Big sailboat sunk by tornado

Suing widows and orphans is rarely popular.
Not sure being the moving party in litigation is,without more, automatically preferable. You have the burden of proof, the Defendant can snipe and put you to proof. You may be opening a battle you can`t win.
But yes, far too little hard information to guess an outcome or apportion blame.
The 'rogue lawyer" story sounds BS. What lawyer kicks off proceedings in a client`s name without instructions. A very rare one imo.

Yeah, could be sued for malpractice.

Does someone always have to be at fault ?
What if the builder built a good boat that was the victim of a freak accident? The boat was fine for 15 years.
What if the crew chose a good anchorage and properly secured the vessel, then responded appropriately when conditions went south? Sometimes $#!t Happens.

The builder does seem like a bit of a dick to me. He accused the crew of doing wrong right away. Then made a video saying pretty much the same thing and when someone said something they didn’t like they cut him out of the video. So IMO he is at fault of being a dick anyway.

Benthic2 said:

Does someone always have to be at fault ?

Click to expand...

No! The freak storm hypothesis is very much on the table. Hopefully the investigation(s) will be thorough and we'll all learn from this tragedy.

None of that excuses the behavior of the builder. He went on the attack, making assumptions and accusations before all the facts are known. Exactly what we're all saying that none of us should do.

Benthic2 said:

Does someone always have to be at fault ?...

Click to expand...

No, someone does not always have to be at fault. Having said that, there are some design and build issues with these ships.

When Bayesian sank, my first thought, for some reason was, did she had a movable keel? I had never heard of a ship having such a keel so I figured that could not be an issue. Then I found out the ship did have a movable keel and it was raised when the ship sunk. So, one question led to another and I started to really pay attention to the situation. The best information has been on The Yacht Report YouTube channel which covers these ships.

There are some design and build issues that raise questions some of which we already know the answers. The raised keel is not likely to have been the reason the ship sank. The AVS was low with the keel deployed, and lower when raised, but the AVS was still higher than the down flooding angle which is 40-45 degrees. The down flooding angle is gong to be the most likely initial source of flooding of the ship. Witness statements seem to indicate that ship heeled over past the AVS even if the keel had been deployed. The low AVS of the ship is certainly going to be questioned.

The port side hatch was closed based on photos taken by guests/crew returning to the Sir Robert Baden Powell the evening before Bayesian sank. I think it was the previous Captain of Bayesian who said this hatch was always closed unless guests/crew were getting on/off the ship since the hatch was closer to the water due to more ballast to handle the taller mask than other ships in the class. One would expect that hatch to be closed when not in use, and especially at night, if for no other reason than security. If that hatch is found to be open it will be a surprise. Flip side is the hatch is on the port side and the ship sank on it's starboard side.

The builder CEO has gone on and on about this hatch but all the available evidence says the hatch was shut.

Crew has reported that on other ships in this class, the glass doors to the interior would open when the ship was heeled over and have to be tied shut. There is at least one video of the crew trying to secure this opening.

The aft cockpit is a below the deck with steps port and starboard. This would seem to allow water to be scooped up into the cockpit. The cockpit has the glass doors that open when the boat is heeled. The investigation will say if this was a problem or not. There is also a forward cockpit with doors that are offset to port and starboard. If the starboard door was open when the ship heeled it could have caused down flooding. But if the ship was blown over past her AVS this might be a moot point.

The crew and/or guests reported that when the ship heeled over the first time, she appear to go over at least twice, furniture and locker contents went all over the place hindering movement. The divers recovering the bodies where hampered by debris including wiring which I thought was odd. This may have hampered the guests down below from escaping.

With what is currently known, the AVS and the down flooding are the most likely reason(s) the ship sank. The other issues may have been links in the chain of events of the sinking, or just made things worse, but we won't know until the investigation is complete.

If the low AVS and/or low down flooding angle caused the ship to sink, who is to blame? The designer? The owner for approving the design? Was the boat built differently than designed and the builder is at fault? Or is it just a chain of events that led to a sinking and nobody is really at fault?

To answer the question whether someone always needs to be blamed I can be short. In Europe, in Southern Europe (Italy, Croatia, Montengor, Slovenia etc) it is standard practice that somebody is responsible. Even if nobody was responsible, that it was just a freak accident, somebody needs to be held responsible and will have to go to jail. That can also be an inspector who did approve of the design.

I know it sounds weird and strange, but that is the way things work in this part of the world. I have seen people go to jail for 2 years because they drove on a non lit road, in the rain, when a man was walking on the road, around the corner completely drunk and in dark clothes. There was no way the driver could have avoided the accident, but he went to jail for 2 years and now still has to pay the widow close to 200.000 euro.

With that in mind I can understand why this CEO is so desperately trying to pass the blame to the crew or the owner, because if he gets the blame he, and others of his company, will go to jail. Not only that, he will get claims of other owners that have the same design. It is still despicable behavior, but that is what you get when there is such a weird law system in place.

dannc said:

If the low AVS and/or low down flooding angle caused the ship to sink, who is to blame? The designer? The owner for approving the design? Was the boat built differently than designed and the builder is at fault? Or is it just a chain of events that led to a sinking and nobody is really at fault?

Click to expand...

What about the classification society?

What about operator error?

Takes a detailed investigation to discover all possibilities and/or combinations that result in the outcome,

Nick F said:

What about the classification society?

Click to expand...

The ship was built to a class but I can't remember which one. One of the questions I have, is the low AVS "normal" for ships this size? The AVS is not enough for a category A sail boat.

Just like many small power vessel requirements don't scale up to "mega yacht" or ship size necessarily....does AVS for larger sailing vessels?

psneeld said:

What about operator error?

Takes a detailed investigation to discover all possibilities and/or combinations that result in the outcome,

Click to expand...

It is obviously early but what has been reported so far:
- The weather forecast was for a storm but nothing serious.
- The watch woke up the captain about bad weather.
- The captain ordered the crew to muster to secure the ship.
- Some of the crew and at least three passengers were on deck when the ship suddenly heeled over enough to throw some of them in the water.
- The ship righted and some people were washed back on board. It seemed like everyone was brought back on board.
- It seems at this point, the first knock down, furniture, glass and locker contents broke loose and made it difficult to move around the interior.
- Then the ship heeled over again and that was that.

Some of questions about the crew actions have been about the engine room door being opened for ease of access by the engineer and the hull shell door. His state room is aft, port side, as is the ER access. The hull shell hatch is in the same area but there were photos of it being closed, as one would expect, a few hours before the sinking. And the shell hatch was port side while the ship was knocked down to starboard and sank to starboard.

The other question is why the crew did not start the engines either before they started to drag or afterwards.

The only possible operator error that has been reported so far is the question of starting engines. But did they have time? The Sir Robert Baden Powell is reported to have started their engine(s) to take the load off their anchor.... Bayesian had a deck hand on watch not one of the three officers. If I remember right, there were three officers, one engineer and two deck hands to operate the ship. The rest of the crew were to take care of the guests.

I have seen multiple times over the years where storms have come through and taken out a line of trees. Trees left and right of the downed trees were fine but just one line of trees were taken down over 50-200 yard path that might be 20-30 yards wide. I do wonder if Bayesian was hit by such wind. There is a mountain onshore near the anchorage and another a few miles a way which might have had a part to play in this. Not sure they will be able to know this though.

What is reported so far and facts are often changed throughout a thorough investigation.

Was the keel up or down? Is that a builder recommended practice? How do the different positions
really affect ultimate stability?

I have heard multiple reports that the weather "could be" severe as the conditions were ripe for tornados or straight line wind activity. Even the remote threat should be prepared for.

As far as operator error.... exactly what "condition" was the vessel in before the storm hit? When I say "condition".... the military (and decent skippers) have standing orders how to prepare a vessel for various level "conditions" that "may" be encountered for a designated period of time.

Photographs hours before an incident "suggest" things, but prove nothing. Photos taken hours before an airplane crash have little to offer.

At what point did the watch actually wake the captain? Was it sufficient to prepare enough?

I never like to assign "captain/crew" error as it is rarely totally their fault, but from what I have heard, there's not enough hard evidence to eliminate their part in the incident. Sounds like the law enforcement guys headed down that path early...maybe too early but they may know stuff we don't.

I just don't see how the builder can be responsible. The thing I'm having trouble with is that a lawsuit is usually the result of a broken promise. This ladder is safe to use. This coffee is safe to drink etc. Boat's don't come with promises or guarantees. Let's look at an extreme example. If I was in a canoe, I would not expect to survive a micro burst and could not hold the canoe maker liable. If I was in any mass produced boat in the 30-40 foot range , same thing. I would get laughed out of court if I tried to sue Sea Ray because my 32 footer couldn't survive 100 mph winds. They sold a boat with a barely acceptable AVS, and the customer bought it. If they said the AVS was "X" and it was really "Y", I could see fault for the deception. I guess I really worry that a builder is going to get screwed for building a boat to the customer's specs.

The idiot CEO is just making it easier for the public to blame them with his actions.

Benthic2 said:

I just don't see how the builder can be responsible. The thing I'm having trouble with is that a lawsuit is usually the result of a broken promise. This ladder is safe to use. This coffee is safe to drink etc. Boat's don't come with promises or guarantees. Let's look at an extreme example. If I was in a canoe, I would not expect to survive a micro burst and could not hold the canoe maker liable. If I was in any mass produced boat in the 30-40 foot range , same thing. I would get laughed out of court if I tried to sue Sea Ray because my 32 footer couldn't survive 100 mph winds. They sold a boat with a barely acceptable AVS, and the customer bought it. If they said the AVS was "X" and it was really "Y", I could see fault for the deception. I guess I really worry that a builder is going to get screwed for building a boat to the customer's specs.

The idiot CEO is just making it easier for the public to blame them with his actions.

Click to expand...

I agree, it should just be viewed as 'an act of nature'. As far as I understand ships are always built up to a certain limit, something they expect that might happen, but not for what they think will happen once in 1000 years. Am pretty sure this vessel was not built to withstand a water spout and the chances of being hit by one are minimal.........but in this case it happened (so it seems).
That said, if the yard now states that the keel always has be down and locked in certain types of weather, then this must have been communicated with the owner. Question is then 'was that done' ?
And if that is the case it means the boat could never stay in a port during a storm if the keel could not be all the way down, after all not all ports have depths of 10 mtr minimum. Potentially that could mean starting up and leaving a port in the middle of the night because a sudden thunder storm would be underway. I am not 100 % sure, but don't think too many owners would accept that.

But one thing is clear however, as soon as people die the judicial system will get involved and in countries like Italy (and the others I have mentioned) someone has to be responsible. To simply say it was an accident simply does not exist in some countries. Perhaps in this case they will draw this conclusion because there is so much at stake, but I would not be surprised if ultimately the captain will be sent to jail.

Mambo42 said:

That said, if the yard now states that the keel always has be down and locked in certain types of weather, then this must have been communicated with the owner.

Click to expand...

Read post #106. Naval architect's instructions to captain only require the keel to be lowered when the sails are raised.

Nick F said:

Read post #106. Naval architect's instructions to captain only require the keel to be lowered when the sails are raised.

Click to expand...

I can't open that report and then still the question remains whether the yard has issued something like an operating manual for this boat. If so, what is in that manual ?
There must have been SOP's on this boat, at least instructions for the captain and engineer, so I am curious what is in those instructions.
I guess that, after the investigators have finished their work they will publish everything in a lengthy report, which we can then all dive into to find out all the nitty gritty details.

There are instructions on the stability report. It looks like you will have to pay the $7 to LooseCannon to read it.

The Superyacht Channel guy said that the previous captain of the vessel said that the keel only needs to be deployed when the sails are up. Even with the keel up it is still 45,000 pounds at 13 feet of depth if I recall correctly

Benthic2 said:

The Superyacht Channel guy said that the previous captain of the vessel said that the keel only needs to be deployed when the sails are up. Even with the keel up it is still 45,000 pounds at 13 feet of depth if I recall correctly

Click to expand...

I heard 50 tons, which means close to 100.000 US pounds.

Follow-up on this: NYT has published a pretty good summary of findings on the sinking of the Bayesian.