60-meter British Flagged Vessel FOX sinks in Thailand

There is a basic flaw in your reasoning. Making money has very little to do with intelligence and even less to do with street smarts (or dock smarts). It has more to do with bravado, speel, an MBA, connections and lack of consience, none of which helps with boats. I've met more people with million dollar floating toys that can't even tie a bowline and I wouldn't trust running a tricycle than you could imagine. 'More money than brains' often comes to mind in this business. I wouldn't hire someone to fix my toilet without knowing his credentials, yet these folks will dump millions because someone sells them a dream.

you have a point but sometimes even if you start with that premise, situations these people get themselves into are difficult to understand... we're not talking about someone selling them a dream anymore, it's more like hot air...

I just purchased a service contract on a cheap TV. The 5 page contract I printed out boils down to 'we don't cover that'. For $20 who cares though. There was a time when I'd buy a costly item on a hand shake because the person I dealt with a) wouldn't dishonor his heritage b) knew he wouldn't sell another to anyone if he didn't take proper care of me after the sale and c) may not walk so well if he didn't do right. Now it's 'I've got an MBA and a good lawyer. That's all I need to be a professional in any field'. Recently I met a man who owns a boat dealership. 2 years ago he owned a car dealership. Next year it will probably be a donut franchise he's into. That doesn't inspire my confidence. I still know some yards where it's a kid of 23 taking care of me. It's alright though because he grew up in that yard; as did his father and grandfather. They charge a little more, but it saves me in the end.

There is no such thing as an "official investigation" of this sort of thing. The insurance company will try and find a way to avoid paying the loss, the yard will try and find a way to avoid a judgement for the owner, and the lads who claimed to know what they were doing will probably just go away and try it again someplace else.

There is no "official" interest if no one was killed (and in Thailand maybe not even then) and there certainly won't be much if any information made public.

Even when serious incidents occur to charter yachts flying traditional flags and manned by Europeans in European waters, the likelihood of any information about the cause coming to light is so slim as to be not worth waiting for. This thing wasn't even a boat yet, it was a collection of metalwork, owned by the yard, and damaged for reasons that no one has any obligation to describe.

Unless bad publicity forces a statement, hence the need for public debate. Although I sympathize with their statement their best shot at maintaining any sort of good rep is for them to come out and say 'This is what happened. This is whose fault it is and this is what we're doing to make sure it never happens again'. Otherwise, close your doors. And it doesn't take an "investigation" to figure that out. They undoubtedly knew the cause 5 minutes after it happened. I takes longer to figure out how to spin it though.

honestly, you'd be surprised how fast even "private and confidential" information gets around. sometimes the entire port knows exactly what happened in those "incidents" you mention even before the owner gets informed. people talk, simple as that. and they talk even more after a few beers. around viareggio you will know within a day of launch if a specific construction of a certain yard has a slight weight distribution problem so if it sinks like it did here, you can take it to the bank that the information will get out.

by "official" investigation i meant insurance investigation and i agree with you that they will leave no stone unturned. if they find that there is even a slightest departure from original specifications and requirements on which i presume the policy is based, at the end of it all the owner will have to pick up the tab...

The owner?

whoever financed this adventure. if insurance finds a reason not to pay, the yard will naturally be responsible. but what is the likelihood that the client will see any money back from them? i mean, nowadays legit yards are going under left and right so what is the probability that this yard which was on its first project is solid enough to accept responsibility, survive through bad publicity and soldier on?

i'll leave it at that and conclude by saying that i am genuinely sorry this has happened. i have been following this project and was eager to see how it would come out. it looked very interesting but i have to admit that the first time i saw the profile i did think "one deck too many". it was also of interest to me because i wondered from the start if there is any economic logic in such a conversion where basically you keep very little of the original vessel, everything including all systems and machinery seemed to be new. i understand that there might be a point when you keep much of the systems and machinery in place but in this case, i was really interested to see how this could work out against building from scratch. i would have thought that at the of the day it would be cheaper and much easier to start from zero. so pity there probably won't be any feedback from this project...

This situation is not limited to yachts.
The people at this "level" as you put it, are no different than all the other people out for a bargain deal.
It comes down to their thinking:
How little money can be spent to get the MOST.
Ignorance about what it is they are paying for.
An arrogance that they know best & can get it done CHEAPER!

Whether it is luxury boats or homes, just because a person has made his millions does not mean he understands VALUE in direct comparison to EXPENDITURE.
I wonder how many reputable yards submitted quotes & were tossed out for being too "expensive".

No, I wouldn't.

I would be very surprised to see any "official" report such as one produced by the insurance underwriters' surveyors or other legitimate organization with access to documents and the legal statements of those actually involved.

Hearsay from the yard workers or other folks who watched the progress as casual spectators is interesting and fun to read but that is all it is.

your joy at someones misfortunes takes away from the point of this thread.

Q: Master John
What is your relationship to this project?

no matter what the reasons and responsibilities are, this is a sad, sad sight. shipbuilding is a difficult and complicated task and all projects run into problems at some point, problems which are a source of stress and pressure. the rewards for solving these problems are financial but a big part of the reward is also seeing the finished yacht sail away with a happy owner on board. and to see your work go to waste like this is heartbreaking, whether you're at fault or not...

No, it's not all that complicated, however it is a complex task that when not performed correctly can result in threads like this one.

Hi,

This is what she looked like when it was a RN Survey Vessel.

http://i43.tinypic.com/4hts14.jpg

I wonder if there was ever a stability calculation done for all the added weight up and aft or if it fell over before any inclination experiment could be carried out?

Really, so they started with a nice boat and built a wreck...

She was a good looking ship. I actually prefer her before look, but then again I'm not fancy. That was a lot of weight added, but they should have been able to figure her balast requirements long before the launch, in fact before beginning the project. There can be no excuses for something like this, but I'm curious as to the reason it happened.

I wonder if the launch cradle failed before the afterbody was afloat? Did the stern flood through that open door and cause premature tipping and loss of transverse stability?

That is giving them the benefit of the doubt because if there was an architect or engineer involved they would have known the rotation and tipping points and or built floats for the stern if it was that dodgy.