Big sailboat sunk by tornado

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Comodave said:
The builder also said it was unsinkable…
Click to expand...
As attributed to Christine Keeler in The Profumo Affair "He would say that wouldn`t he?"
 
Benthic2 said:
But as it lists more the righting moment of the keel keeps increasing and the "wronging" moment of the mast decreases. Well before 73 degrees the hull is going to direct airflow up and over the mast reducing its tilting force completely. Theoretically the boat should only lean until a sufficient portion of its mast is in the wind shadow of the hull to make the keel the dominant force.
Click to expand...
The mast was 246 feet long. At a 73 degree list, the tip of the mast would be 72 feet above the base. Still plenty of windage at that angle.

Even with no windage, if 73 degrees is the point of negative stability (if that is the right term), that is the point at which the boat would roll over. So the keel would not right the boat after that point.
 
psneeld said:
One report I read said that it may have been a microburst instead of tornado/straight line winds so wind angle guesses could all be way off.
Click to expand...
The Italian Air Force confirmed that it was indeed a downburst/microburst.
 
Plus there were quite a few spreaders now at an an
Comodave said:
The Italian Air Force confirmed that it was indeed a downburst/microburst.
Click to expand...
Thanks...wonder if the US Military bases there can confirm that with second opinions or they just use the Italian weather sources.
 
My current hypothesis is that the Bayesian was taking on water before it heeled. When the microburst came it heeled 20 degrees, the loose water shifted and it never recovered afterwards. The reports that it heeled 20 degrees and then continued seem to indicate that. Something was wrong with the boat way earlier than we think.
 
Has there been any definitive answer on whether the two garage doors were open or closed prior to the storm? Between crew statements and reports from the divers, I would expect a definitive answer.
 
We may not know until the raise the vessel. I am surprised that decision has already been made. I would think with remotes and divers they could do a pretty thorough investigation without the expense of recovery. I did read that the cost of recovery is born by the owner, so maybe the authorities called for raising the wreck because they don't have to pay for it.
Does an insurance company do their own investigation or do they just wait for the official gov't investigation ? If the cause is determined to be a design flaw, would the insurance company reimburse the owner and then go after the builder, or just deny the claim and make the owner pursue the builder ?
 
I had read where they were concerned about pollution. So the concern is to get the oil/fuel out

At 160 feet, may just be easier to raise it. Lots of things to consider.

I was involved with the raising with a very expensive yacht off Cape May, NJ. It was a 100+ foot sportfisherman worth millions (gold plated plumbing fixtures, marble everything, and a big insurance policy reported as worth more than the yacht was).

They tried for months and weather kept hampering the efforts. We had to fly USCG inspectors out every time they thought it might be on the way up. It never really happened and the kevlar slings trying to raise it wound up sawing into the hull so all attempts were scratched. So some salvages go easy, some not so much.
 
According to a report that I saw the lady with the infant was on deck and a large wave took the infant out of her hands. But a couple of seconds later another wave brought the infant back to her and she was able to grab the infant and then kept the infant above the water until they got into the life raft.
 
Comodave said:
According to a report that I saw the lady with the infant was on deck and a large wave took the infant out of her hands. But a couple of seconds later another wave brought the infant back to her and she was able to grab the infant and then kept the infant above the water until they got into the life raft.
Click to expand...
Simply astounding!
 
Yes, maybe the one good thing to come out of the whole ordeal.
 
Poseidon was gracious. Gave the innocent infant back - :)
 
SeaDogAK said:
FYI:
Bayesian stability report
Click to expand...
Very interesting to read the instructions to the master. They were entirely concerned with stability while under sail with almost no concern while at anchor. The only instruction of note was to have the engine room door closed while the stern garage was open.

Also, the keel was only required to be lowered for sailing.
 
I just saw a video reporting that the boat builder is going to sue the owner of the yacht…

But then another report says they are not going to sue, who knows.
 
It would seem the boat is owned by a corporate entity which the wife controls
 
That is what I heard too. But they could also sue the estate.
 
Apparently the builder has 4 boats in production and the customers are cancelling or suspending their orders because sinking at anchor is not a desirable feature. I feel for the business as it is suffering and might have no fault at all. I just have trouble accepting that a vessel that has been plying the seas for 16 years had a design flaw. I think an angle of vanishing stability of 45 degrees seems low, but I don't have much feel for the elements of boat design. I spent a lot of time in a Pearson 26 as a kid and a 45 degree heel wasn't unheard of. I guess I sort of feel that if a buyer is aware of the specs for a boat and buys it anyway, you can't blame the builder. (Obviously if the builder lied about the specs, that's different.)
I also wonder to what standard a builder has to build a boat to survive a weather event. If an event is a once in a 25 year kind of event, I think it should be survivable. If it is a once in a thousand year event, I think it is unreasonable to expect that kind of survivability. I guess I'm saying I think a boat should be able to survive something that happens every "X" years. X should be greater than 25 and less than 1000, but I don't know where exactly.
 
I agree. A tornado can (and does) turn a whole house into toothpicks. If a water spout runs over your boat?
 
Now they are saying that the lawyer that filed the suit went rogue so they fired him and pulled the suit.
 
Benthic2 said:
Apparently the builder has 4 boats in production and the customers are cancelling or suspending their orders because sinking at anchor is not a desirable feature. I feel for the business as it is suffering and might have no fault at all.
Click to expand...
I don't have a lot of sympathy for that builder. First of all, trying to throw the captain, crew and widow under the bus before all the facts are in is just evil. Then, as that other builder said in one of the videos I saw, the boat was built to win awards for looks, not for seaworthiness. I get that the builder is just giving the wealthy owners what they want, and until now they didn't care about safety. Now they do. Sorry. You went into that business. You pushed this crap. Deal with the consequences.
Comodave said:
Now they are saying that the lawyer that filed the suit went rogue so they fired him and pulled the suit.
Click to expand...
Not buying it. They said this after they started getting flack from all directions for what I believe was their decision to sue. They already have a reputation for throwing others under a bus (see above.) The lawyer was just next in line.
 
I don’t buy it either just saying what was reported. The builder said at one time the boat was unsinkable…. How did that work out?
 
CaptTom said:
I don't have a lot of sympathy for that builder. First of all, trying to throw the captain, crew and widow under the bus before all the facts are in is just evil.
Click to expand...
The builder also seemed to orchestrate a TV show that blamed the crew and showed a graphic based on erroneous AIS/GPS information. The captain of the ship that rescued the survivors tried to correct some of the inaccuracy in the TV shows "reporting" but the show cut the connection to the captain.

It is hard to believe that the lawyer that filed the law suit did so without approval. I think the CEO saw the backlash against suing the widow, who also lost her daughter, and one would think friends, and had to find someone to blame, so it was the "rogue" lawyer. It will be interesting to see if the builder sues the "rogue" lawyer.

I would think the crew and widow will be suing the builder. When they win, I wonder how much the company will be actually worth. Suing the window has to be one of the most daft decisions the CEO could have made. To make it worse, I assume she is already very wealthy, if not a billionaire, and the builder picked a fight with her? She has the money to make the company's life very difficult but the CEO's actions put a noose around his own neck waiting for someone to pull. He has a bunch of people waiting to pull.
 
To early for me to find fault with anyone.

The facts need to be assembled and presented by pros.

But any piece of equipment can fail if you don't follow the instructions, especially the ones printed in red.

Legal maneuvering (such as suit/countersuit) often has nothing to do with right/wrong...or morality. It's about survival/protecting oneself. I learned a long time ago, the side that has momentum had a huge advantage as the other is playing catchup.
 
psneeld said:
To early for me to find fault with anyone.
Click to expand...
That is true, except for that builder who has publicized his "faults" for all to see. They are clearly defined above, and in videos, statements and lawsuits he has made. Even if you buy the "rogue lawyer" story (I don't) the rest of his actions are patently despicable. So, to me, the fault is pretty easy to find, albeit just in this one aspect of the case. I certainly wouldn't rule in or out anyone else's faults until more is known.
 
I just happen to not see it that way. The builder like I said might have been expecting a suit against the company and the best way to help your case is beat the opponent to the punch.

Despicable? Matter of opinion. If it's a stock company or even just a small group of people well tied into it, losing a lawsuit is never good.

Do we even know what the lawsuit was really about? What the actual claim said? Some are not even monetary based, just clearing fault and getting the full info out to the public.

Nope I don't assign blame till I know A LOT MORE FACTS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Fortress / Danforth mooring
Replies
12
Views
2K
Brooksie
Brooksie
Hydraulicjump
A dearth of trawlers in the Adriatic and Ionian
Replies
10
Views
1K
Xlantic
Xlantic
L
South passage from Charleston, SC to St. Thomas
Replies
2
Views
913
Dnnsmrgn
D
WindMaiden
Solar Panel
Replies
15
Views
2K
SteveK
SteveK
S
Dragging Anchor
2 3
Replies
63
Views
5K
Mako
M

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom