Proteksan & Turquoise Superyacht "Yogi" Sinks!

From that article...

"‘We have [already] sent people to Athens who will meet with the crew and interview them; we’re doing everything we can to understand what happened. There will be the testimony of crew and the video. You can see water coming out of the side and power on the vessel [ie lights were on] so the generators were running – you can tell many things, so the engine room was not flooded. You can see [in the video] exhaust coming from the hull side so one of engine room generators was running.”

Karabeyoglu also told us that in addition to being able to use the engines to pump water out, there were three bilge pumps, one more than class required. The yacht had three generators plus the emergency generator."

Unfortunatly I don't think we will get an official verdict for some time and will have to work through piles of conjecture and speculation in the meanwhile. That said, I do have a few comments, questions and concerns.

1. We can rule out wear and tare or corrosion related failure due to the fact that it was a new vessel.

2. If there was a catastrophic failure of the underwater exhaust on engines that size there would be very little the crew could do to stem the flow of water - probably a 14-18" hole about 4-8ft below the waterline.

3. If this were the case, I cannot understand why isolating the engine room watertight bulkhead didn't isolate the water to the ER? Stability calculations should have allowed for a fairly stabile vessel even with a completely flooded engine room scenario. Was the ER bulkhead door ever closed?

4. The captain is quoted as saying they lost engine power and something about the exhaust. He never said that the exhaust actually caused the flooding - it may have just been the cause of the engine failure. Yogi sported 2 beach clubs and a large opening transom door. Perhaps the flooding was not in the engine room but rather in this stern area due to a shell door failure or something - she is distinctly stern down in the photos. She also had very large windows/port holes just above the waterline- failure o one of them could have been disastrous too. Just a thought.

5. Why there were only 8 crew aboard a vessel of that size? Having commanded a similar sized yacht quite recently we operated with 14-16 crew. Even on deliveries we never operated with less than 12 crew. This is not only necessary for meeting the minimum watch keeping requirements, but also to allow for sufficient competent crew to manage an emergency situation (such as this). The charter sites are advertising that she chartered with a crew of 15. The synical side of me has to wonder if 8 crew was a convenient number to rescue in case of loss of the vessel (joking of course)

6. There was definitely still electrical power as the lights were on. But I agree that it was most light running off an emergency generator or the emergency lighting batteries. According to the plans the emergency generator is located right behind the bridge. The water pumping out could be from an emergency bilge pump.

I hope that the French flag state will prove to be as efficient as the British MIAB and issue an accident report in due course, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I just hope that once the dust settles, lessons can be learned whether relating to construction / design, or operational procedures.

Your attachment lead to a dead link when I tried it.

Proteksan Turquoise's statement to the incident.
She has been the yard for some paint work and was on the way to the Mediterranen.

News

From Boat International's web site (quoting with attribution ;o))

"...Responding to our question about an exhaust system accident and loss of engine power reported by the crew, Karabeyoglu comments, “They have said it was mechanical failure, that one engine overheated, and broke the exhaust bellows – but there’s a valve underneath it.”..."

K1W1, according to the press release, she was built to the "cheaper code", she does adhere to both - either way I wouldnt bet there'd be enough differences in the code itself, it is much beyond that imo...

"was built to MCA rules and also to French Registry safety standards"

She seems to have an asymmetrical design: the large windows on the main deck on starboard are in line with the hull, on port side there's about 3 feet of space between the glass and the outer hull?

(If I have spotted this correctly. Thought a roque wave would have smashed such a window at starboard side. And there's a hatch for toys or tenders in that part of the yacht).

I'm surprised such accidents do not happen more often: most megayachts don't seem to be very seaworthy. Owners usually seem more concerned with styling and showing off, than investing in separate engine rooms etc. True, mostly they do not leave marina's much and avoid bad weather, but still, unexpected things can happen..

Just wondering what the members here think about this comment.

I think it's a grossly uneducated and presumptuous comment.
I'm sure several people will have eyes on the boat where she lies now, and once she's brought back to the yard and we'll get a better understanding on the cause and first hand accounts from the crew.

Until then, everything is speculation and guesses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidwb
I'm surprised such accidents do not happen more often: most megayachts don't seem to be very seaworthy.

I would very much agree. Mega yachts, for the most part, are fragile pieces of equipment made to look good at the dock. It has been my experience that a lot of Captains will feel comfortable to push the vessels limits (while truely not knowing the vessels build quality) rather than wanting to say "No" to an owner/employers potentaily dangerous request. I also see how the bridge can give a very false sense of security up top seemily serene and peaceful helping that indestructible ego get itself in trouble.

I agree with both of the last comments, nonetheless, they refer to different yachts...

The yacht in question here, was submitted to classification societies and certification authorities which should have validated its designs to withstand as much as any other "not-so-pretty" design...

Technology has come a long way and I'm 100% sure that many of the aesthetically pleasing designs of today are MUCH more seaworthy than their "rugged looking" counterparts of the past.. my point being: with current technology, a lot can be accomplished without giving up on quality, strength and structural integrity as required throughout the past hundreds of years of shipbuilding.

Mistakes, problems, errors, accidents, etc may occur - as they have in the past too. but if the calculations were correctly done, there is no reason a yacht with windows (thick enough, mounted correctly, yada yada) near the waterline would be any less safe than one without... This sort of argument is plainly not valid in todays day and age where technology allows for simulations, and testing in the degree we have achieved. (i'd be interested to know if there are ppl who disagree? any conspiracy theories about the calculations done in every-day engineering? )

As to yachts being made to look pretty at the dock, or whether their crews know the limits of the vessel, or whether they are willing to say no to an owner, etc (all points of post #52 by C4ENG), i suppose all of that may happen, none of which appears (or at least none of which we have any evidence) was the case with Yogi. She wasnt build to look pretty (although she did)- she was built like a ship, commercial traits, etc, . She wasnt "being pushed" beyond reasonable limits (despite being in "rough weather" it was nothing she wasnt designed to withstand), etc... We are still running on specualtion, and some of it like "yachts now are weak because they are made to look purdy" is quite ignorant...

It is obvious that yachts will tend to follow a certain design and function trend (more natural light, more access to the water for recreation, etc)... Older designs have less of that due to technological challenges which at the time were impossible to overcome. As technology progresses, these things become more plausible and so we have multiple openings, larger windows, etc... Therefore, its not really surprising that there hasnt been a surge in accidents, as I see it, the "wishes" of owners are following the design/technology constraints present.

I dont see any reputable or even semi-reputable builder out there (large yachts) "pushing the envelope" structurally, going against classification societies, etc, just to fulfill a "rich clients request"... this is more of a folklore going around in this thread I feel, unless anyone has any cases to point?

Just a reminder, this vessel was built to ABS class standards. Granted, ABS can be a little "easier" than Lloyds in some applications, but it is still a commercial shipping code. Societies such as Lloyds, ABS, BV, etc dictate how the vessel is designed and built related to seaworthiness and structural integrity. There is not "special" class for yachts per say, so whether you are building a tanker or a yacht to Lloyds class, the structural requirements are similar.

MCA and flag state tend to be more responsible for minimum requirements pertaining to LSA's, safety systems, manning, etc, etc. Thus even if a vessel falls under the "lesser" LY2 code (as apposed to full SOLAS), as long as it is built to ABS standards, you should still have a seaworthy vessel. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that there is anything wrong with LY2, just emphasizing the role of classification societies.

In this case, as with most similar disasters, there is a tendency towards "operator error". No matter what caused the catastrophic flooding, a classed vessel should still be able to remain afloat if procedures are followed: Shut the overboard valves, isolate the compartment (watertight bulkheads), etc.

Which brings me back to my original question: why were there only 8 crew aboard when she normally operates with 15? And did they leave the shipyard with any "known" defects?

Classification societies have probably saved more lives by doing there job than any other group I could think of in this industry and I appreciate them hugely, however it is a naive concept to believe a vessel is well built because it has a class stamp on it.
It is always the small things that get over looked that cause the chain reaction events as all eyes are on the bigger pictures. A saying I always liked while working in an engine room "Take care of the small things and the big things just fall into line."

If this was simply a repositioning wouldn't a short crew make sense? I've made several trips with smaller than normal crews where galley and service weren't necessary. Or, is the crew of 15 all operations? Not sure where that number came from.

Hi,

Not sure what length of trip you would make on a motor boat with no Galley in operation.

15 Crew for that boat in full operation would actually be full on for everyone.

1,Captain
2,First Officer
3,2nd Officer
4,Chief Engineer
5,2nd Engineer
(one of these might be covering the the ETO job or they could carry one as well.)
6, Head Chef
7, 2nd or Crew Chef
8, Chief Steward(ess)
9, Stewardess 1
10,Stewardess 2
11, Stewardess 3
( Either of the proceeding 3 could also be a specialist masseuse/hair dresser etc)
12, Lead Deckhand/Bosun
13, Deckhand 1
14, Deckhand 2
15, Deckhand 3
Amongst the crew there is often also a specialist Dive/Watersports person particularly if the boat is chartered heavily and watersports are a big part of the program.

You might think that there are a lot of people on deck for the boat. That is a lot of bat to clean and if toys are in use everyone will be flat out. On a 60m Commercially Operated Motor Yacht there is a mass of paperwork these days and it needs to be kept up to scratch as there is the PSC Inspections lurking in every port to contend with. One of the very important ones is the Hours of Rest Forms for everyone and the ORB for the Ch.Engineer/Master.

15 is what they advertised on the charter advertising. When I ran a 62m yacht last year we also ran with 15. For the transatlantic deliveries we ran with at least 12. During your safety training and drills you normally train the crew to operate as a team, each with responsibilities, so that you are best prepared for any situations. If your muster station bill and safety training manual are setup to best utilize the 12-15 crew, there will be shortfalls if you only have 8 aboard. Granted we are trained to think laterally and make the best of a bad situation, such as this.

But at the end of the day, in extreme emergencies, you will need "x" number of crew to handle damage control. This is normally dictated by the vessel's Minumum Safe Manning document as issued by the flag state.

In my personal opinion, a delivery crew of 8 on a 61m / 790ton yacht is not enough to handle an emergency situation. But that is my personal opinion...

This nearly went wrong, a port-hole opened or was destroyed by rough seas.
Crew, owner and guests got into trouble. Brand new Riva Duchessa 92.

As compensation the owner, a Dutch real estate business man, got a six zero's sum and a new Riva Feretti 800:


Botenbouwer Riva maakt het weer goed met stenenschuiver Evert Kroon na ongeluk | Quote

There is a difference between the "charter crew" (where the number of crew of 15 comes from), the "owner cruising" crew (which may or not be the same as the charter), the "delivery crew" (movement crew), and the "skeleton crew" (just keeping the boat clean at the dock)...

Most of the activity of a yacht on charter is catering to guests... it is more than a full time job, so without guests on board things are potentially MUCH lighter in terms of obligations... Obviously, someone needs to man the galley, but it may not be a team of dedicated chefs (2 or 3 even) baking fresh bread since 5am daily for the guests, preparing elaborate meals, etc..... it also goes for stewardesses, deckhands, everyone...

Whether 8 was or not enough for the delivery crew bracket is subjective... it isnt the same for all 60m yachts (some will need more, others less, although the general number should be in the same region)... it would also depend on the size of the trip, etc... if they were all on rest at the shipyard, and doing a delivery over 3 days or so to france and then being taken off duty again by a rested crew, 8 could well be very fair... Its kind of equivelent to have 8 rested crew as opposed to 15 semi-exhausted ones in the middle of a series of charters, no? maybe 8 rested would be even better imo...

Ok, going out on a limb

Just saying......I know that Naval vessels can run weeks on end, and they have a crew that is sort of "obliged to be there", but, would not the Naval model of how to stand watches, who is in charge of what station seem to be the standard which these mega yachts operate? The complex systems, the length and number of decks would require hands to be close to posts. You cannot run from the fly bridge down 4 levels to check a bilge station.
So here it is, how many ex-navy mariners flow over into the pleasure yacht sector? Ship shape is ship shape, till it aint.......

I dont understand your question Pelagic Dreams? These vessels ARE indeed run like many navy/commercial vessels, and often their captains and substantial parts of their crews are ex-navy or ex-commercial...