Super yacht sinking - did the crew bravely survive or did they abandon their the passengers

[mids2019]

So....most of the crew survived this tragedy but the passengers died. Do you think it will emerge the crew should have e done more to alrt the passengers and indeed put their lives in danger to attempt a rescue? Maybe it was all just too fast?

I just think there seems silence from the crew at moment despite being survivors of a sinking vessel who have a story to tell. Are lawyers advising they stay quiet on this?

We don’t even know whose idea it was to have the hatches open.

No-one knows if any hatches were open or not.

Some commentators speculated at least one of them (referring to the waterline level openings at the rear) must have been open for the yacht to have sunk at the rear initially (or sunk at all).

We're boat owners and keep the boat in the Med. We often have guests on board with us and often sit at anchor at night. One evening the carbon monoxide alarms went off. The first thing we did was wake our guests and get them out of their cabin, then look for the issue. We had a battery that failed and started to produce gas. The safety of everyone was put before the issue. From news reports, the whole incident took 16 minutes, that's quite a long time to be able to wake people.

From news reports, the whole incident took 16 minutes

Was it not that they were recorded to be dragging anchor for around that time? Not they were aware of serious problems for that time?

In any case, a commentator (the maker, I think) said they should have had everyone out of the cabins in the circumstances.

An experienced poster has ridiculed that saying it's normal for super yachts to have guests asleep in their cabins through storms like that.

In my view that is offset by the fact that the vessel wasn't typical, even for a super yacht.

Also that perhaps the yacht being stable in bad storms was dependent on the keel being fully down (and of course all openings being closed) etc. and no-one knows for certain yet if that was the case.

Absolutely.

And events like this are the great leveller.

No amount of wealth can save your life in some situations. And no amount of wealth stops you suffering as you die and stops your family left behind from suffering.

Some people are absolute vultures.

This was a tragic advent regardless of anything about the people. I despair at humanity at times - or rather question the humanity of some people.

Exactly. This is what people don't seem to understand. I've sailed in storms many times, I have been on yachts dragging anchor many times. I have also slept cosily in my bed though storms (hammocks on a tall ship were the best as you were rocked to sleep like a baby) and undoubtedly slept at anchor while others sorted out an anchor dragging.

(I haven't , admittedly, been at anchor in a storm while the anchor was dragging)

Without being on board it is hard to know at what point it switched from being "well within the bounds of what the crew can handle" to " abandon ship" and how sudden that was. And it's probably going to take quite a long time to get to the bottom of that.

Almost undoubtedly the conclusion will be that this was caused by a combination of failures and unexpectedly awful weather.

Unlike some other posters though, within reason I think it is fine to discuss this. Provided fingers aren't pointed based on speculation and rumour.

This mismatch between what is said to be typical for superyachts and what those of us who have spent time on smaller boats have experienced is precisely what I am interested in.
My experience is limited to much smaller boats (mainly one 26 foot, one 42 foot) on the English coast and channel and I know there are people on here with much much more and wider experience.
Perhaps it’s a reflection of the risk averse people I mainly sailed with but it always seemed like safety was the main concern to the extent that that’s almost what the game is- to go out on the big dangerous sea in a teeny tiny wooden or metal thing and pit your wits against it so you come back safely. It goes without saying that you have safety briefings, drills, you know where your life jacket is even when you’re not wearing it…. So obviously getting people up and on deck at the first sign of trouble seems like a no brainer.
Super yachts seem to be playing a different game and I can’t quite get my head round what that game is and how much it resembles normal yachting, to what extent is everyone on board aware of the risks or is it just a case of, come to a party at my cool floating venue?
What is alarming is that there seem to be aspects of these boats that make them actually more dangerous, not less, than a normal sized yacht: the difficulty of getting out as there is no hatch that leads directly from your cabin onto deck, the tender hatch close to the waterline, the fact that the size means it’s harder to find a place in a harbour in bad weather.
If that’s coupled with an attitude where the goal is to make things feel as smooth and seamless as possible for the owners so you tend towards not alerting them to danger till the last possible moment (even if they are nice reasonable chaps who would actually not sack you for spoiling their holiday) then it seems like the whole culture of super yachts is the accident waiting to happen, not just this particular boat, because ultimately it is still the little metal shell floating on the pitiless sea and it’s not a great idea to forget that.

Good questions countess. Ones I can't answer I'm afraid as my experience is similar to yours. I've motored through storms in 70ft yachts and had to hang around at sea because the storm and a squall are between us and the harbour 🤦‍♀️ I've raced the Solent and even collided alongside a ship in the turning channel 🤦‍♀️ (I wasn't at the helm!).
I've sailed around the Ionian islands in Greece. (See storm story above!)

And despite some extremely hairy (and wet 😂) moments I've never capsized in a yacht although I've been on the side and felt it's possible numerous times.

I've also never been on deck without a life jacket unless daytime, daylight and flat calm waters and we are just cruising around - I've always worn it when sails are up.

”Storms” as a generic term keeps being chucked into the mix but I’d speculate one question that the investigators will be looking at is what was in the last forecast (specifically in terms wind strength or speed) issued for that area before the accident happened, and how did it match the actual weather?

"This yacht sank because of what insurers classify as an 'act of god'"

Thanks for clearing that up. The authorities will be delighted that you've saved them years of investigations. Fuck me, talk about sanctimonious

https://www.abi.org.uk/data-and-resources/tools-and-resources/glossary/act-of-god/

I was making a generalization. If it is incorrect then I am glad.

Without being on board it is hard to know at what point it switched from being "well within the bounds of what the crew can handle" to " abandon ship" and how sudden that was. And it's probably going to take quite a long time to get to the bottom of that.

Yes, exactly this - the Baden Powell nearby was firing engines and steadying the ship, and then when they next looked up, the Bayesian was gone.

Obviously time in urgent situations like that is hard to judge, but I think it’s fair to presume there was an least a short period of “wow, this is a bad one, let’s rouse the captain (if the captain wasn’t the watch) and check hatches/prepare to fire the engines/ensure the sail is furled”

I doubt crew were idling in those minutes, whether there were 2, 6 or 16 of them.

And… I don’t know how much of the manufacturer’s insistence on the unsinkability had been previously absorbed by passengers and crew. But I believe there were reports that some titanic passengers thought that it would be safer on the ship that had been described as unsinkable, but wasn’t, because the iceberg was big and ripped 5 compartments, and the maximum tolerance was 4. So the struggle to right the ship may have gone on a few seconds longer than in a “lesser” vessel because of disbelief.

That is pure speculation, though.

As far as I know, only the company that a year or two ago bought the company that manufactured the Bayesian has used the word "unsinkable". Unwise, because nothing is unsinkable. Probably in an attempt to protect share price. But the current management had nothing to do with the original design of the yacht.

It is fair to say, though, that this yacht was designed to and had indeed withstood many extreme weather conditions in open oceans, as had its sister yacht. Atlantic crossings, trips to Antarctica. If safety procedures were followed correctly and all systems were working as they were designed to then the boat could right itself again from an almost horizontal position. Hence people in the industry/ investigation teams suspecting there must have been other contributory factors aside from the weather.

Nobody will know what happened until the investigation concludes (if it even produces a conclusive answer, but one hopes it will for the sake of the families involved and with a view to adjustments to designs/ safety measures for the future).

I was making a generalization

Perhaps you shouldn't have done without reading the publicly available information on the topic as a minimum.

I too had read that The Baysian was described as 'Unsinkable'.
{Edit Bayesian}
NEVER describe a vessel as ''Unsinkable''- it seems to cause the vessel to founder.

It's supposedly unlucky to change a boat/ships's name, but many vessels do have name changes when they change hands.

Other 'unlucky' things are the Champagne bottle not breaking when a ship is 'Christened'.

Daily fail describes her as 'Virtually unsinkable''.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/bayesian-superyacht-firm-insists-it-is-virtually-unsinkable/ar-AA1pffA6

Well there you go: between your superstitions and the wisdom of the Daily Mail, I am sure that no shipwreck will ever occur again.

I must admit it's very rare to see life jackets worn in the Med in summer unless they're racing.

The idea of getting owner(s) and guests on deck in a life jacket because there's a storm coming is laughable. Unless there is a catastrophic event, they're safer out of the way.

Unless you're short handed it's usually 3 hours on watch and depending upon how many crew you have, you might double up. Sailing through a storm you would always double up if there's 3 or more crew.

May everyone involved get the answers they need and in time, find some peace.

The idea of getting owner(s) and guests on deck in a life jacket because there's a storm coming is laughable

Posters in this thread have interpreted the maker's comment "should not have been in cabins" (or words to that effect) as "on deck in life jackets".

But that's not what he actually said, he just said; shouldn't have been in their cabins.

You're not going to put passengers on deck in conditions like that while weathering a storm, but you might have them stay in the top level lounge. There would then be a better chance of evacuation/escape to the deck if an emergency occurred.

There is something between "on deck in life jackets" and asleep in lower level.cabins.

It is understandable that the Captain did not ask the guests to sleep in the lounge however, it was a yacht that had done Atlantic crossings and it was probably thought it would weather the storm fine.

It seems that either freak conditions within the storm, or human error (or a combination) occurred.

It reminds me of the submarine incident last year when the millionaires went to see the Titanic... No amount of money can save you from tragedy.

I agree with you. But it’s still dependent on the passengers complying.

Summed up well, itsgetting weird I think we're all seduced by the notion that vast wealth is the ultimate protection and doubly unnerved when it's proved to be a fallacy. Terrible tragedy for everyone concerned and sympathy to all.

I did wonder about the woman with her baby who was said in the press to have survived because they were sleeping on deck.
If they were literally on deck it can’t have been much of a storm, or else it blew up very fast, or else she had a very high risk approach to parenting, but a top level lounge sounds far more likely.
As with everything else though, I am sure the details will come out in time.