56M Perini S/Y Bayesian Sinks During Palermo Storm

Yes, the 60 second sinking sounded unreal, like she was torpedoed.
That being said, 12 minutes should be enough time to get everybody out of the sinking ship, but sadly
It wasn’t and everybody wants to know why not?

Yes, the 12 minutes could have been from the time she started dragging anchor rather than from the time she laid over.
The Captain was questioned by prosecutors for 2 hours Thursday and his name has been released.
So far 1 body is not recovered, the 18 year old female.

https://news.sky.com/story/bodies-r...ht-identified-by-italian-authorities-13199804

Any word on if they're going to raise her ?

Not at the moment. They are still searching for the daughter. After that the authorities will decide about that.

The boat will almost certainly be salvaged: Heard on the news a barge and crane is expected to be in position in the near future. 2,000 gallons of onboard fuel needs to be disposed of as well.
(A lift bag at the mast top should bring her upright then straps under the hull)

Don’t know if the Italians have the equipment, but the Dutch certainly do.

The area in the photo where the mast meets the deck is a "temporary" structure recessed into the deck, much like a pool. It's used as a living area with a water tight door to the crew area. Tend to think the crew surfaced in response to the weather, the door was open, and chaos then struck. Width of that mast is itself a significant sail.

This is the front recessed area under the tent.

I agree that a very sudden and rapid event sounds much more feasible than a 12 minute ordeal. Additionally the master of the neighbouring vessel Sir Robert Baden-Powell stated they were manoeuvring under engine power to avoid the yacht then suddenly it was gone.

Much speculation has been wrt the windage of the aluminium mast; I'm wondering how much buoyancy it provided. With board raised vessel VCG is obviously higher, downflooding in a knockdown position raises it higher still, potentially leading to an equilibrium condition whereby the vessel centre of mass lies between two independent centres of buoyancy, one due to immersed volume of the hull (at ~90° heel) the other due to the immersed volume of this rather large mast. The vessel would then just lie there on her side, taking on water very quickly until sinking occurs.

This is very likely considered an external space and not included in any stability calcs.

The founder and CEO of The Italian Sea Group is quite angry at the crew, but...I would say...at the Captain.
He didn't mention him, maybe for legal reasons, but as a native speaker, I can clearly see who he is pointing the finger at.
And..in the second last sentence (in red)...maybe he did.

Here what he said...you can easily translate it in English.

I'll only translate the text in blue because it's a typical expression that only native speakers can recognize.
So it's: the fact that it came out of nowhere, suddenly, is bullshit.

"Tutto ciò che è stato fatto rivela una sommatoria lunghissima di errori" - ha dichiarato al Corriere Giovanni Costantino, fondatore e amministratore delegato di The italian sea group, la società quotata in borsa proprietaria degli asset di Perini navi di Viareggio che costruì il Bayesian nel 2008 -. "Le persone non dovevano essere nelle cabine, la barca non doveva essere all'ancora. E poi perché l'equipaggio non sapeva della perturbazione in arrivo? I passeggeri hanno riferito una cosa assurda, e cioè che la tempesta è arrivata inaspettata, all'improvviso. Non è vero. Era tutto prevedibile. Io ho qui davanti a me le carte meteo. È arrivata all'improvviso un bel niente. Si chieda: perché nessun pescatore di Porticello era fuori quella notte? Un pescatore legge le condizioni meteo e una nave no? La perturbazione era leggibile appieno in tutte le carte meteo. Non si poteva non sapere".

Costantino non ci sta a vedere sotto accusa quel gioiello a vela che lui definisce "una delle imbarcazioni più sicure al mondo". Praticamente "inaffondabile. Ovvio, salvo che non imbarchi acqua. Non c'è un'altra spiegazione". Per l'amministratore delegato di The italian sea group di sicuro il naufragio di Palermo avrebbe rappresentato un rischio pari a zero se fossero state fatte le manovre correttee se non fossero intervenute delle situazioni che hanno compromesso la stabilità della nave. "L'imbarcazione - ha osservato - era all'ancora. A un certo punto l'ancora perde la presa e lei si sposta trascinata dal vento che la spinge prendendola in pancia. La spinge per quattro minuti che noi definiamo di scarrocciamento, la ruota e la pone nella posizione in cui è affondata. In questi quattro minuti - e mi assumo la responsabilità di quel che dico - la nave ha già preso acqua".

A confermate la tesi di Costantino ci sarebbero le immagini video, dove si vede l'albero in verticale prima tutto acceso e poi spento, tranne la lampadina in testa che prende energia da una batteria. Se la nave è andata in black out vuol dire che sarebbe stata l'acqua imbarcata a causare il corto circuito.

Per evitare il naufragio, ha continuato l'amministratore delegato, "era inopportuno fare, come ho letto, un party. Non quella sera. Bisognava blindare lo scafo e la coperta chiudendo tutte le porte e portelli, dopo aver messo gli ospiti nel punto di riunione della nave come da procedura in emergenza. Poi accendere i motori e tirare su l'ancora o sganciarla automaticamente, mettere la prua al vento e mandare giù la chiglia. La mattina dopo sarebbero ripartiti a danno zero". Ha rimarcato che "sono stati fatti degli errori". E ha aggiunto: "Fra l'arrivo di una burrasca e l'imbarco dell'acqua c'è un mondo. Si dovevano fare una serie di attività per evitare di trovarsi in quella situazione. Io come comandante della nave mi sarei spostato, ma se anche per qualche motivo avessi dovuto restare lì, avrei gestito quelle condizioni meteo che poi, diciamolo, non erano così pazzesche. Del resto il comandante della Sir Robert, accanto, è riuscito a gestire tutto senza problemi".

Can't say that I disagree with Giovanni's basic perspective here. Watching Cup trials in Barcelona showed really nasty weather in the region.

today I'm just reading newspapers..it's August...
About what you said, in another interview he stated that some Perini yachts have withstood hurricanes like Katrina, reasserting the fact that a brief storm, such as the one that struck the Italian coast, should not have been enough to cause a sinking...if proper procedures were followed.

I agree that it seems awfully quick. However, it's not unusual for the external saloon doors to be left open at anchor or dock, even with A/C running in all interior spaces, which could allow an unsurvivable rate of water ingress if the vessel is held in that position. Depending on angle of heel, quantity of water already shipped, additional openings (damaged or otherwise), internal arrangement of bulkheads, doors opened/closed between WT spaces, etc sinking could occur extremely quickly.

Main gensets may have failed but vital systems including nav lights and emergency lighting would have alternative power sources for this very reason.

More reading material: http://pressure-drop.us/forums/articles/68038-logical-explaination-of-the-bayesian-tragedy

Will someone with more talent then me, calculate the wind load on a 73m mast, mounted 6m above the waterline and add that to the wind load of the 52m hull with a 6m height? Oh, and use 120kts of wind. With the keel up, I suspect it's hellacious. . .

Yes and especially since monohull sailboats have a heavy keel to keep ‘em upright while sailing but the same heavy keel will drag the boat down much faster than a non-keeled sailboat like a catamaran if breached or capsized.
No idea what the keel weight was on this boat, but on smaller sailboats easily 20% to 30% of the boats displacement.