56M Perini S/Y Bayesian Sinks During Palermo Storm

There is commentary about the generator and loss of lighting. Emergency lighting is such a basic concept, on boats this size is emergency lighting not required? An esential bus on the battery bank with egress lighting?

The generator lube starvation is another issue, on boats that heel under normal operations IE sail boats. Flop tube oil pickups could greatly reduce the low pressure shut downs? The generator may have stopped due to water ingestion but more likely low oil pressure. Alternate air source for the generators another consideration.

These type of events while tragic are learning mouments. There are aspects of this that show weakness in safety syestems. These are but a couple of things that come to mind from the scant information we have. None of the things noted above are exotic or unknown, heck they are not even very costly.

IF it's the case that +/-45° heel would submerge the vents, this location would be a well-documented downflooding point. All stability calcs would terminate at this angle, as the vessel would be considered flooded. A lesser angle in fact, as a margin would be required.

All stability criteria would need to be met before this point is reached, including variations on sail set, board up/down positions, loading conditions (displacements), free surface effects due to tank liquids, etc. Windage at various heel angles would be calculated and wind loads applied at points specific to this vessel's geometry, therefore taking into account the height of the single mast.

Unfortunately I don't have access to the detailed drawings, let alone stability calcs, so everything above is general info about how it's done. My guess is your 110' doesn't have auto-actuating closures on the E/R vents either but is just as susceptible to downflooding through these locations and equally had to pass appropriate stability criteria before being certified for commercial operation.

Yes - really two simple options.
1) "snorkel" the air intake internally so that water cannot enter without going up hill.
2) auto shut the dampers on the downward side of the vessel when heeled.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you and there's no doubt that keeping all doors closed is best practice. I have no idea what actual standards were adhered to onboard the stricken vessel.

No doubt the investigation will ascertain the order of events and comment upon the culture in which they occurred.

All of the E/R ventilation systems I've specified, installed or certified have had manually operated dampers. Remotely operated of course, but requiring manual activation. Motor or sail, no difference.

Agree Pascal. However when I was chief engineer with a second engineer, they would always leave the door open during shipyard periods for ease of access when the door is being walked through 200 times a day. Underway or at anchor, or anytime off the dock, it had to be closed. Usually this was done to keep the noise down in the control room. However I’m well aware that at anchor when everything seems calm it can seem to like it’s fine to leave it latched open. I’ve also seen the door sensors inhibited (disabled) so this scenario doesn’t alarm in the bridge. If this was a causal factor with Bayesian I expect the Flag states will require more stringent control over the watertight door sensors/alarms.

Also agree on the ER vent penetrations. Maybe less of a concern for a motor yacht but you’d think they would be non-return to prevent water ingress on a sail yacht designed to heel over. That might also be a rule change, but won’t happen overnight and all existing yachts would be grandfathered for a few years.

This incident is unbelievable. I guess we won’t know the full story for 8-10 months.

That's not an air intake, as there were no openings in the hull topsides, other than the structural doors port side aft and transom, not even opening portholes.

It's likely a protective grill to avoid incidental contact with a fixed window, as that location may be vulnerable when alongside.

I may be mistaken but the louvred vents on the white structure inside the cockpit look like some type of intake/ventilation box that may lead below decks.

The discontinuity in the coaming to allow the recessed steps would raise an eyebrow. It will be interesting to see what procedures were in place to prevent water ingress once the deck edge became submerged.

No chance. Looking at it again it may be some type of freeing port, meant to allow any water around that sensitive area to drain overboard.

If so, this arrangement will likely be scrutinised very carefully.

Let me start with I know nothing, bupkis, nada, nyet about sailing vessels. I read a few pages back there's 200T of ballast on this tub. And - I says to myself 'holy spit! that's a lot of weight.' I don't know if it's metric ton, imperial ton, or what but it seems to me that this is a considerable weight on this size of boat. My last sailing vessel was a 19' Hobie. If this weight is needed for stability it would seem to add some significant concern when the boat heels over and exposes the vents, or ducts or whatever to possible water ingress. Why so much ballast? Again.. I'm sail-stupid, so maybe this is all just fine in the blow-bote world.

Show me the "comparison" or STFU