Anchor sway leads to dragging anchor. Then single anchor line can wrap under and tip boat. Should have had Y anchor arrangements or bow and stern anchors.
Plus that big basin afterdeck...
I don't believe we should be condemning the ship's crew at this point. We really don't know what happened, so it's all speculation at this point. We can infer, but that only goes so far.
Sounds like the Sir Robert Baden Powell ship didn't have all the fancy electronics. The captain could not rely on something like that, so he was awake and anticipating trouble, therefore preparing for it. This other ship, on the other hand, may have had the captain relying on the electronics to tell him what was going on. The electronics failed to alert him. This is pure speculation, of course.
But I think we should give the crew grace until the details come out. The captain did pick up the people who were tossed off the ship, including the woman who was on the deck with her baby at the time the storm broke out.
Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to conjure much sympathy for the ostentatious yacht crowd. And I think the captain has some liability here. But one less billionaire in the world…
The first sentence of the wiki on the sinking is pretty unintentionally funny: "Lynch was celebrating his acquittal for fraud in his trial in San Francisco and had invited lawyers, friends and associates to join him, his wife and their daughter, on a cruise around Sicily."
This is really disgusting. You don't know any of these people.
Seriously disgusting. He was acquitted after spending years on house arrest and a fortune on attorney fees. I feel for his family bc he had a quality company that employed tons of people. Whether HP overpaid or not, they mismanaged if and ran it into the ground and tried to scapegoat him to protect themselves. I also hate the posters on here who jump at the rich. One less billionaire? Think how many people he employed, how much he contributed to the economy, etc. All of that trickles down. Also think of his 2 girls who went from MS - uni (for the older one) with their dad on house arrest and unable to do anything for something he was found not guilty.
You don't get how many people have to suffer for one billionaire to exist. A billionaire is not simply "the rich." A billionaire does not prop up others, they are propped up by others. You don't get this, and that's fine.
Actually I do get this. On paper we are billionaires. There’s no one propping us up, and all in between our businesses, we employ several thousand people and give millions away annually, as well as fund quite a few charities that also employ many people. How does the degree of one’s wealth make it so generalizations can be made? Your assumptions and attitude are pretty ignorant.
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.
Boats like this do not "dock" at night. Ever. First there really are not docks that can support it -- Below Deck boats no where near the size of this and you cannot compare the two at all. But no -- this boat would not dock -- it would anchor or moor. So nothing unusual. If this boat came to NY or even DC it would not dock
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.
Boats like this do not "dock" at night. Ever. First there really are not docks that can support it -- Below Deck boats no where near the size of this and you cannot compare the two at all. But no -- this boat would not dock -- it would anchor or moor. So nothing unusual. If this boat came to NY or even DC it would not dock
Perhaps a question for another thread but I've always wondered what people on these yachts do all day, all week. When they anchor or moor, do the passengers just chill on the yacht all day, for days on end? Or do guests frequently take dingies (?) or whatever to shore to go out to eat and booze? Seems like it'd be boring after a while, but I really have no idea what the routine is.
It’s not boring in the least. We’ve gone a few summers, and you just take tenders to and from shore. You can change your itinerary to get the best weather or to be near specific ports at times if you have plans. We prefer to anchor during the day and just do water sports and maybe go on shore for a couple of hours and then return in a tender and have dinner on the boat. We prefer to travel at night while we’re asleep, but others like to primarily travel during the day. You can decide on your meals as you go, and they just pick up provisions depending on what meals you want to eat on board and what you’d like
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.
Thanks for the great explanation. My question is, with a retractable keel, as long as you were at an adequate depth, why wouldn’t you have the keel down at night to protect against the freak chance bad weather could pop up? I understand raising it in shallows, but if deep enough, why not always put it down?
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.
I thought the weather report was something like ‘scattered thunderstorms’ which wouldn’t necessitate waking up the captain or a billionaire. Or was there a report that was more serious? I think I read that when the wind reached 20 knots, the watch woke up the captain and that’s why crew was on deck.
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.
Thanks for the great explanation. My question is, with a retractable keel, as long as you were at an adequate depth, why wouldn’t you have the keel down at night to protect against the freak chance bad weather could pop up? I understand raising it in shallows, but if deep enough, why not always put it down?
NP. I think I read keel down created noise and vibration and was not something a billionaire and guests would want to hear at night
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.
I thought the weather report was something like ‘scattered thunderstorms’ which wouldn’t necessitate waking up the captain or a billionaire. Or was there a report that was more serious? I think I read that when the wind reached 20 knots, the watch woke up the captain and that’s why crew was on deck.
Why did the Bayesian fill with water so quickly?
Likely because something was left open that should not have been. We've noted above engine room and HVAC vents may have been the culprit.
All accounts at this point have the crew on deck under the captain's supervision, putting away cushions and deck chairs so they wouldn't blow away. On my boat, when a storm is approaching, the priority is closing and sealing any possible means of water ingress, not the cockpit cushions.
30 feet, with a far greater Angle of Vanishing Stability than Bayesian's. That means the boat can get knocked down and right itself easily, unlike Bayesian.
The Downflood Angle on mine is also far higher. That means it needs to be heeled over to a much higher degree before the ocean pours into the boat. Still, we close and seal everything before we worry about cushions.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}