BAYESIAN SUPERYACHT The #1 Clue We All Missed
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- #bayesian #superyacht #mikelynch
Watch the Titan Submersible series here:
• Titan Submersible
Sources:
news.sky.com/v...
www.euronews.c...
www.theguardia...
TCRS - The Critical Thinking True Crime Channel
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @tcrs
I think its very true that a luxury yacht is almost viewed as invincible regardless of weather. Size, equipment and Crew are all part of this illusion. The fact that this yacht cost so much its unthinkable not unsinkable, to doubt its ability to stay afloat no matter what. Interesting video
Tight analysis. ✅
@@karenholmes9560 you are SPOT ON.
I’ve watched years and years of cheesy reality tv, one of which is Below Deck.
And you’re right, you totally don’t think such luxury can be annihilated and sink.
Irregardless*
Only some 50 millions and for a super yacht, it is nothing.
@@karenholmes9560 the fact is that this is a combination between a gin palace & a performance yacht!
Now what could go wrong??
I worked as Crew for 19 years in the Superyacht industry and spent a little time on this brand of boat, although not the specific hull series.. Here's my tuppence worth:
1. A downburst or waterspout caused the boat to heel over beyond its angle of vanishing stability (78 degrees I believe with keel retracted).
2. Once on its side it could not return upright.
3. Water ingress began through the ventilation apertures in the hull on the starboard quarter (The down-flooding angle for these is 44 degrees, so this was already gulping tonnes of water into the stern area well before its vanishing stability angle).
4. On its way over the recessed aft cockpit area would have been filling from the starboard side deck stair entry and then pouring into the main saloon through the open patio doors (which are documented to fail and fall open beyond about 20 degrees of heel (These motorised sliding doors are a nightmare on almost every yacht, ask any Yacht Engineer)).
5. As it went further over, water would have started pouring in through the open starboard bridge door as the Crew were initially trying to grab cushions etc from outside and stow them inside.
6. Likely the Lazaret to Engine room watertight door was open at anchor so the Engineer could get easy access from his cabin (in the Lazaret (Stern storage area)).
7. Now you have a vessel down on starboard side, stern heavy from earliest flooding and the lazaret, Engine room and central guest cabin area (flooding down the stairwell from the main saloon) are all flooding. That's 3 out of 5 potential watertight areas compromised. From there the vessel had no chance.
8. The 10 or so sister hulls to Bayesian are likely similarly vulnerable but due to different mast configuration, may have better stability characteristics.
9. Irrespective of the possibly open starboard bridge door, this vessel would have sunk anyway no matter what the Crew did if it was indeed layed on its side by the wind. The bridge door may simply have speeded the process a little.
10. As soon as the big wind hit, the vessel would have likely dragged its anchor (AIS data certainly suggests this) and will naturally slew and present side (beam) on to the wind making it vulnerable for a knockdown.
11. I imagine the Captain and Engineer were desperately getting engines started in order to manoeuvre the vessel head-to-wind in to make it less vulnerable, however a vessel like this will be quite a handful to try to recover from beam-on especially with the anchor and cable still down.
I have been in 2 such incidents in my 19 years, once on a sailboat and once on a motor yacht. We managed to get head-to-wind on both occasions and thus did not suffer knockdowns, however, we did struggle to regain control of the beam-on dragging vessel and on both occasions were less than 100 metres from losing the boat onto the rocks.
When this stuff comes in, its no joke. I could not walk upright on the deck to go forward to operate the Anchor equipment. I had to crawl on all fours or the wind would have simply ripped me off the deck into the sea.
Both occasions happened at night in darkness, both occasions were un-forecasted and both occasions went from 10 knots of wind to 70 knots plus in less than 3 minutes with deluging rain reducing visibility to about 15 metres. Once near Green Island in Antigua and once in the South of France at the islands off Cannes.
Try#3
I'm not reading all that. SnS. Its just your IMO 👍😀
Or its copy, paste, delivered. JS
Best explanation so much is just logic .
Truth, its not really a mystery, she got blown over, took on water at 45 and kept going.
@@Flowersofromance6-fs4pb To answer your question above:
If indeed the yacht was knocked flat, it was never able to return upright according to its Stability Book information (Vanishing stability with keel deployed 87 degrees I'm led to believe). Even with everything dogged shut it would have still been gulping in water through the hull ventilation apertures aft so would likely still sink, just significantly slower, say a couple of hours or less.
Also if saloon doors, bridge doors etc were dogged shut and the vessel on its side, anyone still inside is likely to be trapped unable to find any emergency hatch in the dark and likely obstructed by god knows how much furniture, ceiling panels and miscellaneous loose items falling around inside.
The Bilge Pump pick-ups throughout the vessel used for emergency de-watering are normally fairly close to the centreline, so in such a scenario with the yacht on its side, they would be likely above the water level sucking air until way too late to stop the vessel sinking. That is assuming the pumps themselves (which are typically adjacent to each other for ease of plumbing and manifold control, somewhere in or close to the engine room) have not already drowned and the vessels electrical systems are still functioning semi-submerged to operate the pumps. Lets not forget the engine room electrical control panel and also the Bridge controls are all likely half submerged. Also the flooring in the vessel is now vertical, so getting around to operate things is a serious challenge.
This event is very likely to evolve some significant regulation changes to the Class/construction regulations for yachts.
I just read it all and I prbly sailed the Mediterranean ocean the same time as you. Except I was in the U S navy doing 8 sea tours
As to design - every sailboat should be designed to recover from a knockdown. This one was not and only a fool would buy such a yacht. As for the video. The presenter is clueless.
100% agree.
Again you’re basing your ideas on newspaper reports and not fact. All the conclusions you make are totally incorrect. Your comparison to the Titanic shows your ignorance in this field. 😂😂😂
Really?
Yes!!!!!
I have 50 years in yachts and I am still learning . The one thing that I know that an overweight vessel is a danger nomatter how it looks.
I have a 1978 Pearson, "P-31." It is documented with the US Coast Guard as "GOOD TRADE." With ALL hatches OPEN but the COCKPIT LOCKERS SECURED (positively locked), we can force the tip of the mast into the water, retain our stability, and the boat will right itself as soon as the mast is free.
We did this once in a microburst on the Potomac River. I stood upright on a sail locker holding the wheel, one crew was holding life lines, and another was outside the boat, standing upright on the side of the boat. The tip of the mast with sails deployed touched the river. Still, we had at least a foot of flotation remaining before water would reach the companion way.
The Pearson is designed to heel beyond 90 degree and recover its proper position. I will assume the Bayesian, once heeled 90 degrees, had open passageways exposed below the waterline. I wonder if anyone calculated her capsize ratio?
She seems to have been built to Motor yacht standards (although I don't know about the requirements for motor yachts) because her angle of vanishing stability was only 73° with the keel up and 88° with the keel down (according to the CEO of the manufacturing group directly after the accident).
Ocean going production sailing vessels are (or at least were) built to a minimum of 120° vanishing stability, heavy weather sailing yachts from 165° to even 180°.
This is for security reasons in general, but also to make it possible that the boat pops back up after getting rolled over by a wave instead of floating upside down and staying in this position. The further away from shore (and possible help) the more important it is.
While one might possibly lose the masts in this occurrence, it's still better to at least have a hull that is intact.
I wish you would stop calling it a waterspout. The Italian airforce has confirmed it was a microburst. Also, you are quoting media sources over and again. It was the media who said the mast snapped, not the captain of the sir robert baden powell. Bruni, the America's cup sailor is a racer, not a sailor and in saying he would prefer to be on Bayesian in a storm. The baden powell looks far more able to cope with rough weather than Bayesian. The engine room filled first because at 45 degrees water would have poured in through the engine room vents which had to be open. If they weren't open, engines and generators cant run. They need air.
I agree, except Bayesian probably flooded so fast via the side deck cutouts into the sunken aft cockpit and into the main saloon, more so than via the vents.
Bayesian had huge design flaws, specifically the side deck cutouts, to a lesser degrees the vents, and the mere 45 degree limit before she would take in water.
She heeled over 45 degrees, shipped water straight down those side-deck cutouts into the sunken aft cockpit and into the main saloon: essentially the aft end flooding most, and she sank that way and to starboard since she was heeled that way, so water went to starboard aft. She went down fast because she shipped a massive amount of water fast.
I have sailed yachts since 1964, been an offshore yachtmaster, and also been on a yacht that sank when It shipped water. It has been obvious to me for some time now that the wind heeled her to over 45 degrees to starboard, water rushed over the sides, down through the side-deck cutout to the aft cockpit, and into the main saloon. She quickly sank stern first, but not vertically, and still tipped to starboard side.
BTW: Titanic sank bow first as it filled with water into the bow. She barely listed to starboard, as the water filled both sides quite evenly, whereas this yacht was already heeled over 45 degrees (but never the 75 degrees needed to lose stability).
Most of this video in rubbish.
Add to that the weight of the enormous mast when heeling over and the raised keel .... a very plausible explanation.
"I don't have a horse in the race" -this is so true. It reminds me of people who think that those who don't have kids themselves have nothing to say about cases like the McCann or Ramsey case from the perspective of child care etc. You might not have the unique perspective of someone else, but you might have a new perspective they do not. Also you don't need to be a yachtsman or parent to understand logical and have critical thinking.
100%
@@TCRSyes but your peddling BS. All your reports are based on other newspaper reports. No independent verification of anything you say. Your conclusions are way off the mark. Anyone that has worked on these yachts can tell you that. Try doing some real reporting and check your facts before speaking
@@barbanegracaptain4153 Though I'm far from convinced by the case made by "TCRS" in this video. I must ask why You don't supplement Your critique with some specific points that You find most egregious . And also supply "him" (and us) with where and or how to find reliable sources that Your criticism to these points.
As it stands Your critique, to me , comes across as being emotional and obstinate rather than factually based.
My personal opinion is (as many others) that the best option is to wait to form any substantive opinion, much less "pass judgement" until all possible facts and "clues" have been brought to light.
Best regards.
@@mrdr9534 Not his burden of proof. TCRS is bullshtting because he knows it gets him clicks, just like his click bait title.
The downburst was likely the part of the storm immediately on the rear of the actual funnel (waterspout). This area experiences a rapid downburst of air, what goes up in the funnel vortex must come back down, this is referred to as a "Rear Flank Downdraft" or RFD in Meteorology speak.
According to reports the keel is normally raised when anchored, or when entering port. This this would make the sailboat more susceptible to being rolled on its side if you look at the photo that you posted of Bayesian, the deck immediately steps down two steps from the side of the hull. This is not protected by any hatch. IF the sailboat rolls enough to put the edge of the hull into the water, then water will enter this lower area. Looking at a diagram of the boat this large area is connected to the guest sleeping accommodations through a pair of glass doors. These doors are reported to be susceptible to opening if the boat is rolling in heavy weather. The doors can be secured against opening, but doing so traps the guests in their sleeping rooms and would prevent easy escape in an emergency.
How can you compare these two disasters,totally different in every detail.
Exactly. Spot on. They were both marine vessels that sank due to water entering the hull, which is why all vessels sink. This video is 95% rubbish.
Agreed. A totally fanciful interpretation of the events and a comparison with the Titanic that is embarrassingly pointless. Different vessels, different construction, different event, all dressed up in philosophical rambling.
I was brought up in the ethic of if you cant say anything good, don't say anything however this vidio has pushed my tolerance to the limit. Please just wait for the results enquiry that will be undertaken by professionals.
At anchor there is great stress on the downward pull of the anchor chain. I just wondoer if that was the pull down and then the boat twisted around and the pull became broadside. I have experienced this trawling in weather and tide. Especially side winding.
The TH-cam channel the yacht report formally esysman superyachts - says that these vessels have very large vents at the stern- which at anchor are open for the luxury guests to have their air conditioning - which on smaller boats you don't have - under sail they are closed - but that night a hot night they would have been open - he said that they go into the first bulkhead and the yacht can still float with one bulkhead flooded - however the engine room door if left open on that bulkhead , then the engine room would flood and then the yacht would sink - he says this is the most likely cause and the question is was the door open abd why - there are several reasons - at anchor the engineer bulk is in the engine room and the door is left open - or it was closed but then opened for the engineer to check what was happening - there is much more than just error of the crew - there is protocol according to the yachts manual and so far the previous captain of the boat from what he knows is saying the crew followed the yachts protocol manual on what is opened or closed at anchor ..
Parallèle with Titanic - not mentioned Costa Concordia- seems totally inappropriate. Hence your deductions leeds to nowhere
Bayesian was essentially a motor sailer. Heavy engines in stern took stern first.
Do you happen to know what the sail area to displacement ratio is for this vessel?
Mostly wrong. The weight of the water in the stern, and air forward is far more significant.
I have been an offshore yachtmaster, and also been on a yacht that sank when It shipped water. It has been obvious to me for some time now that the wind heeled her to over 45 degrees to starboard, water rushed over the sides, down through the side-deck cutout to the aft cockpit, and into the main saloon. She quickly sank stern first, but not vertically, and still tipped to starboard side.
There is no contradiction between the Bayesian being knocked down on its side and sinking by the stern. There would be no water ingress until the vessel was on its side and then the heavier stern sections would flood first and sink first with the vessel still lying on its side.
Correct. She heeled over 45 degrees, shipped water straight down those side-deck cutouts into the aft cockpit and main saloon, essentially the aft end flooding most, and she sank that way and to starboard since she was heed that way so water went to starboard aft. She went down fast because she shipped a massive amount of water fast.
If no hatches were open and no windows failed (don't fully trust the drivers observations until the formal report is issued. They can miss things down there) then we can start to consider inherent design flaw or failure in calculations. This ship had an outrageously tall mast. Either the tallest or second tallest ever made. This is really not the sort of record you want. With that tall mast the ships center of mass/center of gravity will be very high. Especially with the keel raised. We will probably find in that configuration that the center of mass was getting dangerously close to the center of buoyancy. When those two points converge on a ship it becomes much easier to list or spin it around it's long axis. And once enough water gets in to one side the list means that CoM and CoB are no longer vertically aligned and over she goes.
TLDR if no hatches were open, they will likely find a major miscalculation in the design, and the ship was just too top heavy. An accident waiting to happen.
This accident has virtually nothing in common with Titanic. Beyond the ships sank. Completely different physics. Completely different architecture, root cause etc. Titanic sank mostly level because her hull was breached below the waterline and the huge central engineering compartments flooded. CoB and CoM mostly remained in a vertical line but Reserve Bouancy was quickly depleted.
The yacht foundered. It was pushed past it's safe point if list by an outside point almost certainly causing uncontrolled flooding off center. This will increase the list and drive more of the hull underwater. It will look like it is sinking bow first, stern first or rolling over depending on the observer.
A better historic comparison than Titanic would be Halsey's Folley, Typhoon Cobra in WW2 and looking at how ships of the US 3rd fleet were sunk and damaged in it. The TH-cam channel Unauthorized History of the Pacific War just did a great documentary on it, talking about much of what we see here.
Think you meant " Divers" not Drivers.
@@helenmary4869 autocorrect is evil
@@andrewtaylor940 .yes agree....it has happened to me before too 🤣
The key idea you have correct here is design flaw, specifically the side deck cutouts, to a lesser degrees the vents, and the mere 45 degree limit before she would take in water water.
She heeled over 45 degrees, shipped water straight down those side-deck cutouts into the aft cockpit and main saloon, essentially the aft end flooding most, and she sank that way and to starboard since she was heeled that way, so water went to starboard aft. She went down fast because she shipped a massive amount of water fast.
I have sailed yachts since 1964, been an offshore yachtmaster, and also been on a yacht that sank when It shipped water. It has been obvious to me for some time now that the wind heeled her to over 45 degrees to starboard, water rushed over the sides, down through the side-deck cutout to the aft cockpit, and into the main saloon. She quickly sank stern first, but not vertically, and still tipped to starboard side.
Titanic sank bow first as it filled with water into the bow. She barely listed to starboard, as the water filled both sides quite evenly, whereas this yacht was already heeled over 45 degrees (but never the 75 degrees needed to lose stability).
Most of this video in rubbish.
I am surprised that you mention the Captain of the Baden Powell yacht’s first declarations as facts. He was wonderful with managing his own yacht under the same weather circumstances. And then saved the Bayesian survivors quickly. However, we have to wait until the Italian authorities‘ enquiry gathers all the crew’s and survivors’ declarations, the technical survey and all the other witnesses’ testimonies until we can start judging. It was certainly an unprecedented accident. And we are all very sorry for the 7 victims.
Keel up ? Windage ++++. Loss of righting . Anchor out . Dragged down on starboard side by stern flooding . Do the geometry!
Your tuppence is spot on Captain.
There is a lot of talk now. I have spent “already” more than 30 years at sea as first Eng. and Ch. Eng. on different ships. Including passenger ships. One important rule to follow up is “SAFETY FIRST”, and nothing more. We no longer need to discover hot water. We need to follow the procedure on time. It is about pure human negligence, i.e. procedures that were not done when they should have been. That ship is not from yesterday at sea and must have been through much bigger storms than this one, otherwise, it is designed to withstand a category-five typhoon. I don’t understand why they didn’t put the boat in Full maneuvering mode; Start both engines for propulsion” on”, raise the anchor, lower the keel, close all watertight doors, close the pontoons, hatch covers, and so on. Secure everything before. Ship with running propulsion - “ON” is a completely different ship in terms of stability. They even checklist so as to not forget anything. There is also training for such cases on what to do in an emergency and how to act correctly!
@@JackFarryeNorrmane As a long retired marine engineer and latterly yachtsman , in response to your missive, all of which I agree with save that I believe there was little or no time or warning to react
@@nicholasredding218 the sea is a harsh mistress to those who cannot anticipate and manage risks, before they appear. Seems a prudent captain would have done a number of things ahead of time to manage contingencies...
This is all correct but the missing factor is time. Micro Downbursts can come out of almost nowhere particularly at night when you cant see the exact cloud formations. The Downburst that hit me at anchor off Ibiza 2 years ago went from 5-10knots to 65 knots in under one minute and bare pole heel was over 50 degrees. Italian Meteo reported 93 MPH wind gust off PortoCello that night.
i don't agree with this analysis...
I take to heart that you said you’re not a marine expert.
It seems a lot of non marine experts who have never experienced severe weather at over 70 knts in the middle of a pitch dark raining night and who have never been present on a broaching, knocked down yacht, have a harsh expert opinion on what the crew should have, could have done.
All this made with hindsight, in as much time as they want ,sitting in the relative comfort of their lounge chairs .
I say this as a relatively inexperienced still leaning yachtie with only 25years on the water , 13 Sydney to Hobart races and thousands of sailing sea miles. If you weren't there and don't know the full story why speculate ?
Its like the old wild west days , whipping the crowd into a frenzy with total conjecture , don't wait for the trial and the facts just Hang em high , or out to dry now ! Makes great youtube !
With the weather forecasted, the very high night temperatures, air conditions and generators were all on high and HVAC and generator vents were all open (no reason for the crew to expect a blow over and guest comfort at an overall high) so when the blow over happened, the yacht would take on water very fast through all those vents which were on the hull sides below the decks. Not a crew mistake, if any, a design mistake but try to convince that condescending boat designer.
Cpt. Karsten Borner is a German. Not a Dutchman. All the media publish his statements but not his German nationality.
@@GabrielaHofmann-o5c anyone but not the majority of the press can recognise his german accent, there is plenty of wrong news , the speed of the wind, the position of the ship that was not 300 mt but 1000 mt from the harbour the italian police did not mention wether the doors were people died were closed or opened and the ship has been rented by other people who could have easily done what they wanted.
Too many strange coincidences expecially considering the whole story behind it forgetting the ship particulars.
Stern First...Engines and generators, Air-conditioning Unit the heaviest part..plus the Air Intake vents are all underwater at 44 degrees healing point.
At anchor..all air vents open..
She gets slammed to 90% with massive high pressure air dropping at over 160 kmph and then a massive gradient wave of low pressure comes in straight after that...every air intake and vent ESPECIALLY to the Engine Room becomes a HUGE vacuum sucking water instead of air..and down she goes by the stern..twists..and lands and settles on her starboard side..
She heeled over 45 degrees, shipped water straight down those side-deck cutouts into the aft cockpit and main saloon, essentially the aft end flooding most, and she sank that way and to starboard since she was heed that way so water went to starboard aft. She went down fast because she shipped a massive amount of water fast.
I have sailed yachts since 1964, been an offshore yachtmaster, and also been on a yacht that sank when It shipped water. It has been obvious to me for some time now that the wind heeled her to over 45 degrees to starboard, water rushed over the sides, down through the side-deck cutout to the aft cockpit, and into the main saloon. She quickly sank stern first, but not vertically, and still tipped to starboard side.
Titanic sank bow first as it filled with water into the bow. She barely listed to starboard, as the water filled both sides quite evenly, whereas this yacht was already heeled over 45 degrees (but never the 75 degrees needed to lose stablility).
Your high vs low pressure air concept is rubbish.
Also the weight of items aft is largely irrelevant. The weight of water entering aft and to the starboard - lower side due to heeling from the wind, is why she sank stern first and to starboard.
It doesn't matter if she went down by the bow or stern. As soon as she began to ship water at ~45deg. the boat was well on her way to the bottom. She got into trouble when the anchor started dragging, the big issue that no one it talking about is the fact they were anchored in 50m of water. The scope needs to be at a bare minimum 3x the depth, if not 5 or 7 in bad conditions. How much chain do you think they have? The design is fundamentally flawed. The Bayesian was a very funny looking powerboat with an /extreme/ rig. Its bad at both. My education is in physics and yacht design and after looking at the stability curves my opinion is that the vessel is fundamentally flawed. BTW The two hours to sink the titanic is amazing, considering the damage, the design allow many people to escape.
@@Zerja it absolutely does matter
@@TCRS I will clarify. Of course it matters in determining exactly what happened. Until the hull and more video is recovered, I'm not ready to speculate. The characteristics of the boat are simply not appropriate for a blue-water sailing vessel. This is rather obvious upon inspection when looking at the data we do have. The design of the boat is inherently unsafe in any kind of serious wx. The boat was simply not designed for a blow-down, even though the windage of the rig is huge. The 45deg adf is a joke as far as ocean sailboats go, and it's not 100% true. The Bayesian had(has?) many openings where water can come in at or beyond 45. Some big ones are the engine/engine room ventilation and HVAC system. Here is where it gets really stupid. If there is a breeze on, and/or they want to see how hard they can push it, those big openings can be blocked off. The adf is significantly increased, by how much I don't know. But then you can't run the engines, the HVAC, or most of the generators and probably a bunch of other stuff. Think about that. In theory you wouldn't need them while sailing hard, and while motoring, you wouldn't be sailing hard. The Bayesian is not really a motorsailer and not an auxiliary sailboat either. Superyacht is a pretty meaningless term other than it be huge. The literal term here should be motor /or/ sail. The only time one would be stupid enough to try and max out that rig would be under ideal conditions. Otherwise I'm sure they are very conservative, if not all the time. I wouldn't go sailing on such a vessel with a caption who /wasn't/ terrified of that rig. All that said, the predicted weather, including the storm was nothing for a boat like that. Whatever weather event occurred to blow her over happened suddenly, violently, and impossible to predict. I see no reason for the Captain to make half of the necessary measures to survive a blow-over past the adf. However, my question is what are they doing anchored in 50m? Here the Captian should have known the boat was vulnerable to dragging. I could see one thinking, 'Well if it gets shitty, we'll power-up and haul anchor.' Considering the forecast, that is taking a pretty big risk, but no problem if you're quick. I doubt the schooner had a safe scope out either, but that guy hauled and powered up right away, certainly much faster than the Bayesian. If for no other reason than to assure the comfort of the crew, the Captian should probably have been awake and sensitive to what was happening. However due to the extreme nature of the weather event, and the extreme rig, I don't think there is much they could have done as the vessels base characteristics are inherently unsafe. This is 97% of the explanation I need. I feel bad for everyone involved.
ps- Keep up the good work.
They were not at a depth of 50 m. The depth was approximately 30 m. Read carefully. They were dragged to a depth of 50 m when they were torn from the anchor
They were anchored at the 20m depth line and dragged anchor to 50m depth.Letting hte vessel drag that far was a big (crew) mistake imo !
@@intrax2tv I see that as the critical failure. a 5:1 scope is reasonable for security under normal circumstances. I'd like to know how much chain they had out.
Excellent coverage Nick! Thank you for covering thus tragedy! I haven’t commented too much lately bc I’ve been super busy but I listen to all your videos & of course give a thumbs up on each one. I’m so happy to hear that your book sales have skyrocketed. Blood & Seawater was the first audio book I listened to of yours. I will read the other Scott Peterson books as soon as I’m done listening to all your audiobooks on Patreon first. I’m on my second series of Chris Watts books. Truly fascinating & I’ve learned so much from your books. I always appreciate your insights & the small fine details to every case. Wishes for continued success!! Hugs to you & Timmy!!
@@heidiescobedo2870 thanks Heidi. You would do me a huge favor if after listening to a book yiu went Amazon and left a review.
Because wind power is a square function, a 150 mph has 50X the force of 20 mph wind. I think tornadoes are capable of this. 100 mph is 25x that of a 20 mph wind
not sure why this is being persued as a sinister crime? the physics of it are pretty obvious,,,,,,
Well, it's being investigated by the Italian authorities - standard procedure in a situation like this. 7 people lost their lives. We owe it to them to find out precisely what happened.
@@TCRSabsolutely
@@TCRS Absolutely
Honestly we won't know if a crime occurred until the investigation is completed. We should get a uncontroversial report on the series of events that caused this boat to go down with passengers still on board.
Because his partner was killed 2 days before, thats why.....
They should now bring the yacht to the surface so it can be checked why so many passengers couldn't come out of their cabins but others could.
No, it's what happens after every single accident on a vessel and especially when lives and/or a vessel is lost: a maritime accident investigation.
This is mandatory by international maritime law and has to be done meticulously by all countries who signed.
The purpose?
To adjust rules concerning the certification of new vessels, advise strategies for safety and try to work out changes to help prevent future accidents.
While this accident was a real tragedy for families and friends losing their loved ones, there is a lot that can be learned by meticulously investigating the ship when it's re-floated and on dry land.
I do remember very well the outcry of the CEO of the manufacturing group "how can it be that this old vessel (Sir Baden Powell) survived, she didn't have any of the modern technology the Bayesian had!
Modern technology can certainly be a help on a well built and seaworthy vessel, but it can't replace seaworthiness. And modern technology is not built to withstand the harsh maritime environment.
Time will tell once they've got her out of the ditch.
The captain (Carsten) is not Dutch, he is German.
Great work. Experienced sailor with some knowledge of boat design. Like most sailors, given the inconclusive reports I'd seen on how the boat sunk, I assumed a knockdown. But then I heard it went down bowfirst, and wondered if something awful happened before the anchor broke off? The chain can pull loose lots of stuff from a boat at the bow end. But then there was no more mention of it. Tbh, I was not satisfied with the knockdown story, however. It doesn't track with my sailing experience actually cuz I've only seen a 'knockdown' on a boat with a sail on it. Never just from the mast. And even though the mast was burly AF with lots of other chunky rigging, I had to make a 'leap' to presume the 100kt plus winds could do so. But when I think about it it's actually not so. There simply is not enough windage up there to do so, in my sailors judgment.
The boat would not need to be 'knocked down' at all for your scenario to work. just heeled to say 45 degrees or so. Last. Consider that there is one crew bunk back by the engine room and it would be common to keep the watertight hatch open for ease of the crewmember coming and going. But in a storm, all the watertight hatches should have been closed. Might not have stopped it, but we need to know all of this to figure it out.
I dont think the keel was down that would make it so it wouldnt come back up
Take a look at 3:10 to 3:17 ... video footage of a bare-masted moored superyacht being knocked down by a localised tornado. The same video footage can be seen on some other channels and shows a 50 foot cruising catamaran (which would weigh between 10 to 25 tonnes) being blown right out of the water and landing upside down. Both events were caused by the same tornado which struck in a marina holding nearly 2000 other vessels yet there was practically no damage to other vessels moored a few metres away from these two. So, does that alter your judgment?
@@stephenbonnett164 No, as I already accounted for that as a similarly sized sloop in the same video as the cat flipping was knocked down and righted itself. The other video you cite shows another sloop righting itself after being hit.
You seem to have ignored the substance of my comment for reasons I am not interested in figuring out.
@@johnmycroft3065 Depends. The angle of vanishing stability with the keel up is 77 degrees. Keel down is 88 degrees. They apparently had the keel partially down. As I learn more, I'm becoming convinced that there may not have been knockdown at all, based on this guys work.
from what I’ve read thekeel was not down because it made too much noise at night and didn’t want to disrupt the guests sleep.
The retracted keel is partially the reason the yacht sank s quick as it did.
No new facts revealed , the analogy with Titanic is a far stretch to say the least. About the psychological angle and Hubris argument, i'd say this vid was made to have clicks , why not mention Titanic.
Quote of the day - Titanic sank with its ass in the air 😂 I've never heard it put quite like that 😂
@@cookingforsingles *got sunk 🤣 or was it the Olympic? Oh how does it go again.
It was its arse, not its ass, an ass is a type of donkey where this yacht was owned and registered.
South Africans, Australians and New Zealanders still speak the Queen’s English!
4autopsies showed suffocation not drowning. Stuck in an air pocket. Sad
Wellwith all the vatious ideas as to why so many died , usually bt drowning , either in the Sea water or Fouled air pockets , so the reason these died was that they were still onboard the boat , been better if they had abandoned the boat , to stay afloat ready to be rescued by other Craft etc ; Death by staying on board a sinking or sunken boat ; The mast being wrongly stated as having broken , could well be mistaken by the Mast lying at 90 degrees so not being seen from anything afloat or ashore in that area ; There was areport of a possible Whale in the Sea , which most probably was the Boats Hull with mast lying in the Sea at 90 degrees , so not visable at night .
I am an Italian psychic, spiritualist, medium, parapsychologist. And I know that several yachting competitors were hot on this boat, but other than that, the Bayesian was sunk. I say this as the gift I have!
Love your channel and analysis, Nick!
Thanks for the video! ...I saw many versions of this tragedy and do not agree with you that people/experts are fixed on how this all has happened.
That's good to hear. Perhaps we're reading different sources?
@@TCRSthinking...always thinking❤.
All I have seen so far is opinions opinions opinion. If you don’t ask the right questions it is impossible to get the right answers. No-one is asking questions
u will never get the right answers , never ....
The most ridiculous comparison to Titanic. Your ideas and view is so far fetched.
Port side starboard side bow and stern there is no stern side. Just the stern.
The super yacht sank super fast....sounds about right.
I understand that one of the questions leading to speculations is "Why was the Bayesian the only boat that sank out of all the boats in the same area?"
It's pretty obvious if it was the only boat beeing hit directly by a tornado or some similar storm that is known to just strike in very local spots, that many people don't think is possible if they never experienced that kind of weather phenomenon before.
She was the only one that sank because she was the only one that shipped a mass of water, when she only had to be heeled beyond a mere 45 degrees (taking in water straight into the hull via the side deck cutouts to the sunken aft cockpit and then to the main saloon).
Thanks so much Nick 👍
Nick, your spot on as usual.
Poor design along with poor seamanship...
We will never know the full truth.. there's too much money involved
We already know so much, and we're finding out more every day.
exactly one those kennedy or 9-11 stories ...
Titanic had no mast, and sank in much deeper water and the water ingress was caused by a large gash in its bow, so not the best example, however noting which end went down first isn't bad logic. It's position on the bottom had much more time to change its orientation.
A mast that tall would be slow to right, enough time for water to ingress.
It has been reported that the stern doors into the saloon had the habit of opening when the boat heeled. So heeled over a stern flooding is quite likely. The position on the bottom, still isn't particularly useful, but it "only" sank 50 m. Full of water and being a long boat, it didn't fall for very long. The statement that the mast was intact is very interesting. That pole probably played a major role in this quirky (being hit by a sea devil water spout) tragedy.
The vessel's AVS was approximately 78 degrees and the downflooding angle 45 degrees.
yes, and the downflooding angle 45 degrees is the relevant factor here. I am fairly sure she never got heeled to 78 degrees. Anything over 45 and she was going down. Also, BTW, once was was shipping water into the hull, the AVS would actually change, but this would be somewhat insignificant.
@@DavidTangye Agreed.
I think you should have gathered more than one data point to support some of your arguments. For example, yes, the Titanic landed upright on the bottom, but other sunken vessels do not. There were other assumptions that I was unimpressed with. But I do agree that hubris very likely did have a hand in the sinking. And I do think it's weird that people would think a boat which emphasizes luxury and comfort would be unsinkable while nobody thinks twice when a rugged, seaworthy vessel sinks due to weather beyond its capabilities. Both point to the misdirected respect that is paid towards money and wealth. But it has always been so and I suppose it's something in our basic makeup.
Keel lifted, openings open, any storm could capsize it. Captain escaped from Italy (and was allowed to do so). Crew and wife survived. HP's billions. Two suspects, two, actually one, motive. Sapienti sat.
Maybe you should just let the authorities do their job? All you are doing is speculating and stoking conspiracy theories……
The skipper; he's not Dutch but a German living in the Netharlands... Do your home work
The italian bout builders try to safe face by blaming the captain 😮rubisch it was a shitty bout
All the people with experience is sailing will tell you the same thing: 70 meters of mast is a behemoth, and with keel lifted it is very probable it tilted beyond the tipping point, and it doesn't matter how it is positioned on the seafloor, because he could have tilted after touching, what's important is how fast it sank, because bar that scenario, direct energy weapons, and all the doors opens, if you can explain how it sank you can't explain how it sank so fast. Most sailboats are design to stay mid water, not sink like stone.
I find it odd that the captain of the vessel that rescued the survivors, did not know the the events as told by the crew and had his own theory of mast snapping. This suggests that the survivors did not want to discuss what had happened. I get the impression that power failded before the knock-down and I suspect that power failed do to boat was sinking - engines flooded.
The mast did not snap, and anyway a snapping mast is HIGHLY unlikely to puncture that hull. People discussing broken masts have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about.
Maybe those stupid sliding doors which only remained shut when pinned shut. If they slid open then that would fill the boat quickly
There is not much attention being paid to the anchor situation. Imagine being at anchor in a normal situation and now speed up to full trottle in the direction of your anchor and keep on speeding. The anchor line releases it's tension at first but then after being ran over and being at the opposite site of the diameter, it will pull the bow with an unimaginable strength and dependend on the angle of boat and line pulls an incredible torque power. This movement will power the bow down and adds torque which tips down the yacht. Survivers said they were launched in the water, which could be the result of this sudden and extreme tensioning of the anchor line. The anchor being in the ground beyond the stern of the ship (in opposite direction due to extreme wind movement).
There is not much attention being paid to the anchor situation because it is utterly irrelevant, and your explanation is irrelevant, illogical nonsense.
Greetings Nick from America I really hope that they look into the death of a partner within days apart. That will be interesting if they find anything that’s questionable.👋🏻😎
They did, the lady who was driving remained at the scene, and has been questioned.
Again excellent analysis thank you😊
95% rubbish analysis IMO. Don't be sucked in by anything someone spouts on the internet, no matter how well it is presented.
No...we did not all miss the stern first clue.
Yeah, the narration there is laughable.
i think your living the fair tail there nothing like the titanic. you just mudding the waters with speculation no facts. size is not the problem nor luxury. it comes down to systems the watch person had to wake the captain and the captain need to give orders for the engineers to start the motors and captain gave the order to wake the crew up and the just run out of the time. their is no intercom's on the boat so it was by radio and the person to person communications this is what slowed their response compared to the other boat that their was just him to make decisions and start his engines it was a response time problem. The size of the boat did factor into the amount of the time need to get the motors started and get the caption and then engineers and the crew to stations. yes i know the time line and i know lots more but i cant go into it. I got the time hand first hand knowledge but that's all i can say. Please stop posting shit.
This, in my opinion, was a matter of questionable design choices. The very tall mast was one of them. The rather paltry ballast to displacement ratio was another. Finally, having the engine and AC vents out to the sides of the vessel was, I think, the final straw. This vessel sa k within about 15 minutes. The captain and crew seemed to have known it was going to sink, so they assisted as many guests as they could. It appears that they simply ran out of time.
The keel was lifted, windows open, if that was the regular practice (who would now know) it was bound for a mishap sooner or later. That I call an (un)intended murder, just in waiting for a reasonable storm to come. Mini-Tornado is a plus, but any storm would do the job. It would also be interesting to check, since the keel was "partially" lifted, whether there is some evidence that, maybe, keel was fully up, and then lowered only when it was already clear and safe that the ship will sink. To hide the traces. The remaining question: Did someone order it? There are candidates...HP, wife,...
Keel position is irrelevant. "Windows" is irrelevant. There are no opening "windows" (portholes) in the hull. Try again.
A Lesson in Mortality, we are born with nothing , and leave with nothing, the rest means nothing
The rest means what you make it to mean ! His name was Lynch and boy did he make his name mean something!
I wonder why yatch designers don't fit some sort of device, like big floaters, that could hold those boats afloat a bit longer? It could be something that ejects automatically when the boat starts to sink? Also why not having oxygen and/or equipment to keep breathing a bit longer or get out of those boats when they start to fill with water? Don't know if this makes sense.
@@santiago1966 IT makes alot of sense
The mass must have dragged the boat down faster than anything else! So awful! The mass is far too large and heavy for the size of the yacht!
Mass = displacement, which is essentially the size. Most people since Aristotle understand this. It floats because overall density is less than water. When she takes in water, air goes out and when overall density exceeds that of the surrounding water, shoe sinks . This is basic basic high school physics.
The titanic never sank. Do you not realize there are icebergs at that latitude and in April the nearest ones are over 500 miles away?
About time a flat-earther showed up to sort this matter out :-).
The lethality of the position of the VIP cabins is that it is estimated that it would take 8-12 secs for a VIP guest to walk from the VIP cabin area to the upper deck walking at O.5 metres per second>but it could have been achieved if there had been emergency lighting and emergency signage clearly indicating the staircase as the only emergency exit from the VIP cabins!
I suppose it was the combination of the fairly low angle of vanishing stability coupled with the overly tall mast, these two factors led it be blown over and then flooded.
So far have not seen any evidence of that this could have been realistically avoided by action of the crew. Looks like the design criteria of the vessel simply just did not cover the force of such tornado/water spout. Design flaw? Yes and no, vessel probably fulfilled the class criteria, if so legally its covered. Would it have been possible to design safer, sure....but that probably would have impacted on the "cool" factor of the design....IMHO best outcome from this would be that they tighten the class/design criterias on this type of vessels. Or then we just accept that nothing is 100% safe.
Yep. Someone left the garage door open
As HGV driver ( UK) I agree with your psychological points. I see all day expensive cars driven erratic and lost in space despite all those expensive eletronic aids on board.
Money cannot buy a brain and observation / hazard awareness skills.
Often those systems simply divert attention from the obvious hazard in front. Or above. Or underneath. Or on side. Or in back. 😅
calculate the force of the spout that crossed their ship and see if it could be pushed under water .
Unless the author has some inside information not so far made public the bodies of the 5 passengers together in the same cabin were categorically NOT found in the crew quarters forward, but in the Guest Cabin Midships which as the Investigation made public is the highest point of the vessel as it lies on the seabed
Angle of loll is not the same as the angle of vanishing stability by any means.
Hubris, yes, perhaps the primary cause. It was also Hubris that was the primary cause of the Titanic Disaster. So much Denial and Hubris that the Bayesian indeed went softly into that Good-Night!
#HFACS
Everything is speculation. The only facts are; that there was a waterspout, the boat heeled over, it sank and there were drowned victims.
Thank you Nick, this analysis has really helped.
It would seem the crew were not prepared for such things. Human error is a huge wake up call. 😢
Totally wrong. It only helped you draw the wrong conclusions.
On paper any boat can be labeled unsinkable that's how they sell their products, but once it is in the water thats a different story, extreme weather conditions coupled with so many things that could go wrong with the boat in those conditions, not forgetting the chance of human error then again the time of sinking all play a part in what went down. Sadly most of this investigation will be guess work
tall poppy mast syndrome
😂one point you missed was that is has been reported that the drop keel had been lifted therefore the stability of the vessel would have been compromised in an extreme weather condition such as was experienced on the night the tragedy took place
The keel position would have made it easier for a beam wind to heel her to 45 degrees more easily. After that angle was reached, she filled with water and sank.
Stability has to have been a problem. Maybe the keel, maybe alterations. Maybe storage on-board.
Stability has to have been a part of the problem, in that she could heel too easily to a mere 45 degrees and then water could pour in. The fundamental problem was that she would sink if ever heeled beyond 45 degrees.
Front line winds can mimic a tornado...
If you want to figure out why the worst happened try looking at the clear weather pictures, tides, current, anchor point and how the winds took the vessel. You might find the wind got the anchor line across the adjustable keel and added to the tipping. That's just in case you are trying to figure out what really bad could of happened.
GOOD VIDEO
What I've noticed is the conflicting testimonies being leaked out to the public. One report quoting the engineer of the Bayesian reportedly said, "it sank bow first."
Who's telling the truth? What are the facts, everything is speculation at this point because the crew and captain are lawyer-ing up and clamming up because of charges of manslaughter and negligence.
I'm waiting until they raise it and there is a formal hearing and documented testimony from the crew and the expert yacht designers who built it.
No stop it a 7 rear old sailor could tell you what caused this.
The sinking of a boat, any boat, is not an allegory but it is caused by rational factors.
Hubris has nothing to do with a sinking as long as the human factor is out of the picture. Hubris can be argued with the Titanic as the owner asked the captain to speed despite the ice field they were approaching; as far as the Bayesian is concerned there is no way the human factor can be called for : it is not the Concordia.
Then again why this man tells us the boat didn't sink in 2 minutes when all witnesses said it did? And why compare this with the fate of the Titanic???
Why telling us the Titanic went bow first? We're talking about a different boat, sinking for a different reasons : Titanic has nothing to do here.
Divers state that all persons (except one) who drowned in the boat where found in the front part of the boat, ie. the crew quarters. This is not impossible for many reasons. One of them being (this is a human factor) that relationship between owner, guests and crew as not as hierarchical as they used to be so modern people could mingle more easily given this situation. It may well be they all went to meet the crew to ask what should be done… At any rate rewriting the story when facts tell otherwise is preposterous.
etc… etc…
I really don't understand why someone who acknowledges he has no knowledge of boats and boat engineering feels entitled to give an alternative explanation that relies on human factors such as "hubris".
It’s either stern or bow neither are “sides “ they are aft and fore .the sides are port and starboard.
Yep. just shows how total newbs can say anything on their channel and 90% of people will be sucked into believing the narrative.
The divers said furniture was all over? Not bolted down? This vessel was only supposed to sail in good weather?
Gosh your arrogance here is breath taking riding on the back of a tradegy. To discuss extravagance in this context is pretty low level journalism . As you state you are just quoting what others have said - Just trading on others knowledge.. you do not know any more than others... untuil it is raised off the seabed and the investigation is complete. Any other quotes such as your narrative is just speculation - And comparing Titanic is utter tosh.. you keep talking about extravagance - makes you sound just plain chippy.
Did the Titanic also have a massive mast? The similarities seem obvious. Love the way you think
The mast would only be a factor depending upon where it broke. Which of course it did not. As mentioned before this is all irrelevant if the keel is not fully deployed, the yacht would be unstable as a result. A mast that size provides a large surface for "windage" where the wind can act upon it, as would high freeboard on the outer hull (the gap between the deck and the water line). Most of these things are considered in the design of boats. That being said anything will sink with a hole in it, if a sea cock is open or if there is damage to a prop shaft or rudder gland for example. The transition between wet and dry areas of a yacht for machinery etc are the weakest points. If you've observed something sink to the bottom, it does not behave as you think it should, there is water resistance and the shape of the object to account for. The mast is intact, she did not capsize, the length of the mast far outreaches the depth of the water. That is why she is on her side. Weight.
I realise we like to blame someone when something goes wrong at sea, but we must also accept that we are dealing with nature and with nature there;s a lot beyond our control. I was at sea 50 plus years and have often been surprised by the power of nature. when first in command I used to insist there's no such thing as an accident, its either down to poor planning, poor leadership, poor design or poor maintenance. i soon realised that its wise to keep an open mind and accept that not everything can be predicted when dealing with nature.
The Bayesian was at anchor in 20 meters of water; here it says the anchor gave way at 3:55 and the boat came to rest on it's starboard side in 70 meters so: Was there enough chain in the water? Is the chain still attached to the bow? Is the chain fouled under the boat? What is the lay of the chain in relation to where the boat settled? Did the anchor "reset" or foul as the boat was being forced sideways causing the "jerking" that was talked about and the "lifting" before the crew were "flung" "flipped" into the sea? As a side note: The name Bayesian from the Oxford Dictionary the adjective is based on the Bayes theorem; Noun: a follower of statistical methods based on Bayes' theorem.
"there is no general agreement among Bayesians about how to resolve this problem". Bayes theorem is also known as the formula for the probability of “causes” where every new piece of information can change the probability... Well, isn't that the truth... Mike really did know how to name this yacht! Stop speculating until we have all of the facts!
The depth of water, and dragging anchor, are both utterly irrelevant, but do show up comments from people who have no idea about what they are talking about.
That guy that said he saw boat sink but I could see him from my balcony that his boat never moved for 3 days. Always in same place. He left the afternoon the boat sunk
As a Chief Stew, JUST MY OPINION, even if the crew had 2 brain cells fighting against each other, they 💯 would have made sure the GARAGE DOOR WAS SHUT, like that YACHTING101 and basics ... IF anything was left open, it was the "YACHT CLUB DECK" / "TRANSOM" / "LAZZIRETT" doors on the Stern of the Yacht (where the nameboard "BAYESIAN" is on the door), because the Owner and guests were still down there and wanted privacy.), Which leads to the ENGINE ROOM which was probably not sealed.
BUT, How TF were all the BILGE PUMP ALARMS ⏰️ not alertering prior to this??? 🤔Was there water BREACHING the engine ROOM and lower decks? Where the other ALARMS NOT GOING OFF ⁉️⁉️
DID THIS YACHT HAVE ALARMS for all the other SYSTEMS onboard ⁉️⁉️ I Do NOT understand, i worked on a 157' SAILING YACHT, if you FARTED EVERY ALARM went off ‼️‼️‼️‼️RIDICULOUS
🧐🧐🧐 I AM SOFA KING CONFUSED 😕 HOW DOES A 200 FT + SAILING YACHT/motor Yacht NOT have an ENGINEER ONBOARD⁉️
Bonus question 🎒 was there a SUB aboard 🤔🧐...
I know these "SEEM " like questions but they not really "questions" just food for thought 😮
As a chief steward, you should stick to stewarding. There is no evidence that either hull door (at port aft and on the transom) were open.
Water almost certainly poured in when she heeled to over 45 degrees in the downburst of wind. That's a basic design error.)
@DavidTangye @DavidTangye OMG SHERLOCK YOU CRACKED THE CASE 🍪 👍..... 🙄🤣
#1. STOP SPAMMING THE COMMENTS .... you made 34 comments JUST TONIGHT telling everyone they are wrong on a post from a week ago... TROLL MUCH 🧌 ... 👀
#2. Welcome to the party WEEKS into the INVESTIGATION, to regurgitate the same 💩 100,000 other people said 👏👏👏👏 very original 🙄
#3. I said STERN, I never said PORT SIDE OR HULL... Lay off the COCAINE ....
#4. Pretty sure nobody gives AF what your opinion of their opinion is... nobody is gonna know 💩 until they get the ship out of the water...
#5. I didn't ask for CAREER advice. If I did need advice I certainly would not come to TH-cam and ask some CRACKHEAD TROLL ... But thanks anyway 🤣... weirdo 😜
@@DavidTangye @DavidTangye OMG SHERLOCK YOU CRACKED THE CASE 🍪 👍..... 🙄🤣
#1. STOP SPAMMING THE COMMENTS .... you made 44 comments JUST TONIGHT telling everyone they are wrong on a post from a week ago... TROLL MUCH 🧌 ... 👀
#2. Welcome to the party WEEKS into the INVESTIGATION, to regurgitate the same 💩 100,000 other people said 👏👏👏👏 very original 🙄
#3. I said STERN, I never said PORT SIDE OF HULL... Lay off the COCAINE ....
#4. Pretty sure nobody gives AF what your opinion of their opinion is... we will probably NEVER find out the truth.
#5. I didn't ask for CAREER advice. If I did need advice I certainly would not come to TH-cam and ask some Random CRACKHEAD TROLL ... But thanks anyway 🤣... weirdo 😜
@DavidTangye STOP spamming the Comments 7 days later with 44 comments.. didn't ask career advice from a troll but thanks anyway 🙄🤣🤣🤣
Wow, that timeline at the end. It all happened very quickly.