Proteksan & Turquoise Superyacht "Yogi" Sinks!

Funded an regulated by whom? If you think building, buying, operating and owning now is a PITA, add yet another oversight bureaucracy.

The bureaucracy already exists, it is already paid for by vessel registration fees and taxes. The Flag state has a mandate to investigate accidents and to oversee marine safety at all levels.

The value of the vessel is immaterial. As a matter of fact the total costs of the Yogi sinking will be nothing compared to just the legal fees generated by the loss of a tanker or a containership on a reef.

The problem is not that conducting investigations would add another layer, that layer already exists. The problem is that the bureaucrats fail to perform the job we pay them to do.

http://www.amem.at/pdf/AMEM_Marine_Accidents.pdf

As far as the FAA question, if the aircraft is US built or registered then the FAA has a mandate to investigate any accident involving that aircraft anywhere in the world. The circumstances surrounding the accident are easily found online and even the preliminary investigation results go into details that would make a yachtie's head spin. The information derived from those investigations is shared with all who have an interest.

Flag has a mandate to do the same with ships and yachts. Class societies also have a mandate (or at least they claim to have an interest) in investigating accidents in the interest of marine safety.

So far the track record of Flag and Class beyond fee collection leaves a lot to be desired.

My personal take on this is that nothing will change until a very very wealthy guest is lost and then we will be visited by a plague of bureaucrats that will make us pray for locusts.

Marmot: My point exactly. We're on the same page.

Latest but probably not really last from Proteksan as published on another site:

Hi,

Why do I smell smoke and feel my sphincter fluttering?

Case closed. We've got it under control, please, move along now, nothing to see here.

Is it just me, or is this a...

What part of the statement is a red flag?

Basically they are pointing their finger at something procedural (i.e. crew?) or is something else I didnt catch?

Something is amiss. P&T's statement doesn't float. No pun intended.

I read it as their way of saying what the lawyers for the captain and engineer paid them not to say. I think their non-statement says a lot.

It will be interesting to see if Class or Flag have anything at all to say that might contribute to yachting safety by pointing out where the system failed.

Agree with all, something is amiss, and obviously p&t agreed to what the lawyers told them (albeit I sense from the beginning p&t are irked about the situation... they keep moving their hip away from the association with the other involved parties as if to say "let me move myself as far away as I can from this before it blows - even though i'm so involved I can only move a few inches")...

But in all honesty, they could have kept quiet and said nothing about the "equipment"... doesnt their stance indicate that something other than equipment is then to blame? (for me this only leaves crew - although it could be crew error, or improper advise/training to handle the particular system)...

What do you guys think? am I missing the point?

I hope the flag comes out with something, although I kind of doubt it... the french are going to try and mask it up...first boat in french class, french crew, yadda yadda, they arent going to want to make a big fuss of it - UNFORTUNATELY, as it would be of great advantage to the community if the situation were well publicized (at least within the industry) so others could learn and the same could be prevented in future... if anything, the magnitude of the loss makes it so every yachtie has heard about it...

Tell someone to be careful on the watch because one day 100yrs ago a canoe hit an iceberg, and the watchman will be asleep 10 mins later... let him read about the titanic and he wont be sleeping through his watch...ppl are more afraid of "big" tragedies (even though there may be equally or even more valuable lessons in smaller ones)... (please take my big/small description very lightly... yogi can be thought of as a small tragedy as there was no loss of life, and so forth, but I meant that humans are fascinated by size "size matters" is what they say)...

Unfortunately, since this is headed to the courts, anything released by an "interested party" (builder, owner, crew) is now controlled by the lawyers, and only done for their client's benefit in future litigations. Sadly, courts are not about what's truly "just", but simply a legal means to assign blame... and the outcome of litigation reflects what story sticks with the judge or jury, which may or may not coincide with the truth or justice. A bit of a jaded opinion on my part, but that's what I think's going on. I don't believe it matters what's officially released by any of the interested parties, the simple fact is that 100% will be controlled by lawyers and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I eagerly await something to be released by an uninterested source!

I also believe that since the crew is not screaming bloody murder that they were nearly killed by a lousy design or wretched construction, the reasons for sinking might lie a bit too close to home. The fact that the owner is not screaming about being robbed of his yacht by faulty design or construction also tells us something.

Proteksan is saying all it can within the agreement between all the lawyers, and that, in my opinion, says that they may have installed or constructed something that contributed in some way to the sinking but since they have a get out of jail card courtesy of the Flag and/or Class approval process they can legitimately put some distance between themselves and this affair.

I have repeatedly seen situations where an owner (or his incompetent rep) has demanded that the yard install or locate equipment that an apprentice knows is wrong and will create huge problems after leaving the yard, and the owner has been advised. It is not the job of a yard to fight with the owner to do "what is right" if the wrong thing is still within Class or Flag rules.

This is a poster child case where Flag or Class are obliged to assume the role of "uninterested source" and conduct a public investigation. The preliminary facts are already known, it is imperative that any factual information relevant to marine safety is released in order to help prevent a recurrence of whatever caused the loss of Yogi.

If the Yogi was "in Class" and operating within the limits of its certification and the crew met Flag standards for certification and training then the fact that the yacht sank is sufficient for Flag to let the maritime industry know that there are risks or conditions that have not been adequately addressed by the system. Do we have to wait for another Yogi, maybe a Yogi with 12 charter guests onboard before we learn what might have prevented this incident?

Interesting situation. It can't be purely "human error" unless crew drilled a hole in the hull with a jackhammer. Gotta be something technical.

Marmot, the reason noone's screaming yet is because they are at the first stage of litigation. Still hoping for a fast and profitable (yep, for everyone ) settlement. Not wise to scream at this stage - don't corner the little mouse, you know. Screaming is reserved for latter stages when, and if, reasonably timely agreements fail to arrive.
Unfortunately for us, it's not indicative of nothing else.

Funny release from P&T also:

Having seen the footage she has a very shallow draft even her bolbous bow i would have expected to have been bigger due to her size giving her better bounacy ..

Hi,

How do you figure the Bulbous should be bigger?

Since the bow was the last part of the boat to see daylight, it is a fair assumption that it had all the bouyancy it needed.

It will be interesting to see if Greece or France follow the IMO requirements to file apreliminary accident report within 6 months. Annex 1 will tell us if there were machinery and or hull failures involved.

IMO and Marpol rules require that the full results of the required investigation be submitted to IMO on completion of the investigation. The Annexes required are fairly comprehensive. The reason they exist is to protect other ships and those who sail in them, not to protect the reputation of builders or crew.

IMO | Casualties

http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Safety/I...ies/Documents/CASUALTY ANALYSIS PROCEDURE.pdf

https://plus.ibinews.com/article/4j...ise_releases_yogi_statement/?nsl=pFWrHngzrnUC