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?

Why did you come on this thread and read the posts?

I’m pretty sure all of the rescued, crew or not, will be thinking about what they might have been able to do to save more souls. Quite possibly nothing. Such a sad story.

It may not have been in harbour due to its size.

I think you're correct .... The sailing crew, headed by their captain, are probably going to be held responsible for this.

It doesn’t sound like this sad incident is the same situation but the Sewol ferry disaster was so painful and tragic. The whole country was in mourning when it happened - I was living in Seoul at the time. I was working with school kids at the time and it really hit me how many of the dead were not much older than them.

And yes there was a lot of discussion about how the ones who challenged the orders they were given to stay put ended up being the ones with a fighting chance.

If I remember correctly there were some people connected with Sewol who became fugitives and later killed themselves to try and evade justice.

But it looks like the equivalent of manslaughter charges are being sought so someone must think someone is to blame. The question is who?

I don't think yachts sink that quickly unless there is an opportunity for water ingress where there shouldn't be .....

@Qanat53 e Rey one who works on a vessel has very specific maritime training, and the boat should hold regular drills (monthly).

9 crew on a boat that size:
Captain
Engineer
Mate
Bosun
Deckhand
Chief stew
2nd stew
3rd stew
Chef

All have the same basic training

I used to sail, obviously nothing like the size and luxury of the Bayesian but the principles remain the same.

One or more of crew will have been (or at least should have been) on deck throughout the night on 'storm watch'. That's standard practice, even in harbour, when poor weather is forecast, which it was. The point of this is so that someone has eyes on the weather and the vessel at all times and can, if necessary, raise the alarm to get to a muster station and/or take action if it gets really bad or if there are problems such as dragging anchor.

I suspect there were also crew already working at that time, or at least getting ready to work.

My understanding (which may be very wrong) is that the yacht went down very quickly - a minute or so. It's easier to get off a vessel when you're already awake and ideally on deck than it is if you're asleep below deck. That will be why all but one of the crew survived while the others were less lucky.

It's impossible for us to know yet if more could or should have been done to save lives or if any major mistakes were made. The authorities likely already have a few ideas. There's been speculation that hatches were left open because it was hot. I'd be hugely surprised if a yacht of that calibre didn't have air conditioning (I've been on a much shitter yacht with Aircon) so who knows what was going on there; that's why there's an investigation. As a very amateurish sailor there's a few things I've wondered about but it's not helpful to speculate. I'm sure the authorities will look into things properly.

But in short, I suspect the crew bar one survived because they were a) awake and b) weren't in their cabins.

The whole thing is terribly sad and shocking. The Med, just off the coast, in August is usually an incredibly safe and very straightforward place to sail. It's a reminder of how fickle nature can be and how dangerous even "safe" bodies of water are.

I think what the manufacturers of the yacht are saying about procedures not being followed etc can be disregarded at this stage. They have no more intel than any one else about what happened and are of course keen to dismiss any suggestion that the design of the yacht was flawed in any way and create a narrative that the sinking was down to human error as they don’t want potential purchasers of their yachts to be put off. They also don’t want to be put in the frame as potentially to blame.

It sounds like the sinking was sudden and unexpected and the crew survived because they were on deck and the passengers died because they were largely below asleep in their cabins, with no one having any time to act. The crew didn’t actively choose to ‘save themselves’ - they were thrown into the water as the yacht toppled over. If the storm had happened during the day, then the death toll would have probably been much lower as people wouldn’t have been down below. The passengers below deck in their cabins had absolutely no time to escape by the sounds of it. Angela Lynch, the parents of the baby and the other guests who survived only did so because they got up and went out on deck when the storm started to shake things around on onboard.

It’s a terrible tragedy and time will tell if someone was actively to ‘blame’ but as others have said, this was a rapid sinking and not a situation where anyone had time to save anyone else or activate evacuation procedures in any meaningful way.

I don’t know the answer to this so wondering if posters with experience know - on a private vessel, does the Captain have any liability for health and safety? Or does that rest with the owner? It seems like a grey area. If the Captain is being employed by the boat owner and the boat owner asks them to do something the Captain knows to be dangerous or problematic, does the Captain have the right to refuse? I’m not saying this happened at all - Mike Lynch sounds like, by all accounts, an intelligent and kind man who would have followed advice - but if the yacht owner had said I want to anchor out here not in the port, and the Captain said no it’s too dangerous, there’s a storm coming in, and the owner said I understand that but I’d rather be out here, would the Captain be able to refuse to comply on health and safety grounds?

The question is who?

The only people responsible for safety on that yacht were the sailing/operational crew, headed up by a captain or equivalent.

If it's proven they did not follow recommended safety procedures, I imagine it will be them/their lead.

I should also add this is a highly regulated industry. There is no way that anyone was forced to work on there or take the job for low pay. The boat was UK flagged, and therefore subject to all the same laws that apply for workers within the UK

As @Allthegoodnamesarechosen has said the person ultimately in charge of this boat is the owner not the captain as the captain works for the owner.

As a mariner, the captain may have suggested going into port to shelter from the storm but the owner didn't think that necessary. Or perhaps the yacht was too big for the local port.

I read a quote from someone local who said that no local fishermen were out that night as they knew a storm was coming. The article also quoted someone saying that everyone should have been on deck / in the lounge as the storm hit not asleep down in their cabins. I don't know if that is really protocol but it certainly sounds safer. Did the captain stress the safety procedures necessary and the owner or guests didn't listen and went to bed anyway?

I also read that the keel may have been retracted which would make the boat a lot less stable in a storm. There's no factual info on this but that could have played a part in which case who asked for that or was it left retracted by mistake.

There is lots to come out on this - I think it will take months for the full facts to be known.

I think what the manufacturers of the yacht are saying about procedures not being followed etc can be disregarded at this stage. They have no more intel than any one else about what happened and are of course keen to dismiss any suggestion that the design of the yacht was flawed in any way and create a narrative that the sinking was down to human error as they don’t want potential purchasers of their yachts to be put off. They also don’t want to be put in the frame as potentially to blame.

There's a good post up thread outlining some things that are known (dragging anchor etc.) that would suggest correct procedures weren't followed.

So it seems like they're not just speculating/bull shitting to cover themselves.

Yes. This is roughly what a report by some investigator said: The crew should have been aware of incoming bad weather (everyone else in the area knew, which was why the local vessels were all hunkered down in port). The boat should not have been at anchor, the retractable keel should have been down to increase stability, the hatches should have been closed, and the boat turned into the wind. Everyone on board should have been awake and wearing life jackets, not asleep down below.

It was the captain's responsibility to ensure the safety of everyone on board.

As has said the person ultimately in charge of this boat is the owner not the captain as the captain works for the owner.

I would imagine that the captain has safety responsibilities that supercede the owner's opinions and decisions.

If the owner refuses to follow the captain's safety directives, I suppose they can only do what they can - e.g. things not involving the owner & their guests doing as asked.

But I'd imagine the captain is still responsible for doing what they can for safety.

If the anchor, keel, hatch etc issues are proven, they may still be held responsible.

Wow that must have been such an awful period for the country. So interesting to hear your perspective- I only read about it at the time and remember being horrified. I didn’t know about the suicides - what a tragedy all round.

I agree that this yacht incident is not the same especially given the speed with which the boat sunk. I’m sure a full investigation will be conducted.

This is what I am keen to understand.

If the owner instructed the Captain to do things that went against what he knew to be safe, what powers would the Captain have to refuse to comply?

Would the Captain legally be responsible for the consequences if he were forced to act against safety protocols by his employer?

This is the crux of the issue - on a private vessel, who is legally responsible for health and safety onboard? The hired captain, or the boat owner?

I would be wary of reading into any charges, I have zero legal expertise but I understand Italian law is quite different to ours in this respect. After the Formula 1 driver Ayrton Senna was killed, several members of his team faced manslaughter charges. That was so unthinkable that the sport considered not returning to Italy.

listen to the recordings from that day. The guy on land who was dealing with getting people off was not impressed and told him to get back on the boat. The captain made up some crap that he accidentally got in a life boat. While I think it’s ridiculous for a captain to literally go down with their ship, there’s a level of personal responsibility you take on in certain situations in life - where a person with true dignity will put other people before themselves. If you don’t do everything you can to help those you have responsibility for, it’s not going to be looked upon well. If the Concordia captain had tried his best, even if there were lives lost, that would have been fine. But it was pretty obvious he didn’t try at all.

@BabaYetu SIL was crew on luxury yachts like this for 20 years, she was not low paid in the least and was head steward for around 15 years. She was also classed as offshore for quite a few of those years and paid no tax. Mainly for individuals but also on charter ships for a couple of years where a tip could be 1k for a week easily.

The Captain, engineer and first mate would need qualifications but stewards and deckhands learn more on the job though all staff need a safety training certificate and medical training . No idea how much that is enforced though.

That was the Costa Concordia ... the recording of the conversation where he was told to get back on the ship after "tripping intto the lifeboat" makes interesting listening:

I was not talking about this yacht trip as thrill seeking. In a previous post of mine, I pointed out that the mast on this yacht was one of the highest in the world and maybe that is something that the owner aspired to, bigger and better maybe.

Sorry, I should add that the passengers & non sailing crew are also probably held responsible for following safety instructions from the sailing crew.

If they can be proven to have disregarded them, I'd imagine they are held responsible for doing so (the responsibility is no longer on the crew member/s whose instructions were knowingly ignored).

My thoughts were that the crew were on deck because of the storm. The yacht sank too quickly for anything to be done to save those below deck. If anyone was at fault, it will come out in time. The guy from the other boat which gave assistance to those in the water was shocked by the speed of events.

There was a very similar yacht very close to the Bayesian, which survived. They had their engines running and had changed position to ride the storm, the Bayesian didn't have its engines on.

They are also looking at whether the door where the tender docks into the boat's hull had been left open.

In a bad storm the crew would have been up and about first, so maybe they just didn't have time to wake the passengers before disaster struck.

We have a good friend who has worked on yachts, and captained them, for years, longer than the captain in this case. He has all the qualifications and years of experience. He has told us about many close shaves in the past but he has also panicked and done really stupid things under pressure. I wouldn't necessarily trust him to handle an accident like this, in such extreme conditions and get everyone off safely. There are a lot of mavericks in the yacht world, no matter how long they've been doing the job.

That's not really thrill seeking, is it?

That's bigger and better mentality.

(And it's odd to mention the titan disaster and refer to rich people thrill seeking, in the context of this subject; and expect people to think you're not referencing this incident in any way).

In any case, the size of the yacht and it's mast are not why it apparently sunk.