Has the Bayesian yacht sinking been discussed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you have never had any human factors education, and it shows.

What does this mean?

Like I said.

Sorry to be daft, but I don’t follow. Can you break it down? What’s your point?

Not pp, but human factor means engineering based on how people will use a product. It's a big deal in aviation safety. https://www.britannica.com/topic/human-factors-engineering

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Four victims of Bayesian superyacht 'had no water in their lungs' amid fears they 'suffocated in cabin air pocket'


https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/bayesian-superyacht-four-victims-no-water-lungs-fears-suffocated/

In other words ... they were dead before the boat captized? ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four victims of Bayesian superyacht 'had no water in their lungs' amid fears they 'suffocated in cabin air pocket'


https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/bayesian-superyacht-four-victims-no-water-lungs-fears-suffocated/

In other words ... they were dead before the boat captized? ...

No. It means they suffocated before they could drown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you have never had any human factors education, and it shows.

What does this mean?

It means that if a $50 million yacht sinks because a crew member doesn't close a hath, the design is shoddy.

Oh yea, I see that. I was trying to make that point earlier but not expressing it clearly. I’m sure there are things the crew did or didn’t do that weren’t perfect, but you’d think a $40m blue water yacht designed to cross oceans could handle a weather event like this at port and not capsize and sink in 6 minutes. Seems like something’s not right in the design if it provides for zero human error.

That's not typically how complex systems fail. Complex systems invariably operate in a partially failed state because the built-in redundancy allows operation in a failed state. Eventually, the small failures accumulate and become a catastrophic failure.

https://how.complexsystems.fail/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you have never had any human factors education, and it shows.

What does this mean?

It means that if a $50 million yacht sinks because a crew member doesn't close a hath, the design is shoddy.

Oh yea, I see that. I was trying to make that point earlier but not expressing it clearly. I’m sure there are things the crew did or didn’t do that weren’t perfect, but you’d think a $40m blue water yacht designed to cross oceans could handle a weather event like this at port and not capsize and sink in 6 minutes. Seems like something’s not right in the design if it provides for zero human error.

That's not typically how complex systems fail. Complex systems invariably operate in a partially failed state because the built-in redundancy allows operation in a failed state. Eventually, the small failures accumulate and become a catastrophic failure.

https://how.complexsystems.fail/

Examples? Like the 787 max?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you have never had any human factors education, and it shows.

What does this mean?

It means that if a $50 million yacht sinks because a crew member doesn't close a hath, the design is shoddy.

Oh yea, I see that. I was trying to make that point earlier but not expressing it clearly. I’m sure there are things the crew did or didn’t do that weren’t perfect, but you’d think a $40m blue water yacht designed to cross oceans could handle a weather event like this at port and not capsize and sink in 6 minutes. Seems like something’s not right in the design if it provides for zero human error.

That's not typically how complex systems fail. Complex systems invariably operate in a partially failed state because the built-in redundancy allows operation in a failed state. Eventually, the small failures accumulate and become a catastrophic failure.

https://how.complexsystems.fail/

Examples? Like the 787 max?

^ which I believe Boeing tried to blame on pilot error initially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you have never had any human factors education, and it shows.

What does this mean?

It means that if a $50 million yacht sinks because a crew member doesn't close a hath, the design is shoddy.

Oh yea, I see that. I was trying to make that point earlier but not expressing it clearly. I’m sure there are things the crew did or didn’t do that weren’t perfect, but you’d think a $40m blue water yacht designed to cross oceans could handle a weather event like this at port and not capsize and sink in 6 minutes. Seems like something’s not right in the design if it provides for zero human error.

That's not typically how complex systems fail. Complex systems invariably operate in a partially failed state because the built-in redundancy allows operation in a failed state. Eventually, the small failures accumulate and become a catastrophic failure.

https://how.complexsystems.fail/

Examples? Like the 787 max?

Yes, that's an example. As I recall, due to the new engine's location, the 787MAX has a slight tendency to climb that varies based on thrust. Boeing added automatic flight trim control software to avoid pilot retraining/recertification. However, that software relied on readings from a single sensor and didn't have any limits to the amount of trim it could demand. The US airlines never suffered a catastrophic failure with a 787MAX because US pilots knew to disable the flight trim control software when the plane started to act "funny." However, if you have pilots that don't understand or even know about the software trim control, those three more minor failures will result in a catastrophic failure. If any of those three systems is working correctly, nothing goes wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you have never had any human factors education, and it shows.

What does this mean?

It means that if a $50 million yacht sinks because a crew member doesn't close a hath, the design is shoddy.

Oh yea, I see that. I was trying to make that point earlier but not expressing it clearly. I’m sure there are things the crew did or didn’t do that weren’t perfect, but you’d think a $40m blue water yacht designed to cross oceans could handle a weather event like this at port and not capsize and sink in 6 minutes. Seems like something’s not right in the design if it provides for zero human error.

That's not typically how complex systems fail. Complex systems invariably operate in a partially failed state because the built-in redundancy allows operation in a failed state. Eventually, the small failures accumulate and become a catastrophic failure.

https://how.complexsystems.fail/

Examples? Like the 787 max?

Yes, that's an example. As I recall, due to the new engine's location, the 787MAX has a slight tendency to climb that varies based on thrust. Boeing added automatic flight trim control software to avoid pilot retraining/recertification. However, that software relied on readings from a single sensor and didn't have any limits to the amount of trim it could demand. The US airlines never suffered a catastrophic failure with a 787MAX because US pilots knew to disable the flight trim control software when loop the plane started to act "funny." However, if you have pilots that don't understand or even know about the software trim control, those three more minor failures will result in a catastrophic failure. If any of those three systems is working correctly, nothing goes wrong.

I think that all stemmed from Boeing rushing to compete with Airbus’ new more fuel-efficient engine. They didn’t want to spend the time or the money on developing a new platform to accommodate their new engine, so they strapped them onto 737s even though they were too big. I think they had to move the engine forward a bit so it wouldn’t hit the ground, and that caused the weird flight characteristics. I might be remembering wrong though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four victims of Bayesian superyacht 'had no water in their lungs' amid fears they 'suffocated in cabin air pocket'


https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/bayesian-superyacht-four-victims-no-water-lungs-fears-suffocated/

In other words ... they were dead before the boat captized? ...

No. It means they suffocated before they could drown.

How's that go? The air pocket was large enough to survive several minutes but the good oxygen dissipates and you...pass out (die) one by one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you have never had any human factors education, and it shows.

What does this mean?

It means that if a $50 million yacht sinks because a crew member doesn't close a hath, the design is shoddy.

Oh yea, I see that. I was trying to make that point earlier but not expressing it clearly. I’m sure there are things the crew did or didn’t do that weren’t perfect, but you’d think a $40m blue water yacht designed to cross oceans could handle a weather event like this at port and not capsize and sink in 6 minutes. Seems like something’s not right in the design if it provides for zero human error.

That's not typically how complex systems fail. Complex systems invariably operate in a partially failed state because the built-in redundancy allows operation in a failed state. Eventually, the small failures accumulate and become a catastrophic failure.

https://how.complexsystems.fail/

Examples? Like the 787 max?

Yes, that's an example. As I recall, due to the new engine's location, the 787MAX has a slight tendency to climb that varies based on thrust. Boeing added automatic flight trim control software to avoid pilot retraining/recertification. However, that software relied on readings from a single sensor and didn't have any limits to the amount of trim it could demand. The US airlines never suffered a catastrophic failure with a 787MAX because US pilots knew to disable the flight trim control software when loop the plane started to act "funny." However, if you have pilots that don't understand or even know about the software trim control, those three more minor failures will result in a catastrophic failure. If any of those three systems is working correctly, nothing goes wrong.

I think that all stemmed from Boeing rushing to compete with Airbus’ new more fuel-efficient engine. They didn’t want to spend the time or the money on developing a new platform to accommodate their new engine, so they strapped them onto 737s even though they were too big. I think they had to move the engine forward a bit so it wouldn’t hit the ground, and that caused the weird flight characteristics. I might be remembering wrong though.

I think it goes back to moving headquarters to Chicago and replacing engineers in management with MBAs

[Anonymous]

So 5 bodies were found in one cabin. There’s now a manslaughter investigation on top of this?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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.

My only window into that life was a weekend I spent on a rich friend’s boat. We were both poor when we met but he went on to become wealthy.

He had a $20+M yacht with a fairly large crew. As far as I could tell it was mostly just a life of goofing off. If you tried to do something like take a dish to the kitchen, the crew would be horrified and not allow it. Apparently on some boats the crew can’t talk to the owner. You have to tell whatever it is to the majordomo and he tells the wife, who in turn has a written with her hubby. It’s all very silly. I’d be happy to have silly existence like that though.

I prefer a fun and meaningful human existence with caring friends and loving family. So many better ways to spend thet money to create joy and comfort.

It was ok for a couple of days as a novelty, but I didn’t enjoy it. I’m more comfortable with cleaning people, busboys, laborers etc. That life wasn’t for me.

[Anonymous]

Have any news outlets been able to diagram which room they were in and where that was in the boat? I'd be curious to learn how deep into the vessel they were and how far they were from doors/windows to escape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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.

My only window into that life was a weekend I spent on a rich friend’s boat. We were both poor when we met but he went on to become wealthy.

He had a $20+M yacht with a fairly large crew. As far as I could tell it was mostly just a life of goofing off. If you tried to do something like take a dish to the kitchen, the crew would be horrified and not allow it. Apparently on some boats the crew can’t talk to the owner. You have to tell whatever it is to the majordomo and he tells the wife, who in turn has a written with her hubby. It’s all very silly. I’d be happy to have silly existence like that though.

I prefer a fun and meaningful human existence with caring friends and loving family. So many better ways to spend thet money to create joy and comfort.

It was ok for a couple of days as a novelty, but I didn’t enjoy it. I’m more comfortable with cleaning people, busboys, laborers etc. That life wasn’t for me.

There's a very good reason they are ordered not to talk to the owner: They are there to work, you don't want them slacking off and trying to get chummy. And they have to respect hierarchy (captain). You have to keep these workers in line when working because the people who seek that sort of work are natural slackers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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.

My only window into that life was a weekend I spent on a rich friend’s boat. We were both poor when we met but he went on to become wealthy.

He had a $20+M yacht with a fairly large crew. As far as I could tell it was mostly just a life of goofing off. If you tried to do something like take a dish to the kitchen, the crew would be horrified and not allow it. Apparently on some boats the crew can’t talk to the owner. You have to tell whatever it is to the majordomo and he tells the wife, who in turn has a written with her hubby. It’s all very silly. I’d be happy to have silly existence like that though.

I prefer a fun and meaningful human existence with caring friends and loving family. So many better ways to spend thet money to create joy and comfort.

It was ok for a couple of days as a novelty, but I didn’t enjoy it. I’m more comfortable with cleaning people, busboys, laborers etc. That life wasn’t for me.

There's a very good reason they are ordered not to talk to the owner: They are there to work, you don't want them slacking off and trying to get chummy. And they have to respect hierarchy (captain). You have to keep these workers in line when working because the people who seek that sort of work are natural slackers.

That’s not a good reason. It makes sense to talk to someone if you need them to make a decision on something. The circuitous method they use is inefficient and idiotic. It’s just snobbery, like who are you to talk to me. It’s like something out of downton abbey.