The sinking of the Bayesian Yacht - An honest discussion 

As an ex NZ Super yacht builder I was appalled at the PN CEO calling out the crew and skipper. Because this boat had the tallest and I bet heaviest Alloy mast (far more than the equivalent of a carbon rig) the builders opted to add more internal ballast than originally designed to help with the initial tenderness of the yacht because of such a large heavy spar. This would have lowered the freeboard a little this lowering the flood angle from the original design. The event that morning were extrodanary but I feel that the CEO of PN must be feeling pretty bloody worried and so he should. I hope the crew and captain can have a chance to scrutinized PN and learn that the boat did indeed have design and build flaws.

Money quote from this interview: "the illusory world the super rich believe can be created for them by the people around them." He nailed it with that one. Smart man.

First sensible, real world analysis I’ve seen of this debacle. Thanks once again for your candour, Dick Beaumont, a voice of reason in a sea of stupidity

Fully agree with your assessment. How disgusting it is to blame the crew within hours of a disaster. The CEO of the company realised they were in trouble the moment the news hit.

I hadn’t heard of a ‘downburst’ until the reporting of this event. I experienced an extreme weather event on passage between Hawaii and San Diego on a Hallberg-Rassy 42E. I received a weather fax forecasting a developing Low Pressure system with Hurricane force expected. Naturally I shortened sail (fully reefed main, equivalent furl to genoa and no mizzen) even though wind speeds were below 18 knots at the time. Cutting to the chase, we saw some dark clouds on the horizon so we put the storm boards in and monitored the situation. Suddenly, the wind speed increased from

I think the boat designer is at fault. Building a sailboat with a flooding angle of 45 degrees and then putting a mast so large windage can send it over 45 degrees is criminal. The builder and designer should have refused to build such a monstrosity and the government should not have approved it.

Thank you guys, I agree completely with everything you have said. I am a retired superyacht captain, I previously worked on a Perini Navi sailing yacht, and yes those large heavy sliding doors caused us problems in rough weather I was horrified to hear the comments of the Perini Navi representative putting all the blame on the crew within a few hours of this disaster and also the Italian legal prosecuter saying there was probable cause of manslaughter by three crew members, all of this before the results of any investigations are concluded. This yacht was hit by a freak weather event that no one could have predicted and I believe the crew were all on deck doing what the crew would normally do, securing the boat. The crew were all washed overboard, one crew member sadly drowned and the crew rescued other guest and got them in the lifeboat. That yacht sank in such a short period of time, I believe no crew on any yacht could have or would have done any different. Some of the press and media reports are totally disgusting and we should all wai for final enquiries. The crew should get themselves the best maritime lawyers available as i feel they are being set up as scapegoats in this tragic event RIP to all those souls who perishedt🎉

Hi Dick, I photographed and brokered your yacht "Moonshadow" for you in Sydney about 8 years ago... First thing I want to stress is that well designed seaworthy yachts do not sink at anchor! As soon as the Giovanni Costantino the CEO of Perini Navi started trying to stitch the captain and crew up, by claiming that Bayesian was unsinkable, I have been filling RU-vid comment boxes with the facts about the poor yacht design as you are doing here. I called the tall mast a pissing contest for rich guys and also described the waterfall of water that occurred after she heeled 45 degrees, which would have sought the lowest point in the yacht, where the hapless guests slept. Thank you for your comments and support for the captain and crew and for highlighting how unseaworthy this floating condo actually was. It is no mystery to me that "The Lord Baden Powell" survived unscathed only a few meters away from Bayesian because she is a properly designed old yacht. Sticking a mast and keel on a gin palace is the real negligence here, and I hope that you get consulted as an expert witness in this case.

Gratifying to have my own analysis confirmed. The three largest staterooms all ran out to the starboard side. When she capsized everybody in those cabins was suddenly on the side of the boat. with their only exit 3-4 metres above their heads. They must have floated up, with the water flooding through; first up into the passage way, then finally, as she sank by the stern, into the forward, port cabin where, it now appears, they may have survived for a short time. The horror and terror is just about unimaginable. I hope it was brief. My instincts were screaming that the builder’s rush to blame the crew bespoke a guilty conscience, and then I saw the plans and photos on their website, heard of the 73° AVS (point of no return) and the 45°down flooding angle and I pieced it all together. Then I knew they were going to try and blame it on the crew. I think any yacht would have been knocked flat by the wind that capsized Bayesian. Seaworthy yachts would have recovered without shipping sufficient water to sink them. To the Captain and Crew, Kia Kaha, no Aotearoa..

Fantastic, this is so spot on! I would like to add that, while technically a sloop rigged sailboat, this boat was actually....stability wise....more of a motor yacht, with a design to minimize heeling and to stay upright...which she did for oh, 16 years. But the Achilles Heel ...that mast and weight and drag from it, caused it to be vulnerable to an extraordinary weather event given it's poor angles of recovery. The video seemed to imply that prior to the downburst, the boat was doing as designed - staying very upright - quite a low angle of heel - until BAM - a microburst driven total knockdown and immediate sinking. What a great interview - thanks fellas!!!!!

As an italian, i feel the duty to comment two points discussed at 4.50-5.10. First of all, in the italian code there is not the crime of "negligent manslaughter": probably something went lost in translation. The crew is under investigation for two different crimes: 1) multiple manslaughter; 2) unintentional sinking, which is conceptually completely indipendent from point 1). Here the sinking is labelled as "unintentional" to oppose it to the crime of "intentional sinking", which of course is another ( and much heavier) matter. Of course, the unintentional sinking can only be a consequence of neglicence, and that's why probably at the end the confused and nonexisting crime of "negligent manslaughter" was reported from some people. The second point I would like to stress is that I am confident that the judges will take their decisions without any purpose to protect the reputation or the interests of the company. In general in Italy judges care a lot about being indipendent in their decisions, and public opinion and the press are pretty demanding about the courts being free from any pressure or particular interest as well. So, never say never of course, but honestly I woudn't be worried about this point. Moreover, they know that all the eyes are on them, so they have to be as objective as it gets.

Pleased to hear you speak out in support and sympathy with the crew. I was shocked the other company owner would blame the crew within hours of the sinking. Full credit.

Very gratifying to find this sensible take after all the nonsense that appeared on YT immediately after the event. So many people seemed to think Bayesian was a trailer-sailer, with all the ballast in a keel that you drop when you launch. The reality is that she looked like a sailing vessel but in reality she was a motor vessel with a sailing rig for show and photo-ops in specific moderate conditions. It's clear that the design placed too much faith in size, believing she was too big to be knocked over by wave action, or by reliably forecast wind in the designated sailing range. Terminal hubris. The budget didn't extend to engineering air intakes that weren't water intakes.

Regarding the comment from the boat builder that the sunken yacht was unsinkable: the original interview, in Italian, on Italian TV was challenged in Italy and explained in the same TV interview. The phrase was qualified to mean; within the parameters of the design, build and advised use / sailing of the yacht. There is no suggestion that the yacht could never be sunk. Regarding the official investigation and potential criminal charges: this is standard practice under Italian Law. There is no pre-supposition of guilt, just the possibility that people have died due to some preventable human error. The tone of quite a few English language discussions is cynical about Italian legal procedures and suggest potential cover-ups; based on zero evidence, ignorance of Italian law, poor translations and stereotypes. Hardly objective duscussion.

Your assertation as to the cause of the sinking is exactly what I have been saying for weeks now, and I have said as much several times on the eSysman Superyacht Report channel. That's an excellent photo of the side deck cutouts. It highlights how tons of water would pour in once the 45 degrees angle was exceeded. The only aspect you did not seem to understand fully, was the nature of the wind. The downblast could have happened a small distance away, and changed to outward wind including the twister/waterspout that was seen on video from shore that actually started near or on-shore. That horizontal wind might travel for a few hundred metres, like an isolated 'river' air, similar to isolated 'rivers' of current that occur in parts of the ocean. I experienced both the air and sea versions several times, especially around hilly coasts (eg around Wellington New Zealand and the Greek islands). The downbursts I have seen are relatively mild, being caused by wind bombing down off cliffs, not from cold air bombing down from perhaps thousands of metres high, but the outcome when the burst hits sea-level is conceptually the same. The highly localised squalls that radiate outwards, often unevenly, can easily hit 50 knots for many seconds, (perhaps over a minute?), and I don't think Bayesian needed to be heeled more than 30 seconds past 45 degrees to sink her. It appears that she got hit broadside on. Once she shipped a critical amount of water, the wind could stop, and she would be settled and keep shipping while listed. She would not pop upright, as the water inside would change the whole righting dynamic. This is what happens when we can out sailing dinghies of some designs and they fill their cockpit and swamp to different degrees depending on design (and in my case was on a racing keeler that sank with similar effects in play). I shall recommend people to come watch this video from now.

This is the best and the only to-the-point analysis of Bayesian sinking that I have seen. And I have many. THANK YOU Kraken! Sagol!

As well, on these big sailing yachts, as lovely as they are, a lot of seaworthy design was sacrificed for prettiness, spaciousness, "design." Noteworthy in those wide open spaces are a lack of handholds, anywhere. And yes, those patio style doors are problematic, sailing and motoryachts. They look nice enough but when they fail, either open or shut, are a problem. The Evian thing happens. In the end, the crew did what they could but sacrificing their lives is not part of the bargain. It's a yacht, not a Don Quijote quest. I'm sorry the chef drowned. The deaths of the guests and owner onboard are tragic and I would not wish that on anyone, it must have been terrifying. Thank you for sticking up for the captain and crew Mr. Beaumont. Seaworthiness #1

Much sense talked by Dick and Dick again. Perhaps the designers of mega-yachts need to remember that first and foremost a boat is a boat. Keeping the sea out should be the first duty of the designers, and plush fittings and extravagant features should be secondary.

Most of these super yachts are designed and fitted out primarily for the comfort of the guests. The safety and seaworthyness is compromised tremendously, because of this,and the yacht manufaturerswill never admit to this,because they give the client what they ask for. The crew is cramped into a small space and is often overworked and do not get the necessary resting periods. They have to be there at everybody's beck and call. This was a freak of nature and a tragic accident... full stop.

Everything you have discussed here makes more sense than anything I've read so far. Well said.

In my view the Kraken Yachts guy is 100% correct on the causes of the sinking. He is 100% incorrect in attributing so called "man made climate change:" to the freak weather event. He fails also to mention the actual Bayesian Yacht designer. Pier Navini were the builders not the designers. But given the intemperate outburst from PN,s it would not surprise me in the least if PN had departed radically from the original boat design. The original designer has an exceptionally good record.

Good to hear two experienced ‘Sea Dogs’ having a balanced conversation about this boat. The comment ‘At sea, the sea is the governor’ is so accurate. The summation is incredible.

Thanks for the extremely valuable insights given. Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about.

A very interesting conversation. I am shocked at the figures. One point nobody is talking about. The guests had just taken part in a celebratory dinner. I would imagine a good few bottles of insanity expensive wine, port, cognac and malt were consumed. I suspect the guests weren’t sober. This may have impeded their ability to exit quickly. A bit speculative but also very possible.

The amount of water required to sink that boat so fast must have been not only massive but the flow of that water also must have been so fast as to make it physically impossible for any swimmer to overcome.

Thank You! for going on record, standing up for the crew. The scape-goating is absolutely disgusting. And let's be blunt. The classism is blatant and outrageous. If weather capsized a skiff and working people died, it would be a tragic but passing news blurb. But an expensive floating villa chosen by billionaires for convenience, luxury, and prestige over seaworthiness drowns a few super wealthy; and corporations and government band together to shift blame to employees. If this is impartial investigation of possible criminal negligence, why wasn't the board of Perini Navi asked to surrender their passports for the duration?

I really enjoyed the way you were discussing this event, especially having the video in mind, when you talked about seaworthy boats with the Millenials on their YT-channel. When you did the video with Adam there was no tragic accident ahead so you could discuss criteria for offshore-rating of production boats with an amusing black humor. The videos with Adam are 3 years old now and they are as up to date as they can be. When you argued that there are 201 people responsible I thought you would be coming up with the regulations again. We completely agree on the first one and it must have been a pain for the naval architect to sign of the boat as a boat. It was a floating partyzone. On the other hand the naval architect was an honest man. He documented the 45° flooding angle, he documented the AVS of 73° but obviously the boat was registered in the UK as an ocean going yacht and nobody insisted on "Hide the party-zone in the channels of Venice, anything else might end as a tragedy!" I am also interested in the outcome of the investigation and the consequences for the crew. I hope they will not blame them for the problems in boat design and the acceptance of such designs by the officials. You once mentioned that at sea you need a boat that looks after you and not the other way around. The Bayesian would have been a quite safe boat but only with the AC-vents closed, with all doors and hatches locked, ... and this is definitely not what you do in a protected anchorage in a summer night when you want the AC running...

I have seen 3 water spouts at sea, none closer than 2nm away, the last one 5 weeks ago. I have been knocked down by a rogue wave with the mast briefly going underwater. My AVS is 115 ° so the knockdown was a close thing. You will experience freak events if you are at sea long enough.

I imagine billionaire living in a bubble meeting a shipbuilder also living in a bubble. Its an instant chemistry.

The conclusion at 31 minutes is absolutely spot on. All sailboats should be able to right after a knockdown. They should be designed to survive such an event. The enormous mast was an absurdity. The boat was all about prestige.

In a different context, we just lost the roof of our house to a tree fall due to an intense and extremely local wind storm (about 60-90 seconds of peak wind strength) that did no other damage in the area but was strong enough to snap and splinter a 30+ inch diameter trunk of a tree at about shoulder height whilst causing zero indication of any root stress (no root uplift at all). There were no severe weather warnings.

I’m surprised that various media outlets are still quoting Giovanni Constantino (the CEO at Italian Sea Group) when he talks nonsense about the seaworthiness of BAYESIAN, blames the crew etc. To be clear; Constantino’s company bought PN out of bankruptcy in 2022. They did the deal mainly to get possession of shipyards around La Spezia and Viareggio. Bayesian was built, launched and delivered long before Constantino and his management team had anything to do with its design or construction.

As an engineer I think that was no need to loss seven lives if the watch, the engineer and the capitan took appropriete measures as quick as possible. The sailboat could be lost but lives would be saved. Kraken is an expert in very small pure sailboats (small engine ?).

I soo love Dick Beaumont ! He's my kind of fella,. Speaks his mind, his experience, the truth.

Something that strikes me is that a passenger was in the cockpit with her baby. I just don’t believe she would be there if the weather had seemed threatening. But… it also tells us that they didn’t have the saloon doors locked in. And honestly, 20 knots wouldn’t seem that much given the sheer numbers of sailors posting videos of sailing in 20 knots. 34:16 What many people don’t get is that microbursts are well known to cause MORE damage than tornadoes. My guess is that the downburst occurred just to port of the boat. Add in what the mother said, it likely caused the boat to suddenly heel to near the stability point throwing her overboard. Meanwhile water is rushing into the solon since its doors were not locked shut. And even if someone was watching the radar, there would have been no real way to know a downburst was about to happen. We get no warning in TX in spite of four very high tech weather radars.

Fantastic discussion that pulled everything together very well. A very big Thank You. Like many others here I have sailed yachts offshore for 50 years and been knocked flat on numerous occasions when racing and always righted after the load was taken off the rig. I naively assumed that these super yachts were scaled up versions of this familiar model and would behave in the same way. But you explained so clearly why this is not the case. One small addition to this discussion - some commentators have stated that the low downflooding angle would have immersed the exhaust ports for the engine and air-conditioning and increased the ingress of water. I have trouble understanding how that would have led to the massive flooding seen here.

Bayesian crew was 10. Captain, two mates, engineer, two seamen, three hostesses, and the chef. Not really enough crew to sail this large and complex vessel in weather, much less handle an emergency.

The most realistic analysis I have heard so far. Totally agreeing.

All good but you lost me at the climate change. Thunderstorms and down bursts have been around forever. Top climate scientists and the IPCC at the research non political level do not suggest the incidence of bad weather events have increased.

Laughing the whole way through a chat about a tragedy where people died while shamelessly plugging his own product, and then to cap it off brings up the global warming scam, what an absolute muppet

Sorry but at this stage acquitting the crew is as untimely as condemning them. It's simply too early. There are two independent investigations under way, one in Italy and the other in the UK. Let us wait and see what the findings will be. Until then, it is better to say nothing. It seems to me that this gentleman is behaving like the Italian CEO

Comparing a Kraken to a Perini is like comparing an "hurricane shelter" to a "5-star luxury resort". Anyone would go to the shelter in the event of a hurricane, but no real VIP would buy one to spend his holidays there. 😁 I agree 100% with the technical content of the video. I would just add that in a video (which you can find here among mine) you can see the anchor dragging and (therefore) the ship drifting wind abeam. The crosswind and the constraint of the anchor which "trips" the ship up, would have greatly facilitated the capsizing.

in 14 minutes it was enough to launch an evacuation alarm, to save the people who were below. An analysis absolutely devoid of common sense and objectivity!!! ridiculous

Good discussion. I'm curious what Dick Beaumont's thoughts are about smaller sailboats that vanish without a trace in storm conditions. I sailed as crew on a 42' catamaran 7500 nM SE Asia to across the Pacific. We had a lot of waves coming over the bows and many over the saloon. What we almost never experienced were pooping waves from behind. I think we bailed out the dinghy two or three times. The idea I came up with was, for rough weather on a monohull, make sure that the companion way is secure. I am not a boat designer, don't have years of sailing experience. But my idea seems to have no downside other than a bit of inconvenience. I also know from sea kayaking, that two inches (5cm) of water sloshing around in the cockpit (sealed fore and aft compartments) is incredibly destabilizing. Of course my kayak doesn't have a heavy keel. I can only speculate that it would take a huge amount of water coming down a companion way to cause instability... but I really don't know. So unless there's a good reason to not keep the companionway closed in a storm or large seas that's what I'm going to do. What I am most curious to know from the Bayesian sinking is Are there any new precautions that should be considered in storm weather at anchor? (Before this sad event I didn't know that with approaching storm the engine should be running.) Still guessing... I expect that the Bayesian got an extremely rare hit from either the center of a waterspout or wind shear and had a few design issues. I absolutely agree with Dick that as soon as the boat company blamed the crew -- they were covering up. Which means they already know what they did that led to this disaster. And of course Princess Diana's horrible accident. No seat belts. I've heard the rational to this sort of failure: "That's what I pay you for, so I don't have to." Weather, the sea and physics are incredibly equalizing. When I went back to Michigan after being away many years I was impressed that they'd set up a tornado alert siren network. I quickly understood how this 'works.' When the alarm sounds all the women and children go to the basement, and all the men go stand in the middle of street and look for a funnel cloud. Okay, seemed not unreasonable. There would be enough time to get into the basement. Then the siren sounded at night... and all the men went and stood in the middle of the street.... Fortunately I didn't have to tell any of those guys I wouldn't go out in a boat with them. A couple did ask me, "Why'd you go in the basement?" And there are storms and then there are storms. The weather we get off southern California usually takes a while to build up, in Michigan and I think in the Med (only saw one large storm there) it can go from sunny and blue skies to thunderstorm cloud burst in 15 minutes. I've been in more than a few down bursts. It's a lot of rain, but not buckets, just intense. The wind is usually straight down. The more intense they are the shorter they last. In a car you can't see past the windscreen. But it's seconds, no more than ten or fifteen. What you're supposed to do is take your foot off the gas and just keep your heading. It will soon clear up. In Hawaii in a rental car I was desperate to get the weather report. All the stations were prerecorded. Nothing. (This was pre weather apps.) Suddenly a NOAA weather alert broke in, minutes late was a series of downbursts. I usually try to stay as far away from other cars as I can, and when this alert happened, I backed away from everyone, and checked who was behind me. After two of these events, minutes apart, in front of us were multicar pileups. Someone hit the brakes. If something like what I've experienced and am familiar with is what hit the Bayesian, the too tall mast, instability, poor heeling over (73° really???) and the openings did for it. I think my 46' Hunter and most keel boats would've done just fine.

Good discussion, according to previous skipper, side deck steps would not flood at 45 deg down flooding angle. Also a crew reported sliding saloon doors had to be forced open at one point in disaster. But yes shallow DFA and AVS are serious issue. Clearly between 45 and 73 degree heel it’s all very serious! Re weather , local Italian air-force said there was no expectation of any severe weather .

Negligent manslaughter is not a "bizarre phrase" . Its a basic concept in criminal law around the world including in the UK.

Precisely the key points identified and explained well, thank you

Bayesian was built 16 years ago and she sailed in any condition until this tragedy. What is wrong? Vessel design, great job! Unfortunately, no alcohol test was done !

I have heard it said that in spite of appearance, this boat was more of a motor yacht than sailboat - it does not have the safety characteristics of a sailboat which is designed to be at home in a blow and cannot run away from a storm in many cases. As I learned it, when trapped in a storm and if situation looks dire the last resort would be to drop the sails and secure eveything on deck and then go below and a good boat will look after itself. That would be at sea, not at anchor but my point is you would not haul the guests onto deck in a storm - the safest place for these cream puffs would be below. When the head of the boat building company said that the boat was "unsinkable", this astonishing claim was clearly reference to the compartmented design with isolating bulkheads. So every hatchway and bulkhead was seal, I suppose it it would be difficult to sink (rather like Titanic, ironically), but I am not sure this is really practical where you are going to seal people apart from the crew and inside the boat. Its a case of a safety feature which is not realistic - though I am sure it was played up at time of sale. The boat should have had a warning sign to effect: Do not take this vessel out of protect harbor nor overnight aboard. Well suspect they will spread the blame around (assuming the hull openings were not left open), but for me the greatest fault lies with the surveyor who did not advise the buyer (presumably) that the vessel was of deficient design and that the charteristics were substandard.

This is the most well thought out and logical explanation of what happened. You are completely correct, the average person would not have a clue of the sea worthyness of a boat, yacht or any other vessel they were on. All of us as “guests/clients” of these boats are in the hands of the crew and of the designers. Just like boarding an aircraft we are completely at the mercy of the safety levels built in and the experience and understanding of the crew. I believe you should write up your hypothisis with all these design faults and send it to the lawyers (I assume the crew have a defense of some kind). Companies who build these vessels should be held to account. Thanks again very interesting and sensible insight.

I did find the declaration of Giovanni Costantino, CEO of the Bayesian manufacturer very awkward. He came in too fast shouting "NOT MY FAULT" when no one accused him yet.

I cannot believe that a yacht designer would design a boat that is not seaworthy. There must be design criteria that all yachts must adhere to, righting angles, down flood angles etc. were any of these ignored in the design of Bayesian? Surely all designs are signed off by qualified naval architects. Basically what I am trying to say is surely a naval architect would not allow the owner to dictate safety specifications/designs?

There isn't any direct evidence yet of a downburst, the only evidence is what happened to the boat, which is at present circular reasoning

The best discussion so far! Thank you!

Yes well said Dick. I think this was an accident waiting to happen. Having a sailing yacht that relies on it's beam for stability is ok up to a certain size , say 30 feet. Many sailing dinghies rely on beam to keep them up, if they capsize as they do , no big deal . A close to 200' yacht with a draft of only 13' we have a problem. Depending on design Swing Keels don't make a big difference to the righting moment, they are there more for lateral resistance. For stability you use a weighted Drop Keel. The other thing is the ridiculously high mast had 6 sets of spreaders creating an enormous amount of windage. This boat was going to capsize with or without sails set at some point. I grew up on a 50' racing / cruising yacht built in the late 1930s . We were knocked down once with a sudden downdraft in totally protected waters. Full sails with virtually no prevailing wind. The 65' mast hit the water, after half a minute or less the boat righted itself and we continued on our way. Somewhat shaken and below decks was a mess yet there was no damage and we had taken on no water . It was a proper yacht that still sails in Sydney Harbour today.

Unusually I find myself agreeing with Beaumont. This boat, and many others like it are nowhere near as seaworthy as most much smaller boats.

Why did it have to take a sinking for folks to finally wake up and realise there has been a complete disregard to watertight doors etc on Yachts . Everything is open plan easy access ignoring the real risks . Anyone who buys B.I they always print the cutaway drawings of the builds . And the images speaks volumes !! .

Such an interesting discussion. Seaworthiness is paramount to me. The sea can change so quickly and l'd want a boat that could cope with it.

The skipper of the Sir Robert Baden Powell did wake up all persons on board, did close all hatches, did start the engines and was about to head the bow towards the waves. So there was already one skipper who did take measures against the weather. But I agree, the flooding angles and the instructions to lower center board only whilst sailing and being offshore did finally lead to the catastrophe. To many weak points, too many “big dicks” (the mast, the lowered entertainment aérea, all the lose furnitures etc.) and too much hubris.

I absolutely agree on the fact that there is no such thing as an "unsinkable boat", but the Perini navi CEO said that the boat was unsinkable "if" no water gets into it and "if" all the safety procedures are correctly completed by the crew. These are two big "ifs" that will be cleared only once the boat will be thoroughly inspected out of the water. I must instead greatly disagree when I hear at around min 3.25 that there is "no skipper in the world that would have done something different"... this is the whole point of the problem... maybe the downburst was indeed unpredictable, but every weather forecast had clearly mentioned possible storms approaching the area. I think instead that every skipper in the world would have done many things differently... in fact every single skipper in the world, knowing that bad weather is approaching and supposedly aknowledging the possible structural defects of his own yacht, would have set maximum alert in all of his crew members (probably not in his passengers) assigning a full night of ongoing guard to himself and all of the "sailing" members of his crew, preparing himself, the crew and the boat to face possible trouble due to the forecasted bad weather. I really would love not to blame anyone of the crew nor the captain, but whoever is used to sail in the mediterranean knows how quickly bad storms can hit and whenever you know that a storm is potentially approaching you - expecially at night and when you are out at anchor - the captain and all of his crew have to have maximum alert and be ready in a few instants from the moment the storm hits the boat to get the engines running, ready to get loose of the anchor and manouvre the boat out of trouble. Lastly, regarding the will to find a potential scapegoat of the italian investigators, I would like to point out that the italian legal system requires an "official designation of potential suspects" - this is a necessary and well defined procedural step of any trail and is called "iscrizione nel registro degli indagati". This does not mean that the suspects are in any way to be considered guilty, instead it actually grants them a fair trial and a fully transparent information, letting them know from the very moment of this "registration in the register of suspects" that there is an official investigation ongoing on their behalf. No trial can be started in Italy until this first fundamental burocratic procedure has been completed.

Hello Mr. Beaumont. Another seemingly reputable source, e-systems youtube channel, has pointed out that what appears to be a cabin top over the the forward well deck is actually canvas. If the weather event or knockdown collapsed the canvas top, could that be a source of catastrophic down flooding.

Negligence manslaughter is found in English Common Law. - its definition reads as follows. Negligent manslaughter - is a serious criminal offense that occurs when someone's actions or inaction are so negligent that they cause the death of another person.

Nonsense. There were different reactions from different captains. You above all people should know how lazy sailors and captains can be, especially those attracted to the lifestyle. I have witnessed many bad captains and this results in many boating accidents and many yachts sunk every summer during the season. And these weather events are known and expected. All you are trying to do is get publicity like many others during thsi tragic event.

I read somewhere on the Internet that "Bayesian" was registered with the American Bureau of Shipping; But, up to now, I have not seen any mention of ABS in the various YT videos about the disaster. If there was such an abysmal risk coming from the design of S/V "Bayesian", as Dick Beaumont clearly states there was, it would have been the responsibility of ABS to identify it and require remedial design changes from the builder! Let us wait for the full results of the inquiry (or various inquiries) before making definitive statements - even though, as far as I'm concerned, Mr Beaumont remarks are pertinent. __ .

The only analysis that makes sense and clear to those who have been at sea. Many were critical at the size of my boat's cockpit being small...but I was happy when at an Atlantic storm filled repeatedly. Here I see a serious design fault, that regardless to the effort to accommodate customers wishes, the responsibility of the Architect should have not allowed an obvious hazard to the safety of the vessel and the people on it.

As an Italian citizen, I find this content extremely interesting and useful. Maybe the causes of the sinking are multiple, i.e. design AND weather AND some procedural flaw or specific actions/manoeuvres carried out by the crew. Too soon to come to a final conclusion.

Hi Dick, thank you for the very logical (and educative) explanation of the event. Designing direct large open waterflow surfaces to the body of the sailboat with extremely large mast and relatively low down flooding angle is disaster waiting to happen. But, if the event happened as described, there is one area where probably crew could (and should) do better, in my opinion. Weather radar data for this part of the Mediterranean is relatively accurate and very frequent. Crew on watch should be looking at weather radar maps at least every 30min, under the weather forecast for that night. They could see that storm of way more than 20knots of wind is coming and would have time to take basic precautionary measures, lower the keel and close main large open surfaces (close and lock saloon door, seal engine room, hatches...). Probably if these basic measures have been taken sailboat would recover from the downburst? If investigation shows that these basic measures have been taken, then crew should be completely cleared.

Absolutely agree with your analysis, having and still currently working at sea , the weather is definitely playing a major part , we are seeing down bursts on a semi regular basis and water spouts much more frequently. We are in New Zealand where a super yacht got flattened in the marina… righted itself without too much damage. The skipper had little or no hope of saving this vulnerable ship.

Sometimes tragedy accompanies dreams whether we be rich or poor…that’s when lessons are learned and the consequences will be tsunamic for anyone closely connected to the Bayesian…including designers, builders, manufacturers of materials, crew, rescue teams and especially the owner. Liability and fault is a naturally occurring process trust upon us all after any major event and hopefully this adventure doesn’t keep us wrapped in comfort, guilt or despair but keeps us on an ocean of wisdom where we gain understanding in life and continue to aim for adventure. Sadly, every good story has a villain… and life doesn’t include a time machine. Forgiveness and acceptance is a long journey out of ruin.

Would I purchase a car, simply because it’s coloured red, looks fabulous and was designed in Italy?…or would I be looking at the engine, braking capability, safety features and tyres and ask myself a thousand other questions - like will I be cruising in fine weather with the top down or taking it off road and what are it’s faults (and my expectations). The best thing I ever did was take a pre-apprenticeship course in automotive engineering, and despite this still asked qualified mechanics and reputable tyre merchants for advice before purchasing any vehicle. It’s odd that people will purchase a yacht and take to the ocean with limited knowledge of seafaring and still have expectations (or foolishly believe) that their vessel is virtually unsinkable, rendering the crew and design responsible for every displeasure or misadventure. The burden of responsibility ultimately lays with the owner. He/she had choice.

I very much appreciate the objective analysis. Thanks for posting a long form version. Let's hope the reckoning comes upon the guilty parties.

Watch the cctv video. The Bayesian yacht did not even sway and the mast was upright when the generator/engine room flooded and the lights went out. The mast then gradually tilted to the right. There was no sudden knock-down by the wind. Something entirely different was going on there.

Thank you for supporting the skipper and crew. I hope you are called as an expert witness

Let me add another thought. People flacking for the crew seem to not understand that they agreed to work on a boat and take passengers on a boat that was unsafe. The three actual sailors on board - Master and two mates - had an obligation to operate that vessel within the design parameter of the boat. Or to refuse to sail it. Once they decided to crew it, they took on the responsibility of mitigating the design flaws on the yacht. Not having the keel down nor the watertight doors closed is a fuck up of major proportions - without a downspout. Period.

The owner's desire is the designers goal. The owner pays for the designers expertise. No designer would intentionally build an intrinsically dangerous boat especially an ocean going boat. The tallest mast in the world comes with significant bragging rights. It also comes with significant danger. This is simply arrogant pride expressed.The Ocean is no respecter of persons.

Un talon d'Achille aussi évident comme vous dites si simplement ne passerait pas les certifications tout votre discours porte sur la responsabilité de PN et la conception et vous etes totalement dans le dénis d une erreur humaine incroyable meme si le premier compartiment etait inondé par ce 'talon d'Achille" comment expliquez vous que le deuxieme étanche lui aussi soit inondé. Pas de gilet ni d'alarmes en 16minutes votre discours est complètement biaisé

Why did the Captain and crew of the other boat anchored nearby start preparing for bad weather much earlier? I don't think the person on anchor watch was qualified to be left alone on watch. The other ship saw weather they didn't like and the engine was started to keep the boat staying into the wind. How did this boat get insurance? It has obvious design flaws.

"Perhaps it's the insurers that want the boat raised to again try and blame human error". This is really an ignorant thing to say. Which insurers? Those who ensured the loss of the boat? They will have to pay regardless of human error or other circumstances. Those who ensured the owner for the third-party liability? They will have to pay regardless of human error. There is NO WAY an insurer does not pay because there is human error. This is as idiotic as saying that, when you bump another car while driving, the insurer of your car for your third-party liability will not pay if he can "blame human error". It's not true. You are insured exactly because you can commit human errors. I am surprised at how often I hear this totally stupid reasoning. Insurance is insurance is insurance. Insurance pay when you get the damage. Insurance is not done in a way that a billionaire insures his ship against loss, and when the loss happens the insurer says "your insurance doesn't cover human error". Nobody would buy an insurance like that. Of course, if there is more than one insurer, then the question arises which insurer must pay what, but "insurers" overall will always pay the same total amount, regardless of "human error".

saying the would not be any captain in this world who would have done something different to the captain of the yacht is a bit presumptuous look at the captain of the 15m Sailing yacht which wasn't that far away, and how they prepared themselves for the weather change accordingly to the forecast, they even went to rescue the sinking yacht...

That aft step down & those sliding doors , As a skipper experienced a few knockdowns One hell of a lotta waters going to come in if she's on her side , Water Weight arft just makes her go deeper .

I’m thinking of the thought of designing this yacht follows this line of thinking. We build a “Super-Motor-Yacht” with standard rules of stability for a “super motor yacht” that has sailing vessel lines/shape, then we want an enormous pole resembling a mast on it, It will need a 30’ keel and ballast to offset the enormous “ 256+ Meter pole “ on top of it affecting this motor Yachts Stability” It was pavini’s operating procedure stated if not under sail the vessel did not have to have keel down. It’s a Titanic type scenario (these yachts are huge!! as well as these vessels usually stay in fair weather “Med” environments I believe that designers push the envelope anyways However, then designers design page The Navini yachts started as an elegant looking “motor Yacht/SuperYacht” not as a “Sailing Vessel” You can imagine many “motoring Siperyachts” to perform just as this one did in same situation with a 256+’ right arm lever being hit with 180mph winds! Just my two cents, Over most aged adults we’ve lived thru time of massive growth in people that all have cameras! Just 30yrs ago at a height of USA polluting and having Ozone fears from 80’s hair cuts, we only owned simple fragile cameras and personal shoulder mounted video cams. We are more likely to see crazy weather scenarios even if they were actually decreasing due to increase in people with cams. We have to be careful to follow long term large factual statistics not sensationalist and those who benefit from particular “statements and Terms’

I am curios if the Bayesian’s mast being so tall would have somehow drawn the bad weather toward it, rather than to vessels with lower masts. From what I read there were just the two boats at this anchorage. There were 10 crew and 12 guests aboard. Thank you for a very well-thought out analysis, definitely draining on all your experience. I would definitely choose one of your Kraken boats (great name!) over the Bayesian. I did sail for 30 years in many parts of the world, but by no means as extensively as you. However, I am 100% with you on the priority of safety and the pressing need to address climate change.

Very informative, thanks

10 crew and what I've heard, there are usually not enough crew to cover the required hours and they are continuously sleep deprived when the owners are in. I don't know if this was the case here, but it's common on other luxury yachts.

We had a freak weather event earlier this year on our farm in Surrey, England, which must have been a similar tornado like thing. Wind blasted upto I'd guess 100mph + for about 30 seconds. 30ft lime trees in the yard bent over like palms in a caribbean hurricano, rain steaking horizontal and upwards, tin roof ripped off of barn and some of it found 700 meters away. Before and after this was not a lot more than 20kts of wind. Could easily have knocked down that monster yacht that. Great assessment chaps thanks for sharing.

Huh. Taken a lot of passengers out sailing, and I find the flacking for the crew's innocence or guilt stupid. Here are the facts, 6 guests were killed, one crew member was killed. Crew is responsible for passenger safety, regardless of the boat I'm on. if this is not a defacto failure of the crew, I don't know what would be. They had 14 mins from the time the weather hit till the AIS disappeared - 14 mins to evacuate the boat. Asking questions is demanded, i don't give damn about being polite. 7 people are dead. Let's just lay out the facts about this as you say so clearly yourself, Dick. 1. Downflooding angle of 45 degrees. 2. AVS of 77, not 73, with keel up. 3. AVS of 88 with keel down. Conclusion: That boat would sink like a stone if it was ever knocked down for any reason, no 'downburst' required. So, what did the designer do? A. Put in watertight bulkheads and designed the boat to stay afloat with two sections flooded. My questions for you as a captain (I am as well, cruising with all my US Sailing certs mono and cat) follow. - Stormy weather was forecast, while at anchor. Would you not have a standard storm watch procedure of having the keel down, and the watertight doors shut? My understanding so far is that the watertight doors were not closed. Be clear I'm not claiming that they could prep for a downburst, I'm just talking storm prep. -Surviving crew member states he forced the glass salon doors open to escape - could this have been part of why the flooding was so severe? Question worth asking. Could he have used an emergency escape hatch instead? The power goes out on the boat long before sinking, very quickly after the storm hits, you can see the mast lights go out. Why? This would indicate the boat was taking on water rapidly from the stern and the engines were knocked out. The engines room was its own watertight section. Why did the engines go out so quickly? Why did the boat flood so rapidly from the stern? Last, and this is my major question. The Master of this yacht was quite experienced. When reviewing the specs for the yacht, the AVS issues and downflooding would be known. Wouldn't that argue for extremely diligent storm prep (not a downspout)? Dick - If you were captain of that yacht, would you not have quite intense storm prep? How could they not have the keel down and not have the watertight doors closed? Seems to me to be prima facie case of incompetence. And even then, I have significant questions about the storm watch he'd set, claiming winds were only 20kts when the captain was awakened. At this same time, another sailing vessel 300m away saw the conditions (pre downburst) so severe he hauled anchor, prepped the crew and passengers for a rough go, and motored into the wind. This is a crucial fact to me, giving me great pause about the Bayesian crew's actions. I don't give a crap about the crews feels or what we 'should' be talking about. On its face, this looks like a badly designed boat mismanaged in the extreme by the crew. I await further details from the investigation but I'll bet 1k bucks with anyone here we find out worse deets about the crew/captain readiness and behavior, not less.

You are omitting the rest of the sentence of mister Costantino!

The sailboat hat very powerful engines. To start them and control the boat via the propulsion and the rudder like any others boats. To control any hydraulic motor and pull the keel down and lives can be saved also via control of the entries to the guest and crew department. I think that the engine room was lost first via some the negligence of engineer. Any conteiner ship without power could be lost due in a strong wind.

Since the patio glass doors are in the center I don't think the water would go through them when the boat heels to 45 degrees. Water would come into the stair wells, but would just pool in there until the boat rights again. I think the boat went past 75 degrees and then kept going. But she can not go upside-down because of the 75m mast and only 50m meter of water depth. And so now she sits at 130 degrees and the water can come into the boat through many openings. That's my theory.

What a ridiculous interview. Shame on Kraken to use this tragedy to promote their yard

The CEO of Perini Navi did say that the yacht was unsinkable, but it always qualified that with "if no water gets into the hull", which none of the non-Italian media has translated.

Great interview ⛵️⛵️👍

A downflooding angle of 45 degrees is not unusually low for large vessels. Nor is the angle of vanishing stability of 73 degrees. What counts is the ability to withstand heeling to those angles. I would venture to suggest that even if Bayesian was hard pressed under full sail it would be incredibly difficult or nigh or impossible to lay her over beyond 30 degrees under normal conditions. This vessel is designed to 1) provide luxury accommodation at exotic locations, 2) move between exotic locations and 3) sail in pleasure regattas at these locations. It has done this successfully for quite a few years. I agree that we should not be looking to make the skipper a scapegoat, nor should we be too critical of a design which was basically fit for purpose but unfortunately hit by a freak event.

I have four comments on what you noted. Firstly, You talked about how a low AVS and downflooding angle mean that she had ‘poor righting moment’. This isn’t the case, often vessels with the largest righting moments (especially in the 0-40 degree range) have low angles of vanishing stability. As a professional naval architect nothing irks me more than an inaccuracy like this and it makes me question the rest of what you have stated. I suspect even with the keel up the vessel had a good righting moment. Secondly, I suspect the MAIB report will find that there were design features for safety that were not operated as intended. I am often amazed by the number of ‘keep closed at sea’ doors that I see with rope tie backs and crew openly stating they are lashed open to make operation easier. This experience is in a very different sector but I suspect this could contribute to how quickly all spaces cross flooded Thirdly, I haven’t seen the data on downflooding but it’s hard to know if these are protected or closely. Often vents have winteb type heads with a floating ball that closes the vent if immeresd preventing flooding through this. Without further info it’s hard to know what to make of the little information we have been supplied Finally I think it’s best to await final report on the sinking to draw real conclusions. I think that’s true when the CEO said his shit, also think it’s true with you saying boat wasn’t fit for purpose. How certain are you a kraken would have survived the downburst? If you say 100% I’m afraid to say your delusional

It was stupid to go on video saying the yacht could never sink, unless the crew failed. Blaming the crew before any information had been gathered, is just narrow minded and arrogant. We need to find out exactly what happened to be able to stop it happening again. If possible with the weather conditions that night taken into account.

The main question remain open. When the capitan take his charge on the cockpit bridge to start the very powerfull engine, lower the keel, take control of the rudder an anchor. The 22 year old watch must know exact time.

Very informative, thank you.

Great video, absolutely stunning numbers regarding flooding and vanishing stability. I always found the CEO of the Italian company getting on TV and saying what he did in the manner which he did very inappropriate and telling. He knew the numbers from the beginning. Really hope all this is included in the maib report. This was the Herald of Free Enterprise of yachts. Thank you.

Great discussion well done. The weight of the huge aluminum mast is what should be looked as this is what gave the boat such a terrible vanishing stability angle. A carbon mast would have improved this situation by a significant factor. Perini Navi built this mast themselves. So the question that should be asked is did they do that just save Money during the build? What do the naval architect original stability numbers stipulate the weight of the rig should be? There are several other rigs out there of this size, they are all carbon, the height isn’t the issue, it’s the weight.

This is one of the most interesting interviews I have heard. It is also a great analysis of luxurious living versus the power of nature. Along with organisational skills and responsibility. I am psychotherapist and entrepreneur and think everyone in business should listen to this interview.. If we spent money on care for our environment rather than political systems we would be much safer.