C5/​2000M Sink­ing of Mo­tor Yacht U 35556 in the Gulf of Fin­land on 10th Au­gust 2000

13.12.2002

After mooring the boat two persons prepared to dive. The others thought the swell of the sea too heavy. They gathered in the stern open space after one diver left the boat. Soon after this they noted water coming into the boat and that it was beginning to sink. The diver climbed back to the swimming level of the boat and instructed the engine to be started. It was tried unsuccessfully.

Water quickly flooded in and the stern went down. When the top of the anchor box submerged the waves were able to surge over the side edges of the stern open space. Life vests were tried to be found but there was time to find only two at the bow. They were given to the person who was not a diver but he did not have enough time to put them on properly.

Two persons tried to climb to the bow and call for help using a mobile phone. The Maritime Res-cue Co-ordination Centre received at 19.15 the call relayed by the Emergency Response Centre.

Everybody had to start swimming. Only three people had diver’s outfit (neoprene suit) on. The people tried to float with the buoy in which the boat had been fastened, but the buoy went under water when the boat finally sank. After a lucky search everybody was rescued.

The primary reason for the sinking was proved to be the wrong placement of the ventilation holes of the engine compartment. The freeboard of the boat was insufficient with respect to the condi-tions and loading.

The accident boat had received it’s type certificate in 1987 and with it so called Blue signboard which indicates that the boat fulfils the requirements of the Scandinavian Boat Standard (NBS).

When the type certificate was applied, the new engine compartment ventilation system, which led to insufficient freeboard, was not shown on the drawings. The demonstration run that is part of the type certification process was planned, but, for various reasons, it never happened. The granter of the type certificate apparently assumed that the boat was similar to an earlier model of the same manufacturer which had been properly run.

In 1994, at the latest, the insufficient freeboard was apparent. At this stage the owners of the boat were warned putting too much load at the stern of the boat but they were not informed of the in-sufficient freeboard. There were no repair actions or cancelling the type certificate.