Has the Bayesian yacht sinking been discussed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I can tell you don’t understand much about boats, but every vessel has a roll limit where past that point , it will capsize. Very few boats are designed to be self-righting after a roll, most will stay capsized after they go over, so it’s doubtful that even had the water been deep enough for the mast to not have struck the seabed, it almost certainly would not have self righted after the roll.

So none of this would’ve mattered.

I’m reading online that yacht experts think the mast size may have contributed. They’re all wrong but you’re right?

PP does not know. But neither do the "experts" speaking out. I would not believe at all what they are saying at this point --- in six months to a year with more info, maybe.

Sure, fair enough. We won’t know until we know. But to say that there is no way the mast size was a potential contributing design flaw that factored in here is obviously not accurate given that very issue is being discussed by people who do know something about blue water crafts

Right -- but speculating seems dumb --- Not saying no way could have been an issue but the boat never fell over before and it was not a new boat -- less speculation the better.

It was the only boat to capsize and it happened to have an 70m mast for no reason other than a rich guy being able to say his yacht has a 70m mast

Why are you so obsessed with this whole mast-height thing?

It’s like an obsession or something. It’s weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

It's a luxury yacht, not a navy or a coast guard. Most people aren't willing to die for a job

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I can tell you don’t understand much about boats, but every vessel has a roll limit where past that point , it will capsize. Very few boats are designed to be self-righting after a roll, most will stay capsized after they go over, so it’s doubtful that even had the water been deep enough for the mast to not have struck the seabed, it almost certainly would not have self righted after the roll.

So none of this would’ve mattered.

Okey dokey, so please enlighten us then with your oh so valuable superior engineering knowledge

Well, mostly it comes from being a mechanical engineer who grew up sailing and has probably owned more boats than you have teeth in your head.

So. Yeah.

Ok, so then tell us your wisdom. Why did it capsize while other boats around it did not? And why did it take on water so fast?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I can tell you don’t understand much about boats, but every vessel has a roll limit where past that point , it will capsize. Very few boats are designed to be self-righting after a roll, most will stay capsized after they go over, so it’s doubtful that even had the water been deep enough for the mast to not have struck the seabed, it almost certainly would not have self righted after the roll.

So none of this would’ve mattered.

I’m reading online that yacht experts think the mast size may have contributed. They’re all wrong but you’re right?

PP does not know. But neither do the "experts" speaking out. I would not believe at all what they are saying at this point --- in six months to a year with more info, maybe.

Sure, fair enough. We won’t know until we know. But to say that there is no way the mast size was a potential contributing design flaw that factored in here is obviously not accurate given that very issue is being discussed by people who do know something about blue water crafts

Right -- but speculating seems dumb --- Not saying no way could have been an issue but the boat never fell over before and it was not a new boat -- less speculation the better.

It was the only boat to capsize and it happened to have an 70m mast for no reason other than a rich guy being able to say his yacht has a 70m mast

Why are you so obsessed with this whole mast-height thing?

It’s like an obsession or something. It’s weird.

Yea, it's weird how the very top heavy boat was the one to capsize, just a total coincidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Perini has joined the chat

[Anonymous]

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.

These boats have tenders - there was early speculation that the tender was left open and that’s why so much water came in so fast- which are basically big holes in the boat where smaller but still large boats are stored that take people to shore, jet skis etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So there shouldn’t be an allowance for less than perfect human performance in a split second emergency? Really? That seems like a design flaw to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The two accidents seemed too connected to be coincidence, but I didn't follow through to get any details or learn if foul play was suspected in either incident.

In other words, you think one of the people involved can control the weather?

Most marine experts agree that that weather event wouldn’t have been sufficient to sink a boat that size unless there was something else going on.

Incorrect. Mast height had a lot to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think that’s accurate. They were all apparently up and trying to follow proper procedures but were flung from the boat and there was nothing they could do. They weren’t non chalantly ignoring the guests. This builder will end up adjusting after this disaster is my guess, current denials aside

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

They were not asleep when they drowned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The boating experts of DCUM have spoken. The mast was too tail. You can't hire good help anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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