Sinking of Yacht off Sicilian Coast

[Cesarina]

This is of course an absolutely tragic event.
I'm feeling a bit mean by saying this.........but why is it the headline topic on BBC news?
I genuinely feel sorry for those involved, but don't understand why it's the dominant news story?

How the heck can a super yacht not withstand a storm in a harbour, when many far far cheaper and smaller boats were all ok

As @SheilaFentiman has said, and I know some yachties are speculating, mast size/height might have been one of several contributing factors.

<waves to @notimagain from the MH370 report threads>

Here is a map of the movements of the Bayesian and the Baden-Powell next to it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c6237gnl11yt?post=asset%3Abbe70820-2e6f-43b8-b5a9-0d1e16af2cee#post

Human error/cock up/belief in invincibility of the boat rather than some complex conspiracy I have no doubt.

There's a very good reason for the phrase batten down the hatches, this sinking would appear to be as a result of not doing that and not preparing for the incoming bad weather sufficiently.

"this sinking would appear to be as a result of not doing that and not preparing for the incoming bad weather sufficiently."

Is there any evidence of this as yet? My understanding is that the maritime authorities will (of course) look into these possibilities but that it is too soon for that to have happened, given the focus to date on search and recovery of the victims.

That's not the case, mast height shouldn't be a factor. There are very strict rules and regulations that all yachts either over a specific size, or operating commercially have to meet. The vessels will need to satisfy a number of load cases, the mast height will need to be accounted for in these load cases.

I think the leading stories get there or at least stay there through clicks on the site. So the public are keeping it there because they are interested. It’s just that you’re not.

Reports of open portholes, open access hatches, the tender not being stowed properly leaving where it was stowed open, the keel stabiliser not being fully deployed. Water ingress when it was blown sideways would have taken it beyond the tipping point so it could not right itself as it should have done.

There are also questions around why the guests were below deck and not given life jackets. Those on deck survived.

It smacks of a belief in invincibility in either the yacht or those on board and as ever the sea proved the lie in that.

It is a tragedy but it could have been prevented and nature should be respected whether on land, sea or in the air. Humans are not invincible against the forces of nature.

“There are also questions around why the guests were below deck and not given life jackets. Those on deck survived.”

It sank between 4am and 5am! They were asleep; does anyone sleep in a life jacket?

And given it sank in 2 mins or so, and the bodies seem to have been found in the cabins, they are unlikely to have left the cabins in time.

Those who escaped got into the lifeboat first and then the nearest yacht rescued them from the lifeboat. I don’t know that anyone had a life jacket on.

“Reports of open portholes, open access hatches, the tender not being stowed properly leaving where it was stowed open, the keel stabiliser not being fully deployed.”

Reports? I have seen all these as speculation, but not actual reports. If you have seen reports from the investigators or similar, do share.

I’m not a yachtie so I’ll bow to your knowledge of the rules…

OTOH I do know in aviation there have been occasions where legacy rules have not kept pace with technology or, even if they have, haven’t provided protection against a 1 in x million event.

Vessels like this don't tend to have port lights or access hatches that can down flood to the interior. Reports that even use the term porthole should be ignored.

This. Everything will be “safe” within certain tolerances but nothing can be safe within all circumstances.

So a sofa covering might need to be fireproof for an hour but the risk/cost balance means it will be unlikely to be fireproof for three hours.

(I made the times up, but there are rules on the times)

When the twin towers were hit, many people expected them to stay up because they had been modelled as “indestructible” - and the modelling may well have included eg a light tourist aircraft going out of control into a tower.

But no one modelled an exploding commercial aeroplane deliberately taking out massive chunks of the structure. So there was no way to know if it was proof against that… until it happened.

@notimagain classification (=qualification) stipulate many rules but it is in large part also up to the owner/operator to specify the limiting conditions the vessel will operate under. The design authority or builder ensure the vessel meets classification rules for those conditions and the ships master is then legally responsible for ensuring the operates safely within those conditions.

My expectation would be that a severe event occurred that either had not been accounted for or could not be prepared for in time. The fact that the crew were on deck indicates something was happening but the fact that guests were still in their cabins suggests that escalated incredibly quickly.

Vessels like this don't tend to have port lights or access hatches that can down flood to the interior. Reports that even use the term porthole should be ignored.

Reports I have quoted are from the company and the engineers and designers who built the boat. I would suggest that since they know more about the boat than either you or I their comments are relevant.

You haven't heard anything from anyone who designed or built the boat. They will be under total no comment directions.

A spokesman for The Italian Sea Group

Builders of the boat.

Giovanni Constantino (who owns the company who built the boat) has given interviews which say that the boat was unsinkable (...) and in which he says "X, Y , Z" must have happened. But he doesn't know yet (and of course doesn't want his company's design to be at fault!)

240 posts & the OP never once came back.

They didn't build the boat. They bought the company that built the boat after it went bust.

Perrini went bust a while back, I don't know how much liability the new yard owners maintain, I suspect none. I heard the interview and despite English not being his first language it was still a particularly moronic thing to say.

The Titanic was also apparently unsinkable 🤔🤷‍♀️

Quite

The Titanic sank in 1912, what has that got to do with modern boat building nearly a century later?

And the people working there are boatbuilders, designers, engineers, etc., so know a thing or two about boats.

Until there is an enquiry, no one knows but human error may yet have had the upper hand over the designers.

Wonder why so many were on deck at 4 or 5am in a storm?

Did hear a yacht skipper out there say a boat like that should have been moored up in port with the storm forecast, as it had so many passengers on board and their safety should have been paramount.