Above: Did Ouzo suffer the fate plotted on this chart? The Marine Accident Investigation Branch say that she did. (Image copyright MAIB)
In life, Ouzo was a modest little yacht. But the loss of Ouzo and her three crew, in near-perfect visibility and moderate conditions on the night of 20/21 August 2006, has cast a tragically long shadow over the UK's yachting scene.
The wide-ranging Marine Accident Investigation Branch Report came out barely a month ago, and has already become established as one of the most influential - and hotly-debated - references on yacht safety to be published in recent years. To the extent that the report fundamentally changes our awareness of the risks at sea, then perhaps the human suffering underlying the terse, efficient language of the investigators will not have been in vain.
It seems incomprehensible that the P&O ferry Pride of Bilbao could not have seen Ouzo through some combination of radar and visual lookout. But allegedly, it did not, at least not until too late, and the best theory is that Ouzo was either run down or swamped by Pride of Bilbao's wash.
Even more frightening is the distinct possibility that the watch on Pride of Bilbao, having become aware that they had had a close encounter with a small yacht, took no action in the aftermath to check whether the other boat and crew were safe. The absence of a stream of post-encounter invective over the VHF might, one suspects, have been a clue that all was not well in Pride of Bilbao's wake.
But that topic is beyond the scope of this blog. My point is that large numbers of leisure craft owners have now been forced to reconsider their long-held assumption that they were somehow magically visible to large ships, who would then automatically avoid them if the ColRegs so dictated. That assumption, already much contested, has now been shattered beyond repair.
There is no substitute for reading the MAIB report in its chilling entirety. What I would like to do here, however, is explore two of the important aspects of the report from the point of view of the owner of a very small sailboat. First, how can I ensure that Arabella is seen by large vessels at sea? Second, if the worst happens, and Arabella's crew end up in the cold English sea supported only by their lifejackets, what if any steps could they take to reduce the risk of suffering the terrible, lonely fate met by Ouzo's three crewmen?
Being Seen
With Arabella currently coming to the end of her refit, the mast about to come down, and only a tired old tri-light at the masthead currently, I do at least have the advantage of having a clean slate to work with as regards lighting and radar visibility. Others, with no reason to drop the mast and some hundreds of pounds worth of kit installed up there already, might not feel so sanguine. Anyway, here's what I have decided to do.
1. Nav Lights - I had already had new LED nav lights installed at Arabella's pulpit and pushpit. Given the MAIB's focus on the risks posed by crazed tri-light lenses and lower-rated bulbs in navigation lights, I have reversed an earlier decision concerning the masthead tri-light. I was going to replace it with a cheap but identical unit, mainly because the horrific cost (£250+) of LED tri-light units had put me off the idea of going all-LED, notwithstanding their greater range, lower likelihood of failure - no filaments - and energy efficiency. Now, on reflection, I have bitten the bullet and am fitting an Aqua-Signal Series 32 LED unit. These units are type-approved by (among others) the MCA and the USCG and have a rated range of 2 nautical miles, somewhat in excess of what Arabella is required by law to carry. I had the opportunity at a recent demonstration to see the Series 32 operating side by side with a conventional tri-light. The difference in intensity is huge, and gave me a lot of comfort that this was money well spent.
Above: Aqua-Signal Series 32 LED combined tri-light and anchor light (as fitted to Arabella)
2. Radar Reflector (passive) - In the aftermath of the Ouzo report, MAIB commissioned Qinetiq to produce a report on the effectiveness of some of the leading brands of radar reflector available in the UK. It made depressing reading: in truth, none of the passive reflectors tested gave superb results, and many struggled to satisfy the underlying ISO8729 requirement. In fact, none of the passive reflectors consistently produced a radar cross-section (RCS) that satisfied the ISO8729 requirement. How bad is that? What the report also highlighted, however, was the remarkably consistent return given by Tri-Lens passive reflectors across a wide range of angles of heel. Given the importance of consistency of return - most vessels carry ARPA (Automatic Radar Plotting Aid) which only tracks targets which it gathers on at least 50% of radar scans - this certainly elevated the Tri-Lens design, to my mind, towards the top of the list. The downside of the Tri-Lens models is weight and bulk: the smallest model tested is the 'Standard' (12" x 12" x 6" and 5.5 lbs) and frankly, on a boat as small as Arabella, that's just too much reflector to install aloft. I therefore decided to fit the Tri-Lens Mini. Its size and weight are more in keeping with Arabella's scale at 8" x 8" x 4" and 2.2 lbs.
Above: Tri-Lens Mini Radar Reflector
However, the Tri-Lens Mini only guarantees an RCS (radar cross-section) of between 0.60 and 1.0 square metres, which is well under the ISO requirement and does not compare well to the (peak) RCS generated by the reflectors referred to in the Qinetiq report. Its saving grace is that the return generated is every bit as consistent as those of its larger siblings. An RCS of 1.0 sq m is not of itself problematic in terms of detection, except in ensuring 50%+ returns at close range (up to 2 nautical miles) or long range (10+ nautical miles), as the Qinetiq report highlights. One can only hope that the consistent return generated by the Tri-Lens Mini might go some way to counteracting that problem, but I harbour no illusions. I just feel very strongly that a consistent return elevates the Mini over some of the alternatives. I also feel able to justify the risk of non-detection at certain ranges because of my simultaneous choice to install an active radar reflector (below). If I had not purchased the active reflector, I would not have risked the Tri-Lens Mini. If your boat is big enough, I imagine you'd want at least the Standard version of the Tri-Lens, so don't let me lead you astray. And do read the Qinetiq report very carefully before committing.
Above: Tri-Lens Mini, as fitted to Arabella's mast.
3. Radar Reflector (active) - the Qinetiq report, in common with a number of tests carried out by boating magazines in recent years, praised the Sea-Me Active Radar Target Enhancer, not only for its consistency of return, but also because of the way in which it enhanced the return, artificially increasing the RCS to give the impression that a much larger ship had been painted by the other vessel's radar. Given the modest size and power demands of this unit (150mA in standby, 350mA when transmitting), I felt that I could stomach the not-so-modest cost and fit a Sea-Me in conjunction with the Tri-Lens Mini. I would only use the Sea-Me when out in open water, not when day sailing in the confines of the Solent.
Above: Sea-Me Active Radar Target Enhancer
Some important points to note about the Sea-Me:
(a) It works only with ships' X-band radar, not with the S-band radar that they use on approach to port. Some passive reflectors do also show up on S-band radar as well as X-band. For this reason, it may be unwise to abandon a passive radar reflector altogether.
(b) It needs power! If your battery drains, it is of no help whatsoever. Another reason for keeping that passive reflector.
(c) The essence of the Qinetiq report is that (to quote) "the Sea-Me RTE has a peak RCS that is very high in comparison to the passive reflectors described in this report. On the basis of these results it is the only reflector tested that would fully satisfy the performance requirements of ISO8729 and the proposed specification for ISO8729 Ed.2 (only up to an elevation angle of 10˚ or Category 1)." (my emphasis)
Assuming sufficent battery power, and bearing in mind that the Sea-Me's consumption is very modest, this last point really made the decision for me.
Above: Sea-Me as fitted to Arabella's masthead
In The Water
Arabella doesn't carry a liferaft. I never planned on departing from that, given her modest size and lack of stowage space. Tragically, Ouzo's owner made exactly the same decision, for exactly the same reason. We will never know, given the speed with which catastrophe appears to have overwhelmed Ouzo, whether her crew would have been able to deploy a liferaft. It does seem clear, however, that if there had been a raft and if they had been able to use it, Ouzo's crew would have survived much longer than they did in the water. Instead, they likely succumbed to hypothermia in one case, drowning in the other two cases. Being out of the water, in a raft, would have changed that. I have in the past rented liferafts for longer passages. That will remain my practice.
Absent a liferaft, the priority is on getting rescued quickly (before hypothermia sets in) and not drowning in the meantime. Short term, cold shock and drowning (or near-drowning) appear to be more immediate hazards than hypothermia. The need for the fastest possible rescue would be met by an EPIRB or PLB, and before I do anything too ambitious in Arabella, a beacon of some kind is at the top of my list. Given the choice between an EPIRP and a PLB, I am leaning towards choosing a PLB. Again, this is an issue of space but personal safety also plays a role - if I go overboard, at least the PLB will be in my pocket ready for use. That may appear to be of scant comfort to others in my crew, but the way I see it, if we all end up in the drink, what matters is that at least one of us has got a PLB and knows how to use it. Better that than leaving the EPIRB behind to go down with the ship or having a relative novice fumbling with it (a hydrostatic release not being entirely practical on a boat as small as Arabella). That said, PLBs do not satisfy quite the same tests and requirements as EPIRBs and it is as well to consider the differences before buying, as there is less difference in cost that one might imagine - a useful analysis can be found here. Anyway, I'll post again as and when I make my decision.
(As an aside, the MAIB report speculates that, as an altenative to a PLB or EPIRB, a waterproof, handheld VHF might have enabled Ouzo's crew to radio for help. I have to say that I have some doubt on this point. I do in fact possess such an item, but it is an early model and not unlike a brick in size and weight. I can't say that I much fancy sailing with it stuffed into the pockets of my oilies, as well as the PLB that I don't yet own. But even if I was in the market for one of the newer, more compact models now available, would it really be of much help? What kind of range would it have, held close to a bobbing head at sea-level, shielded from line of sight by swell? I can imagine using it to vector in a rescuer once in sight, but not for much else. In the particular location in which Ouzo is believed to have met her end, one must ask whether a mobile phone in a waterproof case wouldn't have been a wiser option than a VHF.
On a connected point, how would one vector a rescuer in to one's position? Obviously a GPS-enabled PLB or EPIRB would be a great help, assuming the GPS worked, which various reviews suggest may not be as much as a given as users might wish for. But when it came to communicating position by voice, I wonder whether grabbing the (waterproof, one hopes nowadays) handheld GPS on the way over the side wouldn't be a smart idea.
Anyway, back to the main thread...)
The second necessity- that of not drowning while waiting hopefully for rescue - primarily relates to the use and fitting of lifejackets. The one member of Ouzo's crew who escaped death by drowning and saw in the grim dawn (only to succumb to hypothermia) wore a well-fitted lifejacket with crotch straps. The other two crew did not have crotch-straps and the evidence points to them having struggled to keep their airways clear of the water. All of Arabella's lifejackets have crotch-straps, so that point is covered off already. A subsidiary point is whether sprayhoods fitted to the lifejackets would have helped Ouzo's crew. I'm half-convinced by this, but not so much that I want to go out and buy new lifejackets on the back of it. I'm holding back and thinking more about this one, including researching whether certain sprayhoods sold as accessories could be compatible with my particular lifejackets.
Above: A breathable wetsuit, like this one from Musto, could be part of an arsenal for combating hypothermia?
Staying afloat is one matter, avoiding hypothermia quite another. There is, I think, a danger of believing that just because you got off a mayday and/or activated a PLB or EPIRB, assistance will be along shortly. The open sea is not, however, quite the same as the roadside: even quite close inshore, you are further away from help than you think, and especially so after dark. Survival in UK waters can be measured in hours (or even minutes, outside summertime) before hypothermia sets in.
Having been taking some tentative steps towards dinghy sailing, I've been looking into sailing wetsuits. The available medical research on combating hypothermia suggests that, while a full body wetsuit is not as effective as an insulated drysuit, it could provide up to 10 hours survial time in water at 12 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit). In contrast, someone wearing ordinary light wight clothes in the same conditions would succumb in an estimated 65 minutes. An insulated drysuit could add half again to the wetsuit-based survival time, assuming it was well fitted and didn't allow cold water to dribble in, which in practice is unlikely. (These figures, incidentally, are quoted from "Essentials of Sea Survival" by Golden & Tipton, 2002, at pp. 47-48, citing research conducted in 1978 and 1987. The authors are at pains to emphasise that there are serious questions as to the accuracy of survival estimates based on immersion in laboratory-controlled conditions rather than in open water).
It may came as a surprise to those unfamiliar, as I was, with these suits but they are a very far cry from the nasty rubber items that you may have encoutered in the past. The use of technical fabrics has advanced to the point where lightweight, comfortable wet-suits (such as this one from Gill, but do also check out Musto for breathables) can now be found for a reasonable cost. I am quite tempted to pick one up, not for use on a summer's day sail on the Solent, obviously, but for singlehanding or for longer/night passages. The extra time that a wetsuit (or for the ambitious, even a drysuit) might buy you could be just enough to keep you alive until rescue.
At the end of the day, anyone else that bothers to read this will or won't be convinced by my approach. But I have found it very helpful, as the post-Ouzo debate has developed, to see what other people were thinking and how their approach was to some extent tailored to the size of their boat. The decisions they took have undoubtedly influenced my thinking, even if I didn't always feel that I agreed fully with their conclusions.
The smaller the boat, the more difficult some of these decisions become, especially with older boats whose resale value will in no way reflect the price of the safety equipment that they would ideally carry. My view on the budgetary issue was that I scraped round and found the extra cash somewhere. My belief is that many yotties can and will do likewise.
Ultimately it comes down to one's own appetite for risk and the chilling realisation that one day, it may be you facing the fate that Ouzo's crew endured on that perfect night last August.
