Yacht tragedy crew to be grilled other whether they warned passengers before fleeing

26 comments

1. The Bayesian disaster In very simple terms for the layperson.
   
   This is a one in a million tragedy but we should examine the facts and learn from them.
   
   Bayesian boasts the second highest mast in the world at 75 metres on a length of 56m. She has a lifting keel to enable her to get into shallow areas. Fully down it gives a draft of 9.83m and raised a draft of 4m. A sailing yacht has a keel to counter the heeling moment generated by the power of her sail plan.
   
   I’m sorry to say that size matters to a superyacht owner and naval architects are seduced into providing solutions. As yacht size increases the resistance of the hull reduces in proportion, so less sail area is required to adequately power longer yachts. But these floating fashion items are driven by appearance and bragging rights – and you lose prestige if someone has a bigger mast than you. Always the status pecking order questions are – how big – how fast – what cost – and is it black? If you designed Bayesian with a reasonable sail area and a ‘normal’ mast she would not look impressive – which is what superyachts have to be.
   
   It may be controversial to say it but the owners of these yacht are in some way victims of their own egomania. They want the biggest. When they go to a designer he has to go along with the ideas or lose the job to someone who will simply say yes to crazy ideas because they need the work. The rich and famous are used to being in charge and have a degree of certainty about their opinions which can make them immune to good professional advice. Often they appear with their own ‘expert’ who also depends on their patronage. A yes man. I have been in this position. I took a big job thinking I could recover sensible management and control downstream. How wrong I was. The result was predictable.
   
   The stability of a yacht has to be sufficient to counter the power of the rig but, as mast heights increase, the keels can often become so deep that the places of interest are restricted hence the lifting keel solution. Stability comes from two factors – the hull form and the ballast keel which acts like a pendulum. As the yacht heels the volume of the immersed hull section produce a buoyancy force which resists heeling. Initially the keel gives little force but as the angle of heel increases ‘physics’ makes the keel contribution significant (leverage). The greater the keel length, the greater the effect. The combination of the hull buoyancy on the heeled side and the keel on the ‘windward’ side produces the force necessary to keep the yacht from capsize. If the keel of Bayesian was retracted it would lose a significant six meters of moment arm or leverage from its probable 200 tons of keel bulb.
   
   When we design yachts we calculate the stability, or righting lever, as a function of heeled ‘bouyancy’ force and the ballast moment arm combined. (the GZ) This can be plotted on a graph to show the stability at any heel angle and identifies the angle at which stability becomes negative causing the yacht to capsize. Normally an ocean yacht will experience a negative point at about 120/30 degrees of heel. With a lifting keel this point is greatly reduced maybe to less than 90 degrees.
   
   Well designed oceanic yachts over 10m with normal ballast keels generally do not capsize due to wind because the, as the yacht heels, the wind spills from the sails and the keel develops an increasing righting moment. It is mainly wave systems which produce capsizes.
   
   If Bayesian was at anchor with the keel raised and no sails set the crew would have every confidence that she could remain safe in most normal wind conditions. But its centre of gravity would be higher than if the keel was down. Every captain at this level has passed an exam on stability and would be aware of his vessels stability graph.
   
   Many years ago I sat at Cremorne and watched a spiralling williwaw race across Sydney harbour and pass through Mosman. This twister was only about 30 metres wide but it destroyed houses and overturned cars in its path. A few feet away nothing was harmed. The power inside a twister is intense and powerful with the wind is coming from every direction
   
   One problem of large rigs is windage, even with no sails. Wind pressure increases to the square. A 20mph wind gives 1lb per sq foot pressure. In a fresh gale at 40mph the wind pressure is 4.1 lb sqft . In a moderate twister of 100mph the wind pressure is 25.6 lbs sqft. Internally twisters are often in the 200mph range causing 100 lbs + sqft pressures. This was the sort of event that hit Bayesian. You cannot plan or design for this sort of event.
   
   In their write up about the yacht Peri Navi wrote – “To optimise sailing performance of the powerful Cutter Rig sail plan, Salute (later Bayesian) has modified keel and rudder lines to improve her stability in keeping with the higher centre of gravity the tall mast produces.”
   
   But this yacht had three furling sails forward and a big boom with the weight of a furled mainsail inside all above the centre of gravity. Also there were large communication domes on the spreaders. Even without sails the wind pressure coefficients for Bayesian would have been abnormally large when hit by the wind force of varying direction in a twister. Once she was knocked down beyond her stability limit with the keel up she stood no chance and, laying flat to the water, her deck openings, which are more like a hotel than a ship, would have allowed a flood of water aboard and she would founder. This would happen in a couple of minutes. The watertight bulkheads are there to control flooding in the event of collision when the yacht is upright. They have no purpose when the yacht is on its side after a knockdown. In the Bayesian case they were useless – closed or open. As Sysman correctly says the climate control system on these is so extensive that, in all probability, all hull openings would have been closed.
   
   The observation of a lightning strike can be discounted because these vessels are grounded and any damage from a strike would have caused a slow sinking at worst – not a capsize and founder.
   
   The individuals within a professional crew with sailing experience may have sensed the wind and motion of the vessel changing and quickly reacted to instinctively save themselves in the seconds they had. My guess is that some were already on deck alarmed by the general conditions.The guests would have found themselves totally disoriented in flooding cabins, in darkness with the walls, doors and passageways at ninety degrees to the norm. Everything loose, including the people, would fall across the accommodation. They had practically no chance because it would be completely beyond their experience. The crew would have been unable to be of any help due to the speed of the unexpected event.
   
   I have been a professional yacht designer and builder for fifty years specialising in lifting keel yachts. My son, a professional navigator, was Third Officer on a ketch superyacht with masts 100m tall; a yacht so big, at 88metres, that it was almost beyond human handling even with the machinery on board. But of course it is the biggest and most expensive’ etc etc. His previous 73m power boat had 23 crew. The crew on the 88m ketch, which has all the complexities of the power superyacht and then this enormous rig to handle, had only 18 crew due to the shape of the vessel restricting accommodation.
   
   What we have here is a one off accident which is a wake up call to an industry where common sense has departed as yachts get more silly in size and design.
   
   In summary Bayesian was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. A freak accident which the designers and crew would have little chance to predict. If the keel had been down she may have survived the knock down. But the crew would have experience of her basic stability which would be adequate for normal conditions.
   
   Any enquiry must examine the design factors such as the keel design and the stability vanishing point in the condition she was at the time of the accident; keel up, tank loadings and rig factors for windage (WPC) and centre of gravity etc. And a calculation of the wind force required to heel the boat to 90 degrees in the condition at the time of the accident.
   
   The news hounds will pick on any obvious sensational line of inquiry and any credible or incredible accusation. The fact is that normal storms are predictable to some extent but waterspouts and their paths are not. The boat was average for its type and suffered from ‘tallest mast’ syndrome. Sadly, she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. You cannot plan or design for this sort of event. Blaming the builder is somewhat like blaming a ski manufacturer for deaths in an avalanche. My best mate died in one while attempting a dangerous black run in Verbier simply for bragging rights. He ignored common sense.
   
   All forms of transport have had these unpredictable one off events leading to changes of regulations and professional practice. Titanic, Boeing, 1955 Le Mans, the 1952 Farnborough crash, the 1979 Fastnet – all have made a difference and these events all came unpredicted and out of the blue often at a time of complacency.
   
   Chris Freer – yacht designer – Lagos Portugal August 2024

2. But they couldn’t raise Titanic

3. wouldn't be surprised if the captain was the first to get in the life boat

4. We are crying tears for a criminal who was celebrating a payoff by partying on a yatch to celebrate his success that money does buy freedom…
   You must have under estimated our concern on the subject.

5. And the black crew died ? The white crew including the captain escaped ???

6. Probably DEI crew

7. The more we hear, the smellier this gets

8. The captain was where exactly when this tragedy was going to happen, and when it happened?

   Apparently he was safe, and away from the sunken boat.

   1 anchor might not have been enough to be dropped, so a boat only equipped with 1 anchor is the builder's fault!

   No redirection of water happened, and again builder's fault.

9. Grilled?

10. White lotus

11. You cant warn if the ship already on its side and that should be enough warning. Assuming that it cane as a complete surprise.

12. I have a huge problem with the staff. Its there responsibility to have owner and the guests to get to safety and or life raft.

13. Stay off ships labelled unsinkable. They all go down.

14. It was a private ship .. not affiliated to any nation or public service! Why this poor captain or crew should sacrifice his/her life to save a millionaire. Would any ultra rich even bother for their crew.

15. Soo many experts in the comment section..no one knows what it was like unless they were there at the time..remember that.

16. I'd dive back into a sinking boat, run into the fire, toward the sound of gunfire and never think once for my own safety because that's just who I am. Brave beyond belief.

17. Did they warn the passengers before the hit took place, or were they always to be collateral damage.

18. So we’re most of the survivors the crew?

19. Fix the title good god

20. Such nuts narrative. Clearly murdered, mystery now is how?
    We're they locked in their at gunpoint? Is that why they were 'hiding'.

    Dark stuff.

    And the cheek of the press (clearly owned by those who lost the 9 billion write off)

21. The captain is totally to blame for this tragedy. No captain should leave a vessel until all passengers are evacuated.

22. Crap report. Only 3 real crew members who had that responsibility.

23. Foolish grilling of people in peril and an impossible situation. Once the boat flips over there is the warning. It sunk so fast its a wonder 15 people made it.

24. If the lower deck had flooded quickly it could be the lives on the lower deck had already been lost before the yacht was evacuated.

25. Lmfao ! When does the Captain survive … Bahahaha! All that money and it didn’t help ! Lol

26. The law of the sea is to save yourself when a ship goes down.