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.
You’re replying to a different engineer. That’s not me you quoted. I’m the original engineer you hate - the mean one that’s been on boats since I was about a week old.
And I’m not a Perini shill. Never been into the Italians. I resent the implication frankly.
Beneteau, Grand Banks or Hinkley? Bet your ass! I’ll shill for them all day long!
This was human error by the watch stander and the Captain. They failed their passengers they had a duty to protect, at risk to their lives if necessary.
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 .
Okay, I cannot help commenting on how aptly named the Robert Baden Powell was, considering the PP’s assertion that it did the right thing turning. Baden Powell was the founder of the Boy Scouts. Whose motto is “Be Prepared.” (And also “Do a good turn daily”—sounds like they made the right turn here.).
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.
You’re replying to a different engineer. That’s not me you quoted. I’m the original engineer you hate - the mean one that’s been on boats since I was about a week old.
And I’m not a Perini shill. Never been into the Italians. I resent the implication frankly.
Beneteau, Grand Banks or Hinkley? Bet your ass! I’ll shill for them all day long!
This was human error by the watch stander and the Captain. They failed their passengers they had a duty to protect, at risk to their lives if necessary.
I’m out.
You apparently aren’t as experienced as you say you are. But in any event, bye bye
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.
Completely not my field of engineering, but you need to be careful when scaling. Material properties don't scale. So while you can make a mast that tall, the weight probably didn't scale linearly. However, I am going to guess that extensive CB versus CG calculations were made and measured empirically on the yacht. It wouldn't have gotten out of the design phase without approval by a naval engineer/architect, even though it was just a scaled-up design of an existing yacht.
IMHO, most accidents are operator error.
That caught my eye. I'm a SJC alumna so we had unusual math/science curricula. I don't remember what (original!) source explained this, but that's where I learned the principle that (speaking from the vagueness of memory) if you build something twice as big it has to be 4 times as strong in terms of supports.
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.
You’re replying to a different engineer. That’s not me you quoted. I’m the original engineer you hate - the mean one that’s been on boats since I was about a week old.
And I’m not a Perini shill. Never been into the Italians. I resent the implication frankly.
Beneteau, Grand Banks or Hinkley? Bet your ass! I’ll shill for them all day long!
This was human error by the watch stander and the Captain. They failed their passengers they had a duty to protect, at risk to their lives if necessary.
I’m out.
Sailor here. The bolded is correct. The vessel's operational limitations were known and understood. What we have here was a failure to prepare and that is on the skipper.
This is a really mean thread, even by DCUM standards. My heart breaks for the 18 year old woman who was terrified and alone when she died.
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 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.
You’re replying to a different engineer. That’s not me you quoted. I’m the original engineer you hate - the mean one that’s been on boats since I was about a week old.
And I’m not a Perini shill. Never been into the Italians. I resent the implication frankly.
Beneteau, Grand Banks or Hinkley? Bet your ass! I’ll shill for them all day long!
This was human error by the watch stander and the Captain. They failed their passengers they had a duty to protect, at risk to their lives if necessary.
I’m out.
Sailor here. The bolded is correct. The vessel's operational limitations were known and understood. What we have here was a failure to prepare and that is on the skipper.
This is a really mean thread, even by DCUM standards. My heart breaks for the 18 year old woman who was terrified and alone when she died.
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.
You’re replying to a different engineer. That’s not me you quoted. I’m the original engineer you hate - the mean one that’s been on boats since I was about a week old.
And I’m not a Perini shill. Never been into the Italians. I resent the implication frankly.
Beneteau, Grand Banks or Hinkley? Bet your ass! I’ll shill for them all day long!
This was human error by the watch stander and the Captain. They failed their passengers they had a duty to protect, at risk to their lives if necessary.
I’m out.
Sailor here. The bolded is correct. The vessel's operational limitations were known and understood. What we have here was a failure to prepare and that is on the skipper.
This is a really mean thread, even by DCUM standards. My heart breaks for the 18 year old woman who was terrified and alone when she died.
Operational limitations? It was moored at night
Term of art. The vessel's Angle of Vanishing Stability was 70 degrees, keel up. The Downflood Angle was 40-45 degrees, which is very low.
When a storm is approaching, you BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES, in layman's terms, to prevent downflood. That didn't happen.
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.
You’re replying to a different engineer. That’s not me you quoted. I’m the original engineer you hate - the mean one that’s been on boats since I was about a week old.
And I’m not a Perini shill. Never been into the Italians. I resent the implication frankly.
Beneteau, Grand Banks or Hinkley? Bet your ass! I’ll shill for them all day long!
This was human error by the watch stander and the Captain. They failed their passengers they had a duty to protect, at risk to their lives if necessary.
I’m out.
Sailor here. The bolded is correct. The vessel's operational limitations were known and understood. What we have here was a failure to prepare and that is on the skipper.
This is a really mean thread, even by DCUM standards. My heart breaks for the 18 year old woman who was terrified and alone when she died.
Operational limitations? It was moored at night
Term of art. The vessel's Angle of Vanishing Stability was 70 degrees, keel up. The Downflood Angle was 40-45 degrees, which is very low.
When a storm is approaching, you BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES, in layman's terms, to prevent downflood. That didn't happen.
NP here:
Reports are that the storm - either a waterspout or a downburst - came out of nowhere per the captain of the Robert Baden Powell. There was no storm alert. A single watchman at 4 in the morning would not have been able to prepare the boat for the storm.
From Wikipedia:
[i]
Admiral Raffaele Macauda of the Palermo coastguard said there was no storm alert for that evening and the weather forecast was of isolated thunderstorms but not of any extreme weather systems.[23][24] Karsten Borner, captain of Sir Robert Baden Powell anchored nearby said that, in the event, the wind was "violent, very violent" and thought it reached force 12 on the Beaufort scale — hurricane strength. He said: "It was tonnes of water coming down. I never saw that before, there was a water tornado".[24] Although early eyewitness accounts led to reports that the yacht had been struck by a waterspout, the Italian authorities said a downburst was more likely.[25]
Bayesian's captain said that the yacht tilted by 45 degrees and stayed in that position for some time, then suddenly fell completely to the right.[26]
Data from the tracking of the Automatic Identification System (AIS) showed that at 3.50 CEST Bayesian was already being buffeted by the storm and then began to drag its anchor. At 4.05 it was entirely underwater and a few seconds later its emergency position-indicating radiobeacon (EPIRB) became detached from the top of the mast and automatically raised the alarm, which was picked up by the satellite station managed by the Bari Coast Guard.[27] Power had been lost by 3.56 as electrical circults became flooded. Borner said: "I have never seen a vessel of this size go down so quickly. Within a few minutes, there was nothing left." The yacht came to rest on its starboard side on the seabed at a depth of 50 metres (160 ft).[28]
Batten down the hatches isn’t really applicable on a luxury super yacht, is it? Not like they had the windows open for a cool breeze. There must be some openings for HVAC and engine to operate, no?
If downflood angle was low, would there be some auto correcting mechanism?
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.
You’re replying to a different engineer. That’s not me you quoted. I’m the original engineer you hate - the mean one that’s been on boats since I was about a week old.
And I’m not a Perini shill. Never been into the Italians. I resent the implication frankly.
Beneteau, Grand Banks or Hinkley? Bet your ass! I’ll shill for them all day long!
This was human error by the watch stander and the Captain. They failed their passengers they had a duty to protect, at risk to their lives if necessary.
I’m out.
Sailor here. The bolded is correct. The vessel's operational limitations were known and understood. What we have here was a failure to prepare and that is on the skipper.
This is a really mean thread, even by DCUM standards. My heart breaks for the 18 year old woman who was terrified and alone when she died.
Operational limitations? It was moored at night
Term of art. The vessel's Angle of Vanishing Stability was 70 degrees, keel up. The Downflood Angle was 40-45 degrees, which is very low.
When a storm is approaching, you BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES, in layman's terms, to prevent downflood. That didn't happen.
NP here:
Reports are that the storm - either a waterspout or a downburst - came out of nowhere per the captain of the Robert Baden Powell. There was no storm alert. A single watchman at 4 in the morning would not have been able to prepare the boat for the storm.
From Wikipedia:
[i]
Admiral Raffaele Macauda of the Palermo coastguard said there was no storm alert for that evening and the weather forecast was of isolated thunderstorms but not of any extreme weather systems.[23][24] Karsten Borner, captain of Sir Robert Baden Powell anchored nearby said that, in the event, the wind was "violent, very violent" and thought it reached force 12 on the Beaufort scale — hurricane strength. He said: "It was tonnes of water coming down. I never saw that before, there was a water tornado".[24] Although early eyewitness accounts led to reports that the yacht had been struck by a waterspout, the Italian authorities said a downburst was more likely.[25]
Bayesian's captain said that the yacht tilted by 45 degrees and stayed in that position for some time, then suddenly fell completely to the right.[26]
Data from the tracking of the Automatic Identification System (AIS) showed that at 3.50 CEST Bayesian was already being buffeted by the storm and then began to drag its anchor. At 4.05 it was entirely underwater and a few seconds later its emergency position-indicating radiobeacon (EPIRB) became detached from the top of the mast and automatically raised the alarm, which was picked up by the satellite station managed by the Bari Coast Guard.[27] Power had been lost by 3.56 as electrical circults became flooded. Borner said: "I have never seen a vessel of this size go down so quickly. Within a few minutes, there was nothing left." The yacht came to rest on its starboard side on the seabed at a depth of 50 metres (160 ft).[28]
If it tilted to 45 degrees and then "fell over," it would be because the vessel was rapidly filling with sea water. Or, the keel fell off, a higly unlikely scenario. We will know when the British Admiralty issues its accident report in a year.
FWIW, Captain Borner's vessel escaped unscathed because he prepared it. The pilot who posted above that sudden storms are literally not a thing and that is the truth too. A vessel like the Bayesian would have its own weather radar. They should have known.
Anonymous wrote:Batten down the hatches isn’t really applicable on a luxury super yacht, is it? Not like they had the windows open for a cool breeze. There must be some openings for HVAC and engine to operate, no?
If downflood angle was low, would there be some auto correcting mechanism?
No, I noted it as layman's terms so DCUM would understand. Yes, HVAC and engine room vents left open are a likely cause. There will be more when we see the final report.
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.
You’re replying to a different engineer. That’s not me you quoted. I’m the original engineer you hate - the mean one that’s been on boats since I was about a week old.
And I’m not a Perini shill. Never been into the Italians. I resent the implication frankly.
Beneteau, Grand Banks or Hinkley? Bet your ass! I’ll shill for them all day long!
This was human error by the watch stander and the Captain. They failed their passengers they had a duty to protect, at risk to their lives if necessary.
I’m out.
Sailor here. The bolded is correct. The vessel's operational limitations were known and understood. What we have here was a failure to prepare and that is on the skipper.
This is a really mean thread, even by DCUM standards. My heart breaks for the 18 year old woman who was terrified and alone when she died.
Operational limitations? It was moored at night
Term of art. The vessel's Angle of Vanishing Stability was 70 degrees, keel up. The Downflood Angle was 40-45 degrees, which is very low.
When a storm is approaching, you BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES, in layman's terms, to prevent downflood. That didn't happen.
NP here:
Reports are that the storm - either a waterspout or a downburst - came out of nowhere per the captain of the Robert Baden Powell. There was no storm alert. A single watchman at 4 in the morning would not have been able to prepare the boat for the storm.
From Wikipedia:
[i]
Admiral Raffaele Macauda of the Palermo coastguard said there was no storm alert for that evening and the weather forecast was of isolated thunderstorms but not of any extreme weather systems.[23][24] Karsten Borner, captain of Sir Robert Baden Powell anchored nearby said that, in the event, the wind was "violent, very violent" and thought it reached force 12 on the Beaufort scale — hurricane strength. He said: "It was tonnes of water coming down. I never saw that before, there was a water tornado".[24] Although early eyewitness accounts led to reports that the yacht had been struck by a waterspout, the Italian authorities said a downburst was more likely.[25]
Bayesian's captain said that the yacht tilted by 45 degrees and stayed in that position for some time, then suddenly fell completely to the right.[26]
Data from the tracking of the Automatic Identification System (AIS) showed that at 3.50 CEST Bayesian was already being buffeted by the storm and then began to drag its anchor. At 4.05 it was entirely underwater and a few seconds later its emergency position-indicating radiobeacon (EPIRB) became detached from the top of the mast and automatically raised the alarm, which was picked up by the satellite station managed by the Bari Coast Guard.[27] Power had been lost by 3.56 as electrical circults became flooded. Borner said: "I have never seen a vessel of this size go down so quickly. Within a few minutes, there was nothing left." The yacht came to rest on its starboard side on the seabed at a depth of 50 metres (160 ft).[28]
If it tilted to 45 degrees and then "fell over," it would be because the vessel was rapidly filling with sea water. Or, the keel fell off, a higly unlikely scenario. We will know when the British Admiralty issues its accident report in a year.
FWIW, Captain Borner's vessel escaped unscathed because he prepared it. The pilot who posted above that sudden storms are literally not a thing and that is the truth too. A vessel like the Bayesian would have its own weather radar. They should have known.
Capt Borner's vessel was built in the mid-1950s. Much simpler design, less preparation needed for a rapid storm, no retractable keel, no tender, less reliance on electrical systems, etc. It also sounds like the RBP had its Captain awake and directing the ship when the storm hit. No such confirmation about the Bayesian captain has been provided; I would venture that the captain was asleep and an inexperienced night watchman didn't know what to do / was hesitant to wake up the captain.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}