Grounding Video

[Delta Riverat]

He can't fail. He's a Hollywood director.

 

[Shrew]

Yet by the grace of God go I...

I look at these type of videos as being a great opportunity to post what could have been different but not an occasion to make judgement on the captain.

I'm not digging all of the harsh judgement.

There is no 'judgement' going on here. There is a guy who posted a situation and the ensuing opinions about that situation. If you find there is judgement, it is simply because you have arrived at a judgement based on the opinions of others.

The world is not handing out participation trophies. If mistakes are made, the world can learn from those mistakes by discussing them. There are no ad hominem attacks at the individual, merely opinions on where he went right and where he went wrong. We don't need a world where we all clap and shout "good job' as his boat washes up on shore.

 

[Serene]

Update;

Insurance denied, boat has been handed to the salvage crew and he has walked away!

No explanation as to why his insurance claim was denied.

 

[READY]

I think he indicated he would cover in another video. It will be interesting to learn on what grounds they are basing the denial. In the first video after the incident he had commented his insurance carrier had been helpful but later I believe he said they went silent. While securing to that mooring clearly was a mistake I don't think that would be a valid reason to deny coverage.

 

[FWT]

Thanks for posting this.

Financial disaster

Note to self: never use Ion Insurance.

 

[Mambo42]

He has covered it in another video. Insurance has not even responded to him, they don't answer the phone or e-mail. Total cost of repair are about 1 million, so by time of that video the boat was up for sale. In the last video he explains that he had to give the boat away, a 2.2 million write off.
Biggest problem is of course that the mooring buoy itself failed, so is that the problem of the insurance of the boat or is that the problem of the owner of the buoy ? The owner of the buoy will probably have a clause where it says: 'mooring at your own risk'.
No matter how you want to turn this, it is a sad story. Many places don't allow you to anchor, forcing you to be on a mooring buoy, but if something happens they are not responsible.

 

[psneeld]

It is hard for me to get very interested in these internet "complaints" or "advisories".... but they all give me tidbits of info that shape how I deal with situations in the future.

Unless they are tied into a long running source of information that describes each side of the story and give numerous sources of amplifying information, really hard to make any concrete determinations.

Every accident investigator knows that statements form the participants are often full of omissions or errors. Even witness statements are full of errors. It usually takes massive amounts of data input to barely figure out what really happened.

I do love the fact that the more controversial this guy makes his videos, it is more likely that they will get more hits and he will make more money. He admits that in one I just viewed. Makes me wonder how carefully it was scripted to be sure people stay "tuned in".

 

[Mambo42]

It is hard for me to get very interested in these internet "complaints" or "advisories".... but they all give me tidbits of info that shape how I deal with situations in the future.

Unless they are tied into a long running source of information that describes each side of the story and give numerous sources of amplifying information, really hard to make any concrete determinations.

Every accident investigator knows that statements form the participants are often full of omissions or errors. Even witness statements are full of errors. It usually takes massive amounts of data input to barely figure out what really happened.

I do love the fact that the more controversial this guy makes his videos, it is more likely that they will get more hits and he will make more money. He admits that in one I just viewed. Makes me wonder how carefully it was scripted to be sure people stay "tuned in".

The whole grounding was basically on video. They went to a restaurant for lunch, tied up to a mooring buoy, took the dinghy to shore and within a few minutes the boat plus mooring buoy were following them, crashing on the shore. The mooring buoy simply broke loose.

Also the recovery of the vessel was filmed, he called his insurance, they only went out to take a look at the mooring buoy, never took a look at the boat and that was it. Claim denied.
My question is: 'why did the insurance not go to take a look at the vessel ?' They flew to the BVI so what is a couple of miles extra ? The only reason why you don't do that is because you have no plans to pay out. And to also not communicate anything with this guy is lame, to put it mildly.

As for the money he makes from his Youtube channel...........he only has 24 K subscribers, he probably makes 1000 USD per year of Youtube, that is it, so that money will not pay for the 2.2 million USD loss.

The reason that he is comfortable with camera's is because it is one of his jobs, he is a producer, has been around film making for a long time. When you watch his videos it was all about having a good time in the BVI and they had until the boat grounded and he got cleaned out by both the salvage company and the insurance.
And we will most likely see the same happening with all the boats that grounded last week in Formentera and Mallorca, one of which is a 30 mtr sailing yacht.

 

[psneeld]

Do you know which video has a video that shows the actions and comments from the approach to the mooring ball right on through to when it wound up on the rocks? (with no editing)

All I could find was when the boat was already on the rocks and just the producer making comments.

The other thread has my comments on the actions of the insurance company, but simply, the reason for visiting the mooring ball and not the boat might boil down to one simple clause in his policy that was violated. But the fact that we have no info from his policy and I don't know of the actual official or unofficial rulres/laws for using that mooring ball.... I might surmise maybe the insurance company did and stopped dealing with him as they knew it might become a court battle.

 

[READY]

I don't believe that video is published.Whether it exists is another question. As far as I know insurance should be responsible to pay the owner even if the failure could be blamed on the ball. I am going to carefully read my policy but I don't think it should exclude operator error either unless it was criminal behavior or outside the limits of his policy. I would guess his legal case against his carrier is strengthened if they refused to communicate. Hopefully he can get some compensation.

 

[Mambo42]

In this video he explains what is the situation with mooring buoys in the BVI. You may not agree with that, but seeing the mooring fields in Croatia I can agree that in theory it all sounds very nice, everything is rated and maintained.............in reality that is not the case.
And like he states, the mooring buoy was rated for his boat, but it failed. Why ? No idea, but could he have known ? Not really.

 

[Mambo42]

I don't believe that video is published.Whether it exists is another question. As far as I know insurance should be responsible to pay the owner even if the failure could be blamed on the ball. I am going to carefully read my policy but I don't think it should exclude operator error either unless it was criminal behavior or outside the limits of his policy. I would guess his legal case against his carrier is strengthened if they refused to communicate. Hopefully he can get some compensation.

He states in the video about the grounding that they lost cameras when the boat grounded, they were washed out to sea. When you see the sea inside his boat I find that a plausible explanation.
He also states he had been on that buoy before, his boat is 54', buoy rated to 60' (or so he guesses). Buoy belongs to a restaurant.

And just to put it into perspective, his boat is 54', but weighs much less than my Defever. Most likely the frontal surface of the boats is identical.
It is very well possible that the mooring buoy was too short, i.o.w. distance from the buoy to the block wrongly calculated. Is that then his mistake ?
I checked the website of the restaurant that owns the balls, cannot find any info there. So that makes hiding behind: 'you should have known' much more complicated.

 

[FWT]

Justices Side With Insurers in Rare Fight Over Yacht Policy

I looked for a link to the back story but in a Quick Look didn’t find one.

This case comes to mind.

Owner ran aground with significant damage. No fire involved. Claim denied because his policy required regular maintenance of fire suppression equipment and he didn’t do it. Fire was irrelevant but that clause was used. Case went to Supreme Court but he lost on grounds involving state choice of law, not on the basis of good faith or similar.

The owner in this case had videos up on the issues he wrestled with his boat. I am left to wonder if the claim was denied based on some clauses requiring maintenance of the boat to some standard. I am wondering not concluding.

 

[lwarden]

I think it would be hard to claim he didn't maintain the boat. There are a number of videos of him working with the dealer Marine Max to sort out all the issues (and there were many..). None of this suggested he did anything but do the right thing to resolve the deficiencies. He was patient beyond belief IMO in regards to the number of issues he had. The first mistake he made was to buy a boat with Volvo's in it, but that's besides the point.
To me, the boat looked to not be particularly well designed/built from some of the issues he had. I certainly wouldn't want to own an Aquila catamaran. Now, as to is he a competent captain? I would say some of his videos show some doubt there, but probably not much different from many owners of that sort of boat and I don't think would warrant an insurance denial of claim.

 

[FWT]

I agree with your perspective about patience and the boat.

Wondering if the lawyers saw something I didn’t.

I do vaguely recall one episode where he left a marina in poor circumstances. Lost steering as I recall and planned to get to the next stop using his twin engines to steer. Guests aboard. A desire to keep the journey on schedule. Point being, he had a lot of video fodder for lawyers to make their own judgments.

 

[psneeld]

Based on what I perceive so far is....
1. The insurance company is bad/wrong/slimy....????
2. Or the insurance company knows something we don't.

I will see what the video on the insurance end has to say...at least one side of the story.

 

[Mambo42]

Based on what I perceive so far is....
1. The insurance company is bad/wrong/slimy....????
2. Or the insurance company knows something we don't.

I will see what the video on the insurance end has to say...at least one side of the story.

Since the insurance company never went to see the boat plus refuses to talk to him, I think we can safely say it is option nr 1

 

[psneeld]

Since the insurance company never went to see the boat plus refuses to talk to him, I think we can safely say it is option nr 1

Always against the company is not always the right answer.

Only have one side of the story. Always dangerous to make judgements on that.

I think I will wait for more "believable" information or some independent reporting source for amplification.

 

[Serene]

The whole grounding was basically on video. They went to a restaurant for lunch, tied up to a mooring buoy, took the dinghy to shore and within a few minutes the boat plus mooring buoy were following them, crashing on the shore. The mooring buoy simply broke loose.

[SNIP]

They didn't take the dinghy to shore. He says in his video that it was too rough to land the dinghy so they all swam to shore. He was moored on a lee shore. Waves were breaking on the beach too big to land the dinghy. They wanted to go to lunch. So all of them swam to shore.

 

[SteveK]

so if it was rough and they short tied then the bouncing action on the bow could easily pull out the anchor of the buoy. Like all anchors they work on lateral pull, not vertical.

 

[psneeld]

so if it was rough and they short tied then the bouncing action on the bow could easily pull out the anchor of the buoy. Like all anchors they work on lateral pull, not vertical.

Normally, mooring ball chains are relatively short (to minimize swing) and block anchors are immense weights that resist lifting, mushroom anchors again are immense, heavy, and designed for the vertical pulling but use a bit more chain, or screw anchors designed also to survive vertical pulling.

Of course that's assuming it was a well designed mooring.

 

[SteveK]

I agree the chains are short on purpose, long enough for tides and average waves. But if you tie directly above in those seas, I expect the anchor to be pulled out. Not just by this boat, he was just the lucky one. There is a reason for inspections beyond is the chain still attached.

 

[Mambo42]

[SNIP]

They didn't take the dinghy to shore. He says in his video that it was too rough to land the dinghy so they all swam to shore. He was moored on a lee shore. Waves were breaking on the beach too big to land the dinghy. They wanted to go to lunch. So all of them swam to shore.

Also fine, does not change the outcome, the boat followed them to shore because the mooring buoy broke. Whether it was the chain that broke, the ball that fell apart or the whole block was pulled to shore, no idea, but in the end the mooring ball was lying on the shore as well.
In any case, the insurance took one look and decided to be quiet from that moment on. He clearly states they did not call him, no e-mail, nothing and to mean that is rather strange. Where is the decency in simply writing an official letter stating: dear mr such and such, we have taken our decision and we will not pay out due to reason such and such.
Would have been the most logical and decent thing to do, but they did not. Question is "why ?'

 

[Mambo42]

Normally, mooring ball chains are relatively short (to minimize swing) and block anchors are immense weights that resist lifting, mushroom anchors again are immense, heavy, and designed for the vertical pulling but use a bit more chain, or screw anchors designed also to survive vertical pulling.

Of course that's assuming it was a well designed mooring.

And there is exactly the problem. You assume they are designed well.
I sail in Croatia and the amount of illegal mooring buoys is immense. Can guarantee you they have not been designed at all, they have just been put in the water and that is it. Same for the legal mooring buoys, no design, not thoughts behind it, just a block in the water, piece of chain, buoy and that is it.
These buoys where 'wondering hillbilly' moored belonged to a restaurant (btw they don't talk about these mooring buoys anymore). Also Navily does not talk about the mooring buoys anymore, I guess all of them have been removed. Now why is that ?

 

[psneeld]

And there is exactly the problem. You assume they are designed well.
I sail in Croatia and the amount of illegal mooring buoys is immense. Can guarantee you they have not been designed at all, they have just been put in the water and that is it. Same for the legal mooring buoys, no design, not thoughts behind it, just a block in the water, piece of chain, buoy and that is it.
These buoys where 'wondering hillbilly' moored belonged to a restaurant (btw they don't talk about these mooring buoys anymore). Also Navily does not talk about the mooring buoys anymore, I guess all of them have been removed. Now why is that ?

I don't assume all moorings are all designed correctly....in fact I know better being the USCG operations officer in a harbor of some pirate moorings that I also had my sailboat in.. I only mentioned how well designed ones vary with different anchors and that they normally should survive vessel pitching.

If they were removed they probably weren't great mooring so someone who broke free may not have done due diligence. Blaming the insurance company on hearing only one side of the story tells me a lot.

 

[Mambo42]

I don't assume all moorings are all designed correctly....in fact I know better being the USCG operations officer in a harbor of some pirate moorings that I also had my sailboat in.. I only mentioned how well designed ones vary with different anchors and that they normally should survive vessel pitching.

If they were removed they probably weren't great mooring so someone who broke free may not have done due diligence. Blaming the insurance company on hearing only one side of the story tells me a lot.

All mooring buoys in the med are attached to blocks of concrete in some form or another. Sometimes there are a couple of block of concrete and a chain between them where the mooring buoys are attached to.
Other times each mooring buoy has its own block of concrete and each block has a different weight.
Most of the time the have chains attached to the block of concrete and then the last part is a line plus the buoy.
However, once dropped in the water there is not a single sole who will check these mooring buoys to see if they are in good condition. Even the ones operated by the port authorities don't get checked.
Last year in the port of Symi (Greece) in November we got the advise to attach ourselves to three mooring buoys since they did not know if the mooring buoys were in good condition. And all summer long they had been tying yachts up to them.

Perhaps in the US mooring buoys are well taken care of, but in other countries you have no clue how safe that mooring buoy is and anchoring is forbidden, so now you are forced to take that buoy. In some case we just continued for another 5 hours, arriving in an anchorage at 2 or 3 AM so that we could be on our own anchor. However, many people just grab the buoy, tie up and go to sleep.

 

[psneeld]

All mooring buoys in the med are attached to blocks of concrete in some form or another. Sometimes there are a couple of block of concrete and a chain between them where the mooring buoys are attached to.
Other times each mooring buoy has its own block of concrete and each block has a different weight.
Most of the time the have chains attached to the block of concrete and then the last part is a line plus the buoy.
However, once dropped in the water there is not a single sole who will check these mooring buoys to see if they are in good condition. Even the ones operated by the port authorities don't get checked.
Last year in the port of Symi (Greece) in November we got the advise to attach ourselves to three mooring buoys since they did not know if the mooring buoys were in good condition. And all summer long they had been tying yachts up to them.

Perhaps in the US mooring buoys are well taken care of, but in other countries you have no clue how safe that mooring buoy is and anchoring is forbidden, so now you are forced to take that buoy. In some case we just continued for another 5 hours, arriving in an anchorage at 2 or 3 AM so that we could be on our own anchor. However, many people just grab the buoy, tie up and go to sleep.

You are so missing the obvious.

The world is ever changing and some things we just no longer can do on a whim.

 

[Benthic2]

Very sad story all around. 4 years for a 70 year old is almost a life sentence.

[SNIP]

..He says in his video that it was too rough to land the dinghy .... He was moored on a lee shore. Waves were breaking on the beach too big ...

Doesn't this bother anyone else ?
If you were on a lee shore and the mooring breaks, the boat goes out to sea and waves don't "crash on the beach" The decision of where to leave the boat was a bad one. The decision not to leave someone on a boat that is moored within swimming distance of crashing surf too big to land a dinghy was another bad decision. If I had the choice of trying to save my boat, or film it's destruction I would have chosen differently. No matter how futile I would have boarded her and ground the props to their hubs trying to back off that beach.

We should all take a moment and remember the inherant bias of the only source of information here. This guy obviously has a horse in this race and a substantial talent for showmanship and presentation. I am sure if we were to hear from the insurance company, many significant differences would arise in the stories.

 

[psneeld]

Doesn't this bother anyone else ?
If you were on a lee shore and the mooring breaks, the boat goes out to sea and waves don't "crash on the beach" The decision of where to leave the boat was a bad one. The decision not to leave someone on a boat that is moored within swimming distance of crashing surf too big to land a dinghy was another bad decision. If I had the choice of trying to save my boat, or film it's destruction I would have chosen differently. No matter how futile I would have boarded her and ground the props to their hubs trying to back off that beach.

We should all take a moment and remember the inherant bias of the only source of information here. This guy obviously has a horse in this race and a substantial talent for showmanship and presentation. I am sure if we were to hear from the insurance company, many significant differences would arise in the stories.

Agree, especially para 2.

 

[Serene]

Agree, especially para 2.

Absolutely. I said further upthread there were a number of questionable decisions made, combined with the fact he has documented a lot of his behaviours and put them into the Public Domain.

If it were me, I would be concerned the insurance company looked at the other videos for background information and saw other questionable behaviours/decisions.

We have definitely only heard one side of the story and that story has holes in it when scrutinised (even slightly) more than just taking everything he says at face value.

It is a sad situation and I don't wish it on anybody, but the propensity for modern society to always want to blame somebody else, rather than take accountability for one's own actions, is very evident.