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?

Yes. All of this.

So many people have no idea about any of this.

@1dayatatime

I just hope that any investigation or press coverage will take the circumstances of the accident into account.

I think the investigators will take circumstances into account but one big problem here is the investigatory system for these sort accidents in places like Italy (and some other countries) is led by the judiciary (probably not quite the correct term). As a result it’s often magistrates/prosecutors making press statements, rather than maybe a political appointee who heads the investigating organisation.

Also in parallel with that there is the concept of the legal bods formally announcing certain people are under “investigation”…we’ve now had I think three of those

This can all fuel a public perception that the investigators are simply looking for a few individuals to legally sanction, and I wouldn’t rely on the MSM to explain things fully.

I think it’s a bad system but it’s the one those involved are stuck with for this accident. The biggest drawback with it, IMO and I know the opinion of others is it potentially hinders the free flow of information between investigators and witnesses - which is what you actually need if you actually want to find out what happened ASAP so as to avoid a repeat.

Can’t add this as an edit to the above…. 15 years ago, different industry, accident on Italian territory, grave concerns about the local process

…” Once again it calls into question the Italian Government’s commitment to the improvement of air safety. Italy has been criticised in the past for its stance on accident related prosecutions and this case provides another example of this short-sighted policy. Seeking to apportion blame and to punish will only make future accident investigations more difficult (as involved individuals may withhold crucial information for fear of being prosecuted based on their testimony), thereby reducing the opportunities to learn from previous accidents.”

I really hope the system has changed but if I was one of the surviving crew of the Bayesian I’d be very very very concerned.

www.eurocockpit.eu/news/italian-criminal-prosecutions-again-threaten-safety-air-passengers-and-flight-crew

iif I was one of the surviving crew

Surely it could only be the sailing crew who would be investigated/held to account?

The service crew, for lack of a better word, are not qualified sailors and would only do as they're instructed when necessary by the sailing crew.

If anyone does end up being prosecuted, you would imagine it would only be the Captain and possibly second or third below him.

(Unless another member of the crew proveably disregarded/disobeyed instructions or procedures).

In any case, my experience and knowledge is not sufficient to really comment definitively, but I would imagine that if the Captain and next in command cannot be said to have done everything according to best practice and made zero errors that could have contributed to the disaster; they are probably going to be up for manslaughter.

I would imagine that if the Captain and next in command cannot be said to have done everything according to best practice and made zero errors that could have contributed to the disaster; they are probably going to be up for manslaughter.

If you run a fine tooth comb through pretty much every accident report ever written you’ll find somebody did something that could be described as an “error” by some minded to find one.

Nobody is perfect and in most systems it generally works that if somebody has acted in a reasonable manner based on their training/experience/qualifications, and in accordance with the best information available to them there tends to be some degree of leniency..

For info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_culture

Sorry for Daily Mail link but one of the divers who have recovered has spoken out about the difficulties and dangers of searching the ship.

Where the cabins were below decks was narrow and a very tight space and full of floating debris such as furnishings, mattresses, wardrobes etc that impeded the divers getting in. He described it as a very hostile environment.

It took the divers 5 dives to clear each metre of distance and there was concern that the debris would move and also trap the divers. He describes Hannah as trapped behind a mattress

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13792715/diver-giuseppe-petrone-bayesian-recover-mick-lynch-hannah.html

Absolutely.

But I would imagine that if any error is significant or everything not done as it could reasonably have been expected to be; there will be a case. I'm also not sure about the possibility of civil cases by the families.

We will have to see, it’s who decides what was “reasonable” that’s the problem - general public, prosecutors or a group of similarly experienced fellow professionals?

Just watched the eSysman YouTube video about the comments of the former Captain.

So the operating,/stability instructions were for the keel to be up unless sailing, or more than 60 knots out to sea.

The waterline hatch would have been closed at night.

(I don't know if there are any other hatches).

The heeling angle was only 40-45 degrees until HVAC vents could be flooded.

These vents would be open if generators etc on - which they think they would have been.

But why?? Why would a yacht be designed with vents that could flood at 40 degrees and the operating instructions not state they must be closed (even if you hate no generators) during a storm bad enough to herl thx yacht 40 degrees.
Or was that in the instructions but ignored??

Mike Lynch yacht sinking must be due to human error, boss of boat builder says

Giovanni Costantino of group that owns Bayesian’s maker says it could not have sunk unless a hatch was open

“The strong wind arrived at 3.50am,” he said. “Up until that moment, the Bayesian was still anchored. From 3.50 to 4.03, the ship moved as it was dragged by the wind, tilting towards the side where there is a lateral hatch that leads to the garage [where jetskis, inflatables and other water sports kit is stored]. In the garage, there is another door leading to the engine room. If that door was open, it means that water has also entered the engine room, causing the inevitable sinking.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/30/mike-lynch-yacht-sinking-must-be-due-to-human-error-boss-of-manufacturer-owner-says

Well, how does it go? - “He would, wouldn’t he”?

Was he there? Seems v.knowledgeable perhaps he has powers of clairvoyancy. But I suppose he has to get his version out there

And in the age of social media whoever gets their story out first wins and sets the bar (regardless of whether it is true or not).

Not just the age of social media. I have corrected several people (including myself) on this/other threads, because the perception is that Diana’s bodyguard survived because he was wearing a seatbelt. Initial reports said this but the final investigation concluded he wasn’t… the initial impression stuck (not least because it fits the narrative - it was a fatal crash to all not wearing seatbelts is a neat and tidy “story”)

I thought he was, which proves your point.

Other similar boats appear to have survived the storm by following fairly standard practices for such weather i.e. engines on and bow into the wind to maintain control. With the engines on the vents would usually be closed...

I presume the investigation will look in much more detail at the specific operating instructions issued for this boat. Given it was a very unusual boat, crew would likely have been very reliant on the operating procedures they set out.

It is odd that operating instructions wouldn't have specified that it was a good idea to have the keel lowered in severe weather. I wonder why. Provided crew knew water was deep enough/ no hazardous rocks etc, it seems bizarre not to have utilitised this additional stability. That said, if the vents were open because of the downflooding angle it may have made no difference anyway in such weather.

“Other similar boats appear to have survived the storm by following fairly standard practices for such weather”

I don’t know the answers to your questions yet, but I don’t think we can say other boats were similar. The Bayesian was huge, not just the mast but the whole thing.

The only other boat I have seen mentioned that was in a similar place is the Baden Powell, do you know of any others, as you say “boats”?

Again, just because we haven’t heard that the engines were fired, doesn’t mean they weren’t. Or that they wouldn’t have been, next on the list, after securing the sail or checking the hatches or whatever else the crew were doing in the very few minutes that they had.

I agree. I wasn't asking the questions of you or others here! As I said much earlier in the thread, these are the questions that the investigation will be looking at. Why weren't the engines on, how did the water that destablised the boat get in, were the operating instructions followed, were the operating instructions appropriate, was there just a localised weather event so severe it was outwith the operational capabilities of the boat, or was human error also a contributory factor? I doubt any conclusive answers will be possible until the wreckage has been thoroughly examined as well.

Sorry, it would have been better for me to say “ we don’t know” or “it isn’t known”

Shouldn’t post whilst eating 😀

The dropping of the keel would probably have made little difference. The majority of the weight was in the ballast which was huge, around 200 tonnes and that could be significant. The Bayesian is the only yacht using this blueprint that was a sloop, to my knowledge the others were ketches, so the ballast was used due to the very tall mast. There was a lot of weight in the mast - it was in mast furling and that may be significant.

It appears other boats weren't hit by a downburst which is why they did not sustain significant damage.

Yes- I think there are serious questions to answer.

It’s pointless to speculate at this stage but it is fair to question the role of the captain if a ship goes down and all the ships in the vicinity are ok..
He is in a position of responsibility and it’s not ok for him to jump ship if he hasn’t looked after the safety of his passengers.

Is it definitely in mast furling? I asked on this or another thread and someone answered that it was in boom….

The captain didn’t ‘jump ship’. He doesn’t have a responsibility to stay on board as it goes down.
Apart from the fact he’s a human being with a right to life it’s far more useful to future maritime safety if he is around to answer those questions.