Has the Bayesian yacht sinking been discussed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t crew quarters generally below guest suites? How did most of the crew survive but the guests did not?

It was around 4am, so guests were in cabins, crew on deck due to the storm. The chef was sleeping because chefs are off duty at night, so he died too. The captain should have been at dock and not out during the storm. Is it possible the guest insisted on it despite captain's advice? Sure. Still terrible and it made me have more respect for Captain Sandy on Below Deck: she will tell the guests she's staying at dock despite protests and them being very upset, to avoid situations like these.

There were other boats out. I think the storm developed quickly/unexpectedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one deserves to die like this, but when you choose to engage in a risky activity with that kind of crowd in that kind of neighborhood, there are risks you implicitly accept.

Whether you like the “neighborhiid” or not is irrelevant. The yacht next door and it's occupants were unharmed. That’s because captain of the ship next to the Bayesian, the Robert Baden Powell, turn Ed his boat towards the wind.

Was the Captain f the Bayesian taking every reason a B,e measure possible to keep everyone e safe? Was the guy on watch alert? Wre any of the crew drinking?

The answers to those questions will determine whether they are found criminally negligent.

I read that did not test the crew for alcohol .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Got it. How smart you are. Although no, I’m from a family of military trained engineers so you’re definitely not the smartest engineer I know.
Navy, Air Force, and space engineers among them. You sound like an ass. But putting that side, I’ll comment on your training sailboat example…

The proportions may be identical but a training sailboat doesn’t have people drinking and sleeping in a/c controlled cabins below deck who will be trapped when the boat capsizes takes on water and sinks within minutes…

Ok, fine. You win. It’s a design flaw because your feelz tell you so. It’s totally not human error, because I’m smart and you think that makes me sound mean.

Got it.

Well you seem to think that we all should agree that it was obviously a 22 year old watch error because you said so. And no, it’s not because I ‘feelz’. It’s because as brilliant as you think you are- and personally I feel you’re some sort of Perini shill- a group of people are dead despite being on a $40M yacht that the builder claimed was ‘unsinkable’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a tragedy and I admit I’m scared for the captain and crew who I fear will have this pinned on them unfairly

Should they have left the boat when passengers were still on board?

They didn’t leave the boat apparently. They were all tossed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a tragedy and I admit I’m scared for the captain and crew who I fear will have this pinned on them unfairly

Should they have left the boat when passengers were still on board?

Yes? They're just deckhands on a rich guy's yacht. It's a job and most jobs aren't worth dying

Talking about the captain. Isn’t there a rule or law about that?

Sculley would not leave his aircraft (in the Hudson) until he had personally walked back and made sure everyone who could be rescued had been rescued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a tragedy and I admit I’m scared for the captain and crew who I fear will have this pinned on them unfairly

Should they have left the boat when passengers were still on board?

Yes? They're just deckhands on a rich guy's yacht. It's a job and most jobs aren't worth dying

Talking about the captain. Isn’t there a rule or law about that?

Sculley would not leave his aircraft (in the Hudson) until he had personally walked back and made sure everyone who could be rescued had been rescued.

The people on this boat couldn’t be rescued. And the ones that were the captain did rescue, at least according to the early statements- like the mom and the baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible to theorize how those below deck died? If they were asleep, did they get woken up to gushing water coming into their rooms and then they died from drowning while trying to flee for 60-180 seconds? Because that is deeply terrifying. Far less terrifying would be if they quickly died while asleep.

Yes, they were alive and apparently running to find air pockets. They were all found in one cabin together except for the daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Got it. How smart you are. Although no, I’m from a family of military trained engineers so you’re definitely not the smartest engineer I know.
Navy, Air Force, and space engineers among them. You sound like an ass. But putting that side, I’ll comment on your training sailboat example…

The proportions may be identical but a training sailboat doesn’t have people drinking and sleeping in a/c controlled cabins below deck who will be trapped when the boat capsizes takes on water and sinks within minutes…

Ummm not the engineer but they never said they were the smartest engineer you’d ever meet, they said they likely have the most boating and sailing knowledge of anyone you’ll meet. But cool story bout your fam. At any rate isn’t the engineer’s whole point that avoidable human factors, such as the drinking you mention, are most likely at fault here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Got it. How smart you are. Although no, I’m from a family of military trained engineers so you’re definitely not the smartest engineer I know.
Navy, Air Force, and space engineers among them. You sound like an ass. But putting that side, I’ll comment on your training sailboat example…

The proportions may be identical but a training sailboat doesn’t have people drinking and sleeping in a/c controlled cabins below deck who will be trapped when the boat capsizes takes on water and sinks within minutes…

Ummm not the engineer but they never said they were the smartest engineer you’d ever meet, they said they likely have the most boating and sailing knowledge of anyone you’ll meet. But cool story bout your fam. At any rate isn’t the engineer’s whole point that avoidable human factors, such as the drinking you mention, are most likely at fault here?

I didn’t mention drinking.

My point is no, that engineer doesn’t have the most boating/sailing knowledge of anyone I’ll ever meet. My family engineers lean towards the aero side admittedly but there are several sailors among the group. But it really doesn’t matter. That poster (you?) made a haughty arrogant comment and it was stupid. But we can move on.

Look, I get that you want to pin this on the crew - it’s very convenient that the person responsible should be a 22 yo deck watch with no money rather than a billion dollar builder- but we can come back here in a year or two after Perini has quietly settled its lawsuits with the families and discuss the changes in the industry. Because that boat wasn’t safe and we are seeing the results of it.

[Anonymous]

So...I'm far from an engineer. But I think y'all are forgetting that yacht was hit by a tornado. All bets are off at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Got it. How smart you are. Although no, I’m from a family of military trained engineers so you’re definitely not the smartest engineer I know.
Navy, Air Force, and space engineers among them. You sound like an ass. But putting that side, I’ll comment on your training sailboat example…

The proportions may be identical but a training sailboat doesn’t have people drinking and sleeping in a/c controlled cabins below deck who will be trapped when the boat capsizes takes on water and sinks within minutes…

Ummm not the engineer but they never said they were the smartest engineer you’d ever meet, they said they likely have the most boating and sailing knowledge of anyone you’ll meet. But cool story bout your fam. At any rate isn’t the engineer’s whole point that avoidable human factors, such as the drinking you mention, are most likely at fault here?

I didn’t mention drinking.

My point is no, that engineer doesn’t have the most boating/sailing knowledge of anyone I’ll ever meet. My family engineers lean towards the aero side admittedly but there are several sailors among the group. But it really doesn’t matter. That poster (you?) made a haughty arrogant comment and it was stupid. But we can move on.

Look, I get that you want to pin this on the crew - it’s very convenient that the person responsible should be a 22 yo deck watch with no money rather than a billion dollar builder- but we can come back here in a year or two after Perini has quietly settled its lawsuits with the families and discuss the changes in the industry. Because that boat wasn’t safe and we are seeing the results of it.

As an engineer, safety is not a binary value. You need to hang around with your smart friends a little more.

[Anonymous]

My first thought when I heard the news was "The Bayesian sank, what are the odds?".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Got it. How smart you are. Although no, I’m from a family of military trained engineers so you’re definitely not the smartest engineer I know.
Navy, Air Force, and space engineers among them. You sound like an ass. But putting that side, I’ll comment on your training sailboat example…

The proportions may be identical but a training sailboat doesn’t have people drinking and sleeping in a/c controlled cabins below deck who will be trapped when the boat capsizes takes on water and sinks within minutes…

Ummm not the engineer but they never said they were the smartest engineer you’d ever meet, they said they likely have the most boating and sailing knowledge of anyone you’ll meet. But cool story bout your fam. At any rate isn’t the engineer’s whole point that avoidable human factors, such as the drinking you mention, are most likely at fault here?

I didn’t mention drinking.

My point is no, that engineer doesn’t have the most boating/sailing knowledge of anyone I’ll ever meet. My family engineers lean towards the aero side admittedly but there are several sailors among the group. But it really doesn’t matter. That poster (you?) made a haughty arrogant comment and it was stupid. But we can move on.

Look, I get that you want to pin this on the crew - it’s very convenient that the person responsible should be a 22 yo deck watch with no money rather than a billion dollar builder- but we can come back here in a year or two after Perini has quietly settled its lawsuits with the families and discuss the changes in the industry. Because that boat wasn’t safe and we are seeing the results of it.

As an engineer, safety is not a binary value. You need to hang around with your smart friends a little more.

lol. Ok Perini shill. I appreciate you want to be a haughty condescending ass to try to distract attention away from the fact that this boat wasn’t nearly as ‘unsinkable’ as the builder ran to claim, immediately and shamelessly blaming the crew. I’m sure there’s a lot of stress right now since there’s a billionaire widow in the mix.

See you here in a few years and we can report back on how this all played out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So...I'm far from an engineer. But I think y'all are forgetting that yacht was hit by a tornado. All bets are off at that point.

Not entirely accurate. It wasn’t like it was a little sailboat hit by a tornado out at sea. It was hit by a downburst while anchored. Yes, sudden and violent but a $40M blue water mega yacht meant to cross oceans should have survived a weather event like this without keeling so much it flooded with water and sank with in minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one deserves to die like this, but when you choose to engage in a risky activity with that kind of crowd in that kind of neighborhood, there are risks you implicitly accept.

Whether you like the “neighborhiid” or not is irrelevant. The yacht next door and it's occupants were unharmed. That’s because captain of the ship next to the Bayesian, the Robert Baden Powell, turn Ed his boat towards the wind.

Was the Captain f the Bayesian taking every reason a B,e measure possible to keep everyone e safe? Was the guy on watch alert? Wre any of the crew drinking?

The answers to those questions will determine whether they are found criminally negligent.

I read that did not test the crew for alcohol .

The prior PP needs a test for alcohol.