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?

Thanks, looks like that’s a receiver unit that receives the data vessels send out via their transponder.

I know I’m going on about this but what system is being used to generate the data behind some reports that have appeared in the press is important.

I suspect when most folks think of the “black box” in the context of accidents they are imaging the sort of device many aircraft and many I gather some boats/ships carry that would have to be physically retrieved (in this case from the sea bed) in order for the data to be read from physical memory.

I’m not sure if a recorder has been recovered from this wreck, obviously don’t need to know, but do I know that in most jurisdictions and circumstances data from that sort of device is usually regarded as privileged at least in the early days of an investigation.

AIS is not the same thing at all, it may not provide as much detailed data to as an actual recorder, and most importantly it looks like the data is accessible to the whole world simply by going on to the internet and playing back whatever is held on a server…and the danger with that is that the data may get misinterpreted by keen amateurs and inaccurate stories start getting into the media.

If you want an example of how this can go wrong there was absolute crap talked initially and then repeated in the MSM about the Singapore airlines turbulence incident earlier this year because info on Flightradar (similar system in some ways to AIS) was miss interpreted by some and the MSM ran lurid headlines having not done a credibility check. It turned out the actual onboard data recorders revealed a different story

To cut to the chase, because I need coffee - I’d still be very wary of some reports that use AIS and “black box” in pretty much the same sentence…

Boats for charter have to be coded so carry lifejackets, liferafts for the number of berths, batteries secured etc but there is no legal requirement for pleasure yachts to carry a black box. To my knowledge there never has been. It's very doubtful one would have been fitted as an option.

Requirements do step up for pleasure boats carrying more than 12 passengers which is why nearly all charters have a limit on numbers of 12.

@PrincessofWells

Many thanks..

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/stephen-edwards-78539147_some-common-sense-at-last-in-relation-to-activity-7233022461968035840-YrSe

Rose I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make about others knowing the storm warning - even in Croatia?

You do realise 1000km is about the same distance between Portsmouth and Inverness? No one on south coast England is going to worry about a storm in Northern Scotland! And vice versa! Weather is generally more local that that. What it may stop you doing though is travelling to the place where there's a warning.

Plus a fishing vessel and a 54m yacht are not the same type of vessel.

Also if you are out sailing islands already it's very different to deciding not to go out when you may hit bad weather and not be able to catch anything. Remember it costs to take the boats out - it has to be worth it.

There lots of us on here who have sailed, worked in sailing and have a lot of knowledge of weather.

Your posts just come across as angry and judgemental and without any real point. I find that really disrespectful on a thread wher we are discussing the death of 6 people including an 18yo young lady with her whole life ahead of her.

Exactly this. It's very unlikely there will be a VDR as at 453 tonnes the boat was well below the 3,000 tonne limit which requires one. And taking 12 guests it is not considered a 'passenger ship' (ferry or cruise ship) by the IMO so isn't required to have one on that basis either. IMO VDR requirements also repeated in SOLAS

So they'll be relying on data recovery direct from any electronic log & engine room systems, plus crew & witness interviews. AIS is likely to be the most data available on location, which they already have. If they kept a good ships log that will be an important factor. They were historically done in pencil on waterproof paper, so should survive - although it's more likely to be electronic these days so they can't be tampered with:
UK SOLAS electronic log requirements Whether that backs up elsewhere in real time or can be recovered from 50m of water remains to be seen, but they'll certainly be asking the on watch deckhand what he recorded in the log (hourly windspeed, direction & general weather, when generators & engines were started & stopped, anchor checks & any unusual events) and when others were woken, as well as the engineer about generators, pumps, engine running times & how watertight compartments were secured.

Thanks ever so much for your input. I haven't had quite enough people tell me that comment was wrong, yet.

My point was, and is, it was a widely known storm, that other sea-going people were notified of all along the coastline of that part of Europe ahead of time, and that the captain of the Bayesian had to have known about.

But the boat was by all accounts not adequately prepared for a storm, if they were running about securing furniture, as has been reported by survivors, as the storm proper hit. A young man was left as night watch. Various hatches or doors, in particular the tender door, it has been suggested, were closed but not dogged. And so on. It is a hideous tragedy for all concerned.

MeandT
I find your posts very informative. Thank you for posting such detail.

@MeandT

Thanks from me as well.

@rosesyrup please stop promulgating half truths, conjecture and hearsay in a public forum. It's really not helpful for anybody.

we are discussing the death of 6 people

Seven, actually.

This is a thread full of speculation and opinions in chat on MN. The water got in somehow. Clearly, you feel quite comfortable blaming the manufacturer - or the current owner of the manufacturer. Your speculations and conjectures are allowable, it seems. What I posted has been widely discussed in the Italian media - basically, that amount water had to get in somehow.

Oddly that is the reasons boats sink. water gets in. Some people say its this/that, they did/didnt do it. But the reason that boats sink is that somehow they fill with water.

Categorically I've said it's possible the captain, crew AND builder did nothing wrong, yet still this happened.

You've said "...the boat was by all accounts not adequately prepared for a storm..." but in fact, you're missing 11 accounts in that statement - the 11 people who were there at the time & responsible for it.

There's a significant difference between preparing for the storm which was forecast and surviving an 80+ knot direct hit from a downburst (and we don't know that's exactly what happened - the full nature of the localised weather event is also being investigated).

It is possible that many human errors were made. Or none. I understand that instant gratification culture and mass media want to instantly identify the bogeyman. But that's not going to be what happens - please could you stop trying to make it so?

Did you read MeandT’s post from 12.54 yesterday? She described a number of ways water could have got in, fast, without anyone having to have left anything open.

And apparently the only possibilities one is allowed to contemplate for this occurring are (1) an "act of God" and (2) poor design and/or manufacture.

I personally think human error is also involved. To what degree will come out in the investigation eventually. Humans make mistakes. I cannot imagine what the crew and captain are going through, on top of the trauma of being flung into pitch black sea at night, with this loss of life.

That amount of water coming in that rapidly is what caused the sinking. By all accounts, the boat should have been able to right itself, were it not for a catastrophic ingress of water.

I have read multiple accounts of how water may have got in, many written by naval architects and very experienced large yacht owners, also the previous captain of the boat, etc.

‘And apparently the only possibilities one is allowed to contemplate for this occurring are (1) an "act of God" and (2) poor design and/or manufacture.‘

That’s nonsense, no-one is RULING OUT human error, people are saying (repeatedly) that we just don’t know yet and until we do it’s unfair on the individuals involved to talk as if it’s pretty much known to be the cause.

That’s nonsense, no-one is RULING OUT human error, people are saying (repeatedly) that we just don’t know yet and until we do it’s unfair on the individuals involved to talk as if it’s pretty much known to be the cause.

And yet it is totally cool (and applauded) to talk as if the manufacturer, the designer, and the current owner of the manufacturer are entirely to blame for this disaster - they are humans, too.

"And yet it is totally cool (and applauded) to talk as if the manufacturer, the designer, and the current owner of the manufacturer are entirely to blame for this disaster - they are humans, too."

Show us where - please! I don't think anyone (especially me) has said that anywhere.

I would fully expect that if Ron Holland (the designer) were prepared to go on record, he would fully acknowledge the possibility of structural problems which exceptional weather events and load conditions could lead to. Every structure has limits beyond its standard operating condition.

Funnily enough, he's staying quiet publicly and letting the investigators get on with their investigation before pointing a finger at anybody. I think there's only one person globally who's been bold enough to do that, but he's getting more airtime parroting his comments than he deserves.

Well said @MeandT

As far as I can recall on this thread or others, no one has put all the blame on anyone. How could we? We don’t know enough yet.

The main person who has said “this must be what happened, big human error” is the CEO/Chair of the yacht manufacturer and he should know better.

Anyone with any rational thinking is not apportioning blame as they simply don’t know the facts at this point in time.

There may be no blame as it could be beyond the realms of the vessel with a downburst that has brought airplanes down. Or it could be a mixture of circumstances or it could be incorrect protocol. The media doesn’t have this information and neither do we.

@friendlycat

"Anyone with any rational thinking is not apportioning blame as they simply don’t know the facts at this point in time. "

I agree on not apportioning blame, and I agree that there should be an investigation if only to try and help prevent such accidents occurring again.

My concern is that such an investigation will always find with the benefit of hindsights human errors that may have prevented either the sinking or reduced the number of deaths.

Where such errors were gross negligence (for example the anchor watch being asleep (for sake of clarity I am NOT alleging this just using it as an example) then legal action may be taken.

However I would guess that there were a number of smaller errors which were made in the circumstances of it being 4 am, dark and in the middle of a massive storm. I just hope that any investigation or press coverage will take the circumstances of the accident into account.

@1dayatatime the MAIB will be investigating as it's a UK flagged vessel. They are extremely good, extremely thorough and their job is to finds facts and recommend future safety improvements - not to apportion blame. MAIB Their reports are comprehensive and factual.

The italians will be responsible for determining the path of any legal/criminal investigation within their justice framework and, if appropriate, prosecuting any individuals once the evidence has been assembled.

A storm was indeed predicted, the localised down blast was not! The boat was much bigger than the local fishing boats who could chose not to leave their moorings, and didn't have a big enough berth available in the vicinity anyway, the safest, and usual option was to ride out the storm and not panic