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.

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.

Hey engineers on this chain who were so haughty about this being crew error… care to read todays’ NYT?

This was DESIGN error.

lol crickets from the supposed engineers…

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.

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.

Hey engineers on this chain who were so haughty about this being crew error… care to read todays’ NYT?

This was DESIGN error.

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.

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.

Hey engineers on this chain who were so haughty about this being crew error… care to read todays’ NYT?

This was DESIGN error.

Reading not your thing?

Even without major errors by the crew, the ship could have sunk

In other words, they aren't certain it would have sunk but the crew was the primary cause.

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.

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.

Hey engineers on this chain who were so haughty about this being crew error… care to read todays’ NYT?

This was DESIGN error.

Reading not your thing?

Even without major errors by the crew, the ship could have sunk

In other words, they aren't certain it would have sunk but the crew was the primary cause.

Sounds like it was a confluence of three things — really weird storm, crew error and poor design. But design should really anticipate some level of crew error because humans commit errors pretty frequently, get tired, etc. I mean, that’s why cars have seat belts and air bags and anti collision alarms etc. No one designs a car on the assumption that all drivers will behave perfectly.

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.

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.

Hey engineers on this chain who were so haughty about this being crew error… care to read todays’ NYT?

This was DESIGN error.

Reading not your thing?

Even without major errors by the crew, the ship could have sunk

In other words, they aren't certain it would have sunk but the crew was the primary cause.

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.

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.

Hey engineers on this chain who were so haughty about this being crew error… care to read todays’ NYT?

This was DESIGN error.

Reading not your thing?

Even without major errors by the crew, the ship could have sunk

In other words, they aren't certain it would have sunk but the crew was the primary cause.

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.

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.

Hey engineers on this chain who were so haughty about this being crew error… care to read todays’ NYT?

This was DESIGN error.

Even without major errors by the crew, the ship could have sunk

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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