Bayesian Interim Report

westhinder said:
Most probably not, in that there will not have been any intention to do wrong.
Click to expand...
No idea about Italian law but here, intent would not necessarily be required
westhinder said:
It is notable that the interim report does not mention in its timeline that an order was given to muster all the guests.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't read too much into that. The interim report was clearly focussed on the stability issues. If there are conflicting reports, or matters that are not relevant to stability but might be important to prosecutions they may have been intentionally omitted.
 
flaming said:
I would hope that it would also look at the design of the vessel, and the information that was available to the crew about its limitations.
Click to expand...
Given the content of the MAIB report it is actually surprising that the builder/designer has not also been officially listed as a suspect. I'm quite sure that if it goes to court the captain and crew will be citing defence witnesses who point out the deficiencies.
 
Most MAIB reports come to the conclusion that incident x happened because of a,b,c and their conclusions are generally very reasonable and aligned with common sense. The usual suspects are fatigue, commercial pressure, lack of maintenance, human error. We can then stroke our chins and contemplate lesson learned - 6/6 watches are a bad idea, probably should have done that engine service, whisky is not conducive to alert watchkeeping and so on.

With this though I don't think there is anything to learn except don't tempt fate when naming your vessel.

I can't think of anything they reasonably could have done differently & I can't think of any reasonable emergency procedure which would have changed the outcome.

I don't even think the design of the vessel was to blame. A 56m superyacht, at anchor in sheltered waters with a good forecast 🤷‍♂️
 
obmij said:
…….

I don't even think the design of the vessel was to blame. A 56m superyacht, at anchor in sheltered waters with a good forecast 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
We may see more when the final report comes ….. but I do wonder about two aspects of the design, the early downflooding angle and particularly whether there were secondary means of escape from the guest cabins.
The very tragic deaths (of almost twice the number of guests) on the dive boat that went on fire had an issue in terms of secondary escape routes when fire blocked the main exit. In this case would exits at the sides onto the deck have allowed escape via the high side?
We await the next version.
 
Mark-1 said:
In this case the vessel takes on over one ton of water per second at a bit over 40° through a one metre square vent. So AVS is probably not the critical issue. Ironically at that point it would probably be safer if it was inverted quickly becaise it wouldn't sink and maybe divers could get them out. I assume the fact that the mast touched the bottom held it at an angle where air could escape and water get it. (All total conjecture.)
Click to expand...

IIRC there are two visual reports of the bow raising up before she sank. Not unusual in most boats that unfortunately sink. If that is the case the mast was not on the bottom at that stage and the mast is/was reportedly fully in tact when laying on her side on the sea bed.
 
E39mad said:
IIRC there are two visual reports of the bow raising up before she sank. Not unusual in most boats that unfortunately sink. If that is the case the mast was not on the bottom at that stage and the mast is/was reportedly fully in tact when laying on her side on the sea bed.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the water was deeper than reported? (50m) Or something else?
 
A town near us had over ten inches of rain in an hour today ...devastation. We had a couple of cloud bursts. We have had in the past tornadoes start in the sea and come ashore...rip trees out of the ground...while the trees inches away are unaffected. Bad weather is bad weather
 
Last edited:
E39mad said:
No - just stating what has been reported. I don't know if the top of the mast hit the sea bed first. If the bow did rise up maybe the stern touched the sea bed first.
Click to expand...

If the boat was upside down in 50m of water, how would the mast not be on the bottom? What am I missing?
 
Mark-1 said:
If the boat was upside down in 50m of water, how would the mast not be on the bottom? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

The mast is at the bottom on it's side. Your post 262 intimated that the mast hit the bottom first holding the boat in place whilst it filled with water. IF the bow raised up prior to sinking this is unlikely to be case.
 
E39mad said:
The mast is at the bottom on it's side. Your post 262 intimated that the mast hit the bottom first holding the boat in place whilst it filled with water. IF the bow raised up prior to sinking this is unlikely to be the case
Click to expand...

Are you saying the mast detached?
 
Mark-1 said:
Are you saying the mast detached?
Click to expand...
No - it is reported to be attached to the yacht.

I think you missing the point I am making. If the mast had hit the sea bed first and held the boat in place then it is highly unlikely that the bow of the boat would rise up before it went down.
 
Last edited:
Poignard said:
But they weren't woken until nearly an hour after the deckhand (the only person on watch) first observed the thunder and lightning appearing to be getting closer. By which time it was too late.

Why didn't he report it sooner?

Was it because he didn't consider it any more worthy of note than something to be videoed and posted on social media?
Click to expand...
Violent storm rages through Portugal boatyard – 60-knot winds from the top of a boat cradle! - Practical Boat Owner
We were in something similar in Faro BUT on the hard! GHA of this parish was there as well, his logger picked up the data and speeds. It came out of nowhere, rattled us and others around I can tell you.
 
E39mad said:
No - it is reported to be attached to the yacht.

I think you missing the point I am making. If the mast had hit the sea bed first and held the boat in place then it is highly unlikely that the bow of the boat would rise up before it went down.
Click to expand...

I fully understand your point. What I don't understand is where you think the mast went? It either broke, became detached, touched the bottom or the water was deeper than reported. You've ruled out all four, and I'm trying to understand what I'm missing.
 
Mark-1 said:
I fully understand your point. What I don't understand is where you think the mast went? It either broke, became detached, touched the bottom or the water was deeper than reported. You've ruled out all four, and I'm trying to understand what I'm missing.
Click to expand...
Do you suppose the boat fully inverted as it sank? I did not see that in the report. It may just as well have slipped under with the mast horizontal, as a result of the downflooding
 
Not that I see that it matters but I don't think she would have 'fully inverted'. Lies on her side, floods while lying on side, sinks on side. In fact I would imagine that once on her way the heavy bits, the keel and stuff, would lead the way down.
Re bow going last, back end ( technical sailor speak) was flooded, bow probably had air in it so the last little bit of buoyancy remaining.
 
Last edited:
westhinder said:
Do you suppose the boat fully inverted as it sank? I did not see that in the report. It may just as well have slipped under with the mast horizontal, as a result of the downflooding
Click to expand...

Assuming the mast didn't snap or bend I think it couldn't fully invert becaise the mast was too long, but yes, I assumed there was no buoyancy in the mast and that once the vessel capsized the weight of the mast would keep dragging it over until the mast head hit the bottom and it would sit at that attitude until it sank almost pivoting around the masthead on the bottom. IE mostly inverted.

If the mast snapped then who knows, turned turtle or sank on its side..

I hadn't considered the possibility that there would be enough buoyancy in the mast for it to sink with horizontal mast. Maybe. 🤷‍♂️ If so I see what E39Mad was getting at..

EDIT: Google says it's on its Starboard side with intact mast.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top