post66.html

Salvage of Nordhaven

a failed bait pump caused the sinking ????...must be a poor description

No, the bait pump was a large one (guessing), but it has been said that a boat yard in Mexico installed it that week, and used the wrong hose size or fitting size and the bait pump left a 2" (thru-hull) opening in the bottom of the boat. This is what I have heard and read.

Bet the owner saved a bunch on that installation by not having it done in say Seattle or Ft. Lauderdale.

? Do you drive to Omaha to have a headlight replaced on your car?

Salvage

I spent 6 mos in the Southern Baja on our 70 ft, and there are many very well qualified mechanics, painters etc in that area, someone screwed up on the hire.

One needs to do research there and do good investigation before hiring.

Not having actually seen the item being blamed for the sinking, this is pure conjecture but it doesn't read like it was the through hull or any of the parts themselves but rather a case of someone not doing a good job of checking that everything was secured properly after installation. Combine that with someone leaving the through hull open on a new installation then leaving the boat unattended overnight points to lack of "adult supervision" not necessarily workmanship or materials.

If the installation was completed, signed off, and the boat was delivered to its owner or his representative then whoever accepted it then went ashore is the real problem, not the people who did the job.

Was the job completed? Was it returned to the custody of its owner? Was it still under the control of the yard? It really looks like there was no one person in charge or responsible for checking that the job was completed properly or secured safely before going home at the end of the day.

This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Somebody left a window open then went home ...

Good questions that I'm sure are being asked by the boat's owner.

"If the installation was completed, signed off, and the boat was delivered to its owner or his representative then whoever accepted it then went ashore is the real problem, not the people who did the job."


"I don't agree with you on this, although whoever supervised or signed off on the job has some questions to answer."

Ah well, I guess that illustrates the difference between captains and engineers then. One deals with what he believes the paperwork means and the other deals with reality.

I doubt that a boat like this would have a full-time engineer. So the "reality" will be dealt with by the lawyers. I suspect that it won't be the crew (even if there is an engineer) that gets sued, although an engineer might be updating his CV. There is a reason why the crew didn't install the tuna tubes. They turned the job over to a "professional".

It doesn't need an engineer, never said it did or should. I stated that captains and engineers (in many cases) look at the same thing differently.

If that boat had a hired captain who was responsible for its maintenance and security it was his responsibility to ensure that it was safe to leave unattended after having work performed that created a potential for exactly the event that happened. If he couldn't recognize that a condition existed that created an imminent threat to the boat then he was the problem, not the guy who forgot to clamp the hose on properly or didn't finish the job by the end of day.

If the boat was still being worked on and not in the owners custody then it is the yard's problem.

But, if the captain was there and let them leave the boat in that condition he holds as much if not more responsibility than the workers who are not necessarily expected to have a great deal of awareness of seaworthiness issues.

Too many 'ifs' to result in anything but rampant speculation. The only definite here is that someone was hired to do the install and they did something that resulted in the boat sinking. Some captains may be more mechanical than others, but few are engineers also. To each his field. Although I'm capable of doing many repairs, I only do minor or emergency repairs, simply because someone for whom that is his job should be able to do it better and cheaper. I'll oversee jobs to lessen the chances of someone cutting corners or screwing up, but I don't guarantee the work. That's the installer. Granted though that if someone cut a hole in the bottom of a boat that I was working, I'd be checking it pretty carefully before I left the boat, but that assumes there was even an owner's rep there. Another 'if'.

Hi,

Wasn't that one of the Disney ships at Lloydwerft?

NCL Pride of America at Lloydwerft in 2004.

"The only definite here is that someone was hired to do the install and they did something that resulted in the boat sinking."

Ah, see that is where you may well be mistaken.

Someone did an installation, that is true.

It is not necessarily true that they did something that resulted in the boat sinking.

I don't know who installed the tubing that came adrift (if that is what happened) or if the job was completed or not.

I don't know if the installer told anyone the job was not secured.

I don't know if anyone asked if the job was secured and the boat was in a safe condition.

I don't know who was the last person on the boat or what their responsibilities were.

I do know the same thing might have happened in Seattle or Fort Lauderdale.

I do know that the boat was left unattended in a condition that lead to its sinking.

I do not know if someone with the ability to recognize a potentially disastrous condition inspected the work before leaving the boat unattended.

I do know that no one took the simple step of securing the skin valve which would have neutralized all other deficiencies or potential for flooding.

Who "they" are remains to be determined and is not really the point. The point is that no one assumed responsibility for the condition of that job or that boat.

Yep, like I said, too many 'ifs' for anything but speculation.

"... too many 'ifs' for anything but speculation."

But not enough to avoid smearing the people who did the work, and who might not have had any responsibility whatsoever for the sinking?

"Bet the owner saved a bunch on that installation by not having it done in say Seattle or Ft. Lauderdale."

Surely you jest.

What condition? The only thing known for sure is that the item was installed and as a result, the boat sank. You're ready to blame a captain whom you don't even know was in country or has any mechanical leanings or responsibilities, but not hold the person who did the job, responsible? How about if the owner runs his own boat, but has no mechanical abilities? Then he's responsible? I'd be a lot faster to "smear" the person who did the install than a person (existance of whom is still questionable) who never had a hand in the install, for sure. Yet, there are still way too many 'ifs' for anybody to be blamed.

NYCAP and Marmot, regardless of who to blame in this case, which we know little about, in my world, a crewed yacht have either a captain and an engineer, or a captain/engineer. Never just a captain.