Bayesian Interim Report

[WindyWindyWindy]

You have never seen a video of a yacht having a direct hit from a tornado.

Is that what happened?

 

[Bajansailor]

Here for general reference is a sail plan for Bayesian, along with a general arrangement drawing showing the lower deck and the weather deck.

I tried to attach a catalogue about Bayesian produced by Perini Navi, but I was told that it is too large for the Forum to cope with. .

 

[Stemar]

Tacking those three headsails must be quite a chore, but I suppose they don't tack often - too much risk of spilling the G&Ts

 

[flaming]

Tacking those three headsails must be quite a chore, but I suppose they don't tack often - too much risk of spilling the G&Ts

Very much an aside, but I suspect those headsails are generally only used one at a time.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Very much an aside, but I suspect those headsails are generally only used one at a time.

And are probably furled when tacking.

 

[lustyd]

And have both electric furlers and electric winches so probably easier than my boat!

 

[doug748]

The problem with rules is that people design down to them if there are other, relatively trivial, advantages

Even at this range we can guess certain things. I expect the charter rates are taking a knock on boats designed like this and there will be few built in a similar manner. High rollers will be taking far more notice of stability and down flooding data in future and designers will be keen to point out the practical disadvantages of certain convenience features.
At least until it is all forgotten and we start again.

.

 

[boomerangben]

The problem with rules is that people design down to them if there are other, relatively trivial, advantages

Even at this range we can guess certain things. I expect the charter rates are taking a knock on boats designed like this and there will be few built in a similar manner. High rollers will be taking far more notice of stability and down flooding data in future and designers will be keen to point out the practical disadvantages of certain convenience features.
At least until it is all forgotten and we start again.

.

Do they design down to rules or are rules there to provide a hurdle to get over to meet minimum safe expectations?

The problem/challenge with engineering is that there are always competing demands, not just the dreams of high rollers that need compromise.

Take stability for instance. A GZ curve with lots of area beneath it, a steep incline and high AVS looks extremely attractive to many. But it also means the vessel is likely to be extremely uncomfortable and runs the risk of causing injury due to high accelerations caused by the high righting moment. So whilst good stability protects against knock down, it increases the risk of injury (and sea sickness!) in normal use. Hence the need for rules as a minimum requirement.

You raise an interesting point on charter rates for sailing yachts of this nature and I wonder what the thoughts are of other owners of such vessels. Maybe their next boat will have more compromises made on comfort and convenience, who knows.

 

[boomerangben]

Maybe the conclusion of the inquest/court/MAIB will be that this was freak accident to which no one could have reasonably expected and designed/operated for and there but for the grace of God go us all. Sailing as with any activity in (what is known in aviation as) an hostile environment carries risk. We are not fish or sea birds. We as human beings are not designed to operate in water - we venture onto water at our peril. Going onto a vessel and expect to be as safe as being in a hotel is not a reasonable expectation, in the same way travelling by motor bike, despite all the rules and protections is not as safe as getting into a car.

 

[Stemar]

Maybe the conclusion of the inquest/court/MAIB will be that this was freak accident to which no one could have reasonably expected and designed/operated for and there but for the grace of God go us all. Sailing as with any activity in (what is known in aviation as) an hostile environment carries risk. We are not fish or sea birds. We as human beings are not designed to operate in water - we venture onto water at our peril. Going onto a vessel and expect to be as safe as being in a hotel is not a reasonable expectation, in the same way travelling by motor bike, despite all the rules and protections is not as safe as getting into a car.

You're right, of course, but I'm not sure about being 100% safe in a hotel. Given the number of fires and accidents in hotels, I wonder if they don't kill more people than leisure sailing.

 

[Mark-1]

You're right, of course, but I'm not sure about being 100% safe in a hotel. Given the number of fires and accidents in hotels, I wonder if they don't kill more people than leisure sailing.

I'd agree it's likely nobody at all is to blame here - crew and designers did what they were supposed to do and it was a private vessel. Also agree that if I knew for certain a downdraft was gonna hit me in the med, I'd much rather be in an anchored sailing boat than in a building.

 

[chriss999]

I'd agree it's likely nobody at all is to blame here - crew and designers did what they were supposed to do and it was a private vessel. Also agree that if I knew for certain a downdraft was gonna hit me in the med, I'd much rather be in an anchored sailing boat than in a building.

You are probably right. But what sticks in my mind is that the builders * immediately blamed the skipper/crew and claimed that the vessel was ‘unsinkable’ unless mistakes were made in operating it. Absolutely scandalous statement.

The primary victims were the passengers and crew member lost on that awful night. But the victims of the accident needing protection now are the skipper and crew. We’ll see if Italian justice can protect them.

* Giovanni Costantino

 

[Fr J Hackett]

You are probably right. But what sticks in my mind is that the builders immediately blamed the skipper/crew and claimed that the vessel was ‘unsinkable’ unless mistakes were made in operating it. Absolutely scandalous statement.

The primary victims were the passengers and crew member lost on that awful night. But the victims of the accident needing protection now are the skipper and crew. We’ll see if Italian justice can protect them.

If all openings and I include the patio doors had managed to stay closed and or had been closed then it's quite probable that it wouldn't have sunk, it might well have ended up inverted though.

 

[chriss999]

If all openings and I include the patio doors had managed to stay closed and or had been closed then it's quite probable that it wouldn't have sunk, it might well have ended up inverted though.

More speculation. And unlikely to be the crew’s fault if they couldn’t be secured. Bayesian was a luxury sail-enabled mobo, not a submarine.
I trust the MAIB to establish the causes more than I trust casual commentators or the Italian courts.

 

[Mark-1]

If all openings and I include the patio doors had managed to stay closed and or had been closed then it's quite probable that it wouldn't have sunk, it might well have ended up inverted though.

Well that's undeniable, but some of the openings couldn't be closed with engines and ventilation going and they needed both.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

More speculation. And unlikely to be the crew’s fault if they couldn’t be secured. Bayesian was a luxury sail-enabled mobo, not a submarine.
I trust the MAIB to establish the causes more than I trust casual commentators or the Italian courts.

The speculation is that the patio doors for whatever reason were open when it passed its AVS and downloading occurred ( rapidly ) There is no doubt that it would have inverted even had they been closed. The report will probably show what apertures were open and which were closed the only real question is why and when they were opened. There are plausible reasons for most to have been open.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Well that's undeniable, but some of the openings couldn't be closed with engines and ventilation going and they needed both.

I purposely didn't directly mention the engine air vents because I have no idea if they are required for the air conditioning and generators to run. If they are even then I doubt sufficient water would have entered via them both in terms of volume and speed to overwhelm the vessel as quickly as happened. It's why I believe the rear sliding doors were the problem. They were unlikely to have been left open deliberately with the air conditioning but could have been opened by crew or passengers to escape or leave the boat. It's also possible that even had they been closed their weight could have caused them to open at the extreme angle of heel.

 

[Stemar]

You are probably right. But what sticks in my mind is that the builders * immediately blamed the skipper/crew and claimed that the vessel was ‘unsinkable’ unless mistakes were made in operating it. Absolutely scandalous statement.

The primary victims were the passengers and crew member lost on that awful night. But the victims of the accident needing protection now are the skipper and crew. We’ll see if Italian justice can protect them.

* Giovanni Costantino

Given what I've seen of the Italian justice system, I rather suspect that there may be a tendency to lean towards protecting the (Italian) builders.

However, from everything I've seen, it does rather seem that it's just a case of shit happens. I expect that there'll be lessons to learn, and standards to improve, because hindsight, applied intelligently following a tragedy, can become the foresight that prevents another one, but in my entirely irrelevant and unqualified opinion, there don't seem to be any grounds for prosecution.

 

[Mark-1]

I purposely didn't directly mention the engine air vents because I have no idea if they are required for the air conditioning and generators to run. If they are even then I doubt sufficient water would have entered via them both in terms of volume and speed to overwhelm the vessel as quickly as happened. It's why I believe the rear sliding doors were the problem. They were unlikely to have been left open deliberately with the air conditioning but could have been opened by crew or passengers to escape or leave the boat. It's also possible that even had they been closed their weight could have caused them to open at the extreme angle of heel.

There are two 1m square openings for engines/generators/ventilation which are submerged at a tad over 40 degrees and can't be closed for all the reasons you hint at. They weren't open in error or for escape, they had to be open. I calculate one of those would let in 15pc of the vessel's total weight per minute if they were half a metre under. So there's no way that upside down this vessel wasn't going to sink once inverted with or without patio doors.

But yeah, I fully accept that if we assume a quick capsize the 1m openings were not at the top of the list of their downflood worries.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

There are two 1m square openings for engines/generators/ventilation which are submerged at a tad over 40 degrees and can't be closed for all the reasons you hint at. They weren't open in error or for escape, they had to be open. I calculate one of those would let in 15pc of the vessel's total weight per minute if they were half a metre under. So there's no way that upside down this vessel wasn't going to sink once inverted with or without patio doors.

But yeah, I fully accept that if we assume a quick capsize the 1m openings were not at the top of the list of their downflood worries.

WRT the engine room vents even if open with the engine room watertight doors closed as they almost certainly would be would there be sufficient volume of water let into the boat to sink her? I think probably not.