Talk:Bayesian (yacht)

Bayesian Sinking

A lot of unsubstantiated conjecture on the sinking that the author would have no way of knowing. Captain distracted - capsize related to fuel on board etc. Better to leave this section until more reliable info is available. 199.189.172.130 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Well said. We must beware of WP:RECENTISM, but could I guess include reliably sourced speculation in due course. Springnuts (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It has been filled with speculation, stuff pushed in in front of sources which fail to support it etc. Wikipedia in one of its worse forms, where people confuse it with a blog. forum, facebook, whatever. Good luck – I think I will leave it for a bit and look back in a week or two when the passionate urgency has abated. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed this serious BLP violation. DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck! DBaK (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's not start omitting essential information for the reconstruction of the shipwreck and the evident responsibilities of the commander.

No speculation but objective facts, the storm was widely announced by the weather forecasts. The storm was visible on weather radar. Of course the captain could not have predicted the waterspout, but perhaps if he had seen the weather radar he could have saved the vessel and the people on it even in the imminent of the storm. The port, as eyewitnesses reported, was nearby.

From the newspaper article in Italian:

Testimoni: "Era ancora in rada"

Secondo alcuni testimoni, l'imbarcazione quando si è scatenata la tromba d'ara era ancora in rada davanti al porto di Porticello. L'ancora era abbassata. Il nubifragio che si è abbattuto avrebbe spezzato l'imponente albero a vela. Questo avrebbe provocato uno sbilanciamento dell'imbarcazione che ha provocato il naufragio.

"L'imbarcazione non era distante dal porto"

I velieri in rada erano due. E' stata propria l'altra imbarcazione a soccorrere la nave Bayesian. "Quell'imbarcazione era tutta illuminata - dice un uomo a Porticello -. Verso le 4:30 di mattina non c'era più. Una bella imbarcazione dove c'era stata una festa. Una normale giornata di vacanza trascorsa in allegria in mare si è trasformata in tragedia. L'imbarcazione non era distante dal porto. Bastava poco per alzare l'ancora e dirigersi in porto. Evidentemente sono stati sorpresi dalla burrasca che si è abbattuta improvvisamente e non sono riusciti a evitare l'affondamento".

A picco 18mila litri di combustibile nei serbatoi

Con il veliero è andato a picco anche un pesante carico di combustibile, pari a circa 18mila litri, la quantità contenuta nei serbatoi. La capacità complessiva è di circa 58.700 litri.

https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/sicilia/porticello-palermo-maltempo-affonda-veliero-dispersi_86138447-202402k.shtml 79.30.56.31 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

But as this is an ongoing investigation, further details emerge.

https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/affonda-barca-vela-palermitano-7-dispersi-AFeqrgRD 79.30.56.31 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

and there's something else...

https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/morto-un-incidente-stradale-stephen-chamberlain-ex-coimputato-linch-AFeGTYSD 79.30.56.31 (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You are attempting to insert pure speculation into the article. If you are behind the IP who did this (same region) you will be blocked if you continue. We have strict rules on how we refer to living persons especially in the context of serious allegations. In that edit a false source was provided. But in any case you need to read WP:BLP. There is no "evident responsibilities" at the moment. Just you putting 2 and 2 together and making an excitable 5. That's called WP:OR and is prohibited in Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I acted in good faith following the reconstruction according to journalistic sources. well there are some obvious inaccuracies, released at first. The breaking of the mainmast does not seem to have ever occurred. Furthermore the boat was 700 meters from Porticello, at anchor. The video of the sinking of the sailing ship.

https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/2024/video/bayesian-su-tgcom24-le-immagini-esclusive-dell-affondamento-del-veliero-a-palermo_86202735-02k.shtml 79.30.56.31 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Further developments of the investigation...

https://www.milanofinanza.it/news/naufragio-del-bayesian-una-polizza-da-2-miliardi-a-garanzia-del-super-yacht-202408202113266154

https://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/cronaca/veliero-affondato-palermo-dubbi-cause-albero-intatto-errore-umano_86210251-202402k.shtml

The hull and mainmast were intact at the time of the sinking and also afterwards. 82.58.148.192 (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I've changed a sentence because it prematurely declared the 6 missing passengers as dead, when this is not yet confirmed. I'm unsure what to do with the "victims" section, whether to change it to "missing" or delete it entirely. Obviously once it's confirmed either way this should all be changed to reflect it. ~OneRandomBrit | User Page | Talk 10:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"Bad weather had been forecast and local fishermen had decided to keep their boats in port, but there had been no warning of an extreme weather event." "Bad weather" can mean anything. A mild shower can be classified as bad weather. We should be able by now to find what exactly had been the weather forecast(s) (and put it in quotes). As for what excitable Sicilian fishermen will say in front of the national and international press, I would take it with a grain of salt.--Lubiesque (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not speak Italian and do not know whether one can access the relevant historical weather forecasts. The most specific I have seen is in the Simon Boxall interview [[1]] at 13.34 where he talks of a storm warning of a force 6-7. He then goes on to say that this would not generally cause a safety issue for a yacht the size of Bayesian. From 11.29, he talks about some of the causes and about data from Palermo airport on the suddenness and severity of the event. I do not know whether the downburst would have been visible on the ship's radar or whether the radar was monitored by the watch or, even if both were true, how much notice this would have provided. The watch did not say whether he was aware of the storm warning. He talked of wind getting up to 20 knots or force 5 at which point he alerted the captain and then the yacht suddenly tilting. In the dark, the crew member could not see any visual signals of the downburst but again this might not have provided very much notice. While I suggested the inclusion of the fishermen comment, they will have their own standard for what weather would keep them in port, so I am not sure how relevant this is; I would not object to it being removed. Jontel (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone here who did not agree with those fishermen: At the press conference given a week ago by the prosecutor of Termini Imerese, Ambrogio Cartosio, the commander of the Port Authority of Palermo, Raffaele Macauda, who was also present, declared: "The two boats (Bayesian and Sir Baden Powell) could stay at anchor in that area. After all, there was no storm alert for that evening." («Le due imbarcazioni potevano stare in rada in quella zona. Del resto per quella sera non c’era un’allerta di burrasca»). https://www.lasicilia.it/cronaca/bayesian-pm-evento-repentino-e-improvviso-2240967/ --Lubiesque (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the FT reports 'The weather forecast, issued at midnight on Sunday for the 12 hours until noon on Monday, warned of isolated thunderstorms but not of any extreme weather systems, according to Admiral Raffaele Macauda of the Palermo coastguard.' [[2]] So, perhaps a forecast of storms but not necessitating an alert. In the event, according to the captain of the yacht nearby, the wind was “violent, very violent” and he estimated it reached force 12 on the Beaufort scale — hurricane strength. “It was tonnes of water coming down. I never saw that before, there was a water tornado,” he added. Jontel (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've changed the article to reference Macauda and and experienced captain of the nearby yacht - much better sources. Thanks! Jontel (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised that you did not quote directly what Admiral Macauda said regarding the absence of a weather alert and instead only reported on what he said.--Lubiesque (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a mix of direct quotes in some publications and paraphrasing in others and I though it would be awkward to combine them. Also, he and others talk of storm warnings and storm forecasts, just not severe ones, so the quote you found does not tell the whole story. Here is the BBC ;Raffaele Macauda, deputy commander of the Palermo coastguard, said the weather at the time of the yacht's sinking was abnormal, adding there were forecasts of winds and a storm alert. There was no alert of a tornado, the deputy commander said. Mr Macauda said: "Given that the conditions were such, there wasn't anything to suggest there could be an extreme situation arising. [[3]] and the FT reports him as warning of storms. Others also say that storms were forecast, just not severe ones. Jontel (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Name

Oh, just one last thing before I naff off in a strop. Is the name explicable? I thought it was simply Bayesian, like the stats. Pronounced Bayes-ian. I rather thought that was the whole point, because it had to do with how Lynch ended up so successful. So I was a bit surprised to hear a BBC reporter contorting themselves to make it foreign and exotic, so the boat was called the Bi-ESS-ian. Maybe I am wrong about all this (plus tbh I don't really care!) but if by some remote chance I am right, do we not have a duty to educate these poor benighted people? Bye for now, DBaK (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The BBC news online site agrees with you that it's named Bayesian after Mike Lynch's PhD thesis and subsequent use of stats in his career. Weird pronounciation by reporters are nothing new! I vividly remember Moira Stuart always calling Baghdad 'Bug-uh-dud' - I don't know if that's how locals pronounce it, I imagine it must be something along those lines - but it was a rather ridiculous thing for her to do. Foreign place names have accepted pronunciations depending on the speaker's native language. In the UK we call Paris, Paris. We don't call it 'Parr-eee', nor do we call France 'Fraun-suh'. Having said all of that, Thomas Bayes was English and his surname was pronounced 'Bayz', so his statistical theorem is 'Bayz-eh-un'. One of these days I'm going to learn how to read and write phonetic symbols properly - for the moment I'll settle on Bayz-eh-un!

And I fully agree with your early comment about this article being loaded with speculation. Things like "the boat sank due to a storm" and stating the six missing people were dead. It's been improved upon now as far as I can see. The Italian authorities recently said that it is possible some of the six missing people may still be alive, albeit unlikely. I would imagine the divers have been knocking on the hull and listening for noises in reply - and if there were any noises coming from within I think that would have been reported (and the pace and scale of the diving mission would have been dramatically scaled up). Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Victims subsection

I'm not aware of how these things are done, but it feels wrong to have a victims subsection for missing and dead right after a survivors subsection - my first thought was that all listed in victims were confirmed dead until I read the comment in the last one saying that's the only confirmed dead. – 2804:F1...A7:C558 (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. With every hour that passes it becomes increasingly unlikely any of the six missing people will have survived (trapped in the hull), but that is beside the point. The article has used the word 'victims' for over 24 hours - almost from the outset I think - including at the time when there was still hope (however realistic or unrealistic) of finding people alive. Usually with high profile events such as this, one of the Wikeratti takes charge and keeps things painstakingly in order. It's surprising that this article has been so poorly written and developed. The words 'missing' or "unaccounted for" should be used until such time as the outcome is officially announced. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Victims" is an odd heading anyway - anyone on board is a "victim". I've split it between "Missing" and "Confirmed deceased". DeCausa (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I saw that yesterday but had no idea what to change it to so I just left it. ~OneRandomBrit | User Page | Talk 15:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Lynch and daughter have been confirmed dead in various sources. So, they shouldn't still be listed under "Missing" as it is now. Example: https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/21/mike_lynch_dead/

As for the others, I haven't found death confirmations yet. 184.175.42.11 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not confirmed dead. As explained in the article (and in the source you linked to) the Italian authorities have not confirmed yet even though there are media reports. DeCausa (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"Body of IT tycoon Mike Lynch recovered" sounds pretty "confirmed" to me. Turner.john60 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

In the 33 hours or so since the person made the comment you are replying to, the confirmation happened - and the article reflects this. Thanks for joining in. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Ship"

I know the boat/ship discussion is complex, but Bayesian's hull length is nearly the same as that of HMS Victory (56 vs. 57 m), or 10m longer than HMS Trincomalee. She's not a fully rigged ship, of course, but still... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You make some interesting points. However, if we stick to 'it', vessel and 'yacht', we can avoid the complexity. Jontel (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Model railways

Does anyone have another source for model railways? There is a model railway builder called Mike Lynch, but he wrote a book called Model Railways on a Budget which doesn't sound like a book written by someone worth hundreds of millions? Southdevonian (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Well this Guardian article says he built model railways as a hobby. But that's probably something for Mike Lynch (businessman) rather than this article. DeCausa (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

My grandmother always told me, "if you want to get rich, don't fritter money away on train sets". To my mind, Model Railways on a Budget sounds like a sure-fire way to become a millionaire. It's fascinating to think that that Mike Lynch the dead megaboat guy is the same Mike Lynch who wrote the budget train set book. Given the Guardian article quoted by @DeCausa, it seems credible. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry - I intended this for the Mike Lynch talk page and for some reason I put it here. Nothing, of course, to do with the yacht. Southdevonian (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Present or past tense

It seems to me Bayesian is not was a yacht, has not had a mast etc if she is sitting intact in 50m and due to be recovered Northutsire (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

We have not heard that it will be recovered. Jontel (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

As already in the article, the Italian coastguard have said that that has not yet been considered, but clearly will be discussed later. I suspect that decisions will also involve the investigators, insurers and the bereaved owner (maybe the management company on her behalf). - Davidships (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Image

Can anyone find a rights appropriate image of this fine craft for the article? Jontel (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done by User:kresspahl Jontel (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox class and type

Currently these are both set as 'Sailing superyacht'. Is this correct? Please change if not. Jontel (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems a good description to me. It's a superyacht (common) of the wind-powered variety (very few) - it does of course also have an diesel power, as already shown in the infobox. Just leave "class" blank. - Davidships (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Y Done Jontel (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect infobox template?

The infobox template used is vessel, but this template is for powered vessels. There is a sailing yacht template but that is for racing yachts. Other superyachts seems to use the ship template. Would anyone volunteer to change it over to this? Jontel (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Good call - the existing "vessel" template misses important parameters, like "ship operator" (ie manager) and "identification" (eg IMO number). I'll change it to the ship template later on today. - Davidships (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I would do it but think it is better done by someone more knowledgeable. Jontel (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Y Finally done, apologies for delay - Davidships (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

How long could the divers spend on the sea floor?

Currently the article says 8 minutes - doesn't seem to be sourced. BBC says 12 minutes on this article https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzk4r8293o but 10 minutes on the linked one https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9ex7p40z8o

https://news.sky.com/story/divers-enter-sunken-superyacht-but-have-just-ten-minutes-to-search-for-bodies-13200100 says 12 minutes, but 2 needed to ascend and descend, leaving 10 for searching - that sounds incredibly quick for a 50m dive to me, but I do know basically nothing about SCUBA…? Timtjtim (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The 8 minutes is sourced. The ref is at the end of the next sentence - ref number 13. The article says: ""The greatest challenge is the depth," Marco Tilotta, the head of the firefighter divers in Palermo, told the Guardian. "We have three minutes to descend and eight minutes to work on the wreck. Then we have to begin the ascent phase. Not to mention the furniture that blocks access to the cabins".

Yes, some sources give slightly different figures - are they perhaps counting descent and ascent time? But they are all approximately the same. Southdevonian (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

How much speculation does the article need?

At the moment all we know for certain is that the yacht sank in a storm. An investigation has been opened and hopefully will throw more light on exactly what happened - why the yacht sank and why seven people did not survive. Until then it is all speculation. At the moment the article gives the impression that the crew made mistakes - the three quotes and the speculation about hatches all imply criticism of the crew's actions. It is possible to find less one-sided opinions in the media, but does the article even need a list of media speculation about causes? My inclination would be to scrap the section altogether until we know more. Or, failing that, introduce some quotes that are less critical of the crew. Thoughts? Southdevonian (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that we can do better than include random speculation. On the other hand, we do not know how long the investigation will take to conclude, especially if they wait till the yacht is raised and examined. Perhaps we can include views but only from those with relevant knowledge: there are the fisherman, the nearby yacht, the sea temperature, the weather forecast, the yacht builders and the first press conference of the investigators. Of course, it is better if they are based on observed facts. In articles covering disasters and other sinkings and plane crashes, I think I have seen discussion of potential causes. Jontel (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed some duplicated points. Jontel (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

With the yacht sinking by the stern initially, according to the authorities' press conference, and the tender supposedly missing, there is some discussion in the superyacht community that the tender garage, if unsecured, could be a potential cause of massive water ingress, but I don't know if you want to put this in, given your concern. Jontel (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

This is the kind of discussion you mention. It is interesting and informative, but the Wikipedia guideline that discusses the reliability of various types of sources says that content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I cannot reconcile diagrams like this from The Sun^{full story} with accounts by the Italian authorities about cabins on the left and right sides of the yacht.^[4] The Sun's diagram also has the tender garage near the bow. superyachts.com says that the Bayesian accommodates up to 10 guests in 6 cabins. She also houses room for up to 9 crew members. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is a better plan showing the cabins. https://www.superyachttimes.com/yacht-news/perini-navi-sailing-yacht-bayesian-sinks-off-palermo-seven-missing I read the tender garage might be up front but that there might be a stern opening to the swim platform. Both/ either could have been unsecured. This might be wrong. Anyway, things could have changed in the 2020 refit so one could be looking at an old plan. Jontel (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

user:southdevonian I have added an expert view that the crew could not have been expected to prepare for such a rare event as a downburst and that the impact was too sudden and severe for them to take remedial action, which is a counterpoint to the shipbuilder's critique of them. Jontel (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Toddy1 Go to the yacht's page on the builder's website and you get the six minute video, the 38pp brochure, tech specs, plans for each deck... https://www.perininavi.it/yacht/2008-bayesian-formerly-salute/ Jontel (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The plans in the brochure are interesting. Whereas the plan in The Sun merely shows what a luxury yacht is like inside - but not this particular yacht.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I have been looking for an article that summarises all the different theories that have been discussed. I found something in yahoo!news which gets the green light as an RS so will use that to re-write the section less like a breaking news story. Southdevonian (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I found this 30m interview with a naval architect and yacht designer [[5]] a good antidote to less informed speculation.Jontel (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The sinking: timing of events

The article says:

Bayesian sank around 04:30 CEST on 19 August 2024 during a storm when anchored off Porticello (township of Santa Flavia), a small fishing village about 15 km (9.3 mi) east of Palermo, Sicily.

References

But the source above does not explicitly say that. The times in the source are:

• 03:30, witness Cefalù arrived at the port, "the first flashes of lightning illuminated the sky".^[6]
• 03:55 witness Cefalù said that "a sort of mini-tornado arrived"^[7]
• 04:35 "a red emergency flare was launched from the Bayesian’s life raft"^[8]

A BBC story has some timings: Lowen, Mark (25 August 2024). "The 16 minutes that plunged the Bayesian yacht into a deadly spiral". BBC News.

• 03:56 electrical power went out on the yacht "showing that water was flooding areas with electrical circuits"^[9]
• 04:12 "there were 16 minutes between the power going out on the ship at 03:56 – showing that water was flooding areas with electrical circuits – and the GPS signal being lost, indicating the moment it sank."^[10] [I have put the 04:12 in italics because it was calculated from this statement]
• 04:15 witness Cefalù saw a flare go up^[11]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

To me, 4.12 is around 4.30, but happy for you to change it.Jontel (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Verification

Jontel, thank you for all the improvements to the infobox. Please can you find a way to put an indication of the source for this information into the article. WP:VERIFY is important.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have done some of this. I am struggling to find sources for some information without using sales and marketing material from the builders, agents or various quasi sales sites, which are not independent or with a date, albeit the information is probably not contentious. Is it better to use these sources if nothing else can be found? If anyone can fill in any of the gaps, that would be great. Jontel (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Useful source for technical details

If you go through all the photos in this brochure [12] you come to a list of technical details on page 35 and plans on page 38. Southdevonian (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Jontel (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Though it is fine to just give the mast height (in feet and metres) in the lead, I think we ought to say what we mean by mast height in the "design and construction" section. The manufacturer's website defined the height as measured from the design waterline (DWL).^[13] -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jontel (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Changing the title?

This article is already mostly about the sinking and clearly this will be even more so in the near future and as time goes on. Shouldn't the title be changed now to something like Bayesian Sinking, Bayesian Superyacht Sinking or something similar? Lubiesque (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

A titanic suggestion? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Certainly it did not have an article before the sinking and most large yachts do not. An alternative is to retain a short standard article on the yacht's history and characteristics and have a separate article on the sinking, rescue and recovery, lifting, theories, investigation, any law suits etc. which would have a different tone. See e.g. RMS Lusitania and Sinking of the RMS Lusitania or Costa Concordia and Costa Concordia disaster although these were admittedly much larger. Here is a List_of_maritime_disasters_in_the_21st_century which have varying treatments. Jontel (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

At least at present, the article is not particularly lengthy and I see no reason for a fork. The current title is fine as it is - simple and self-explanatory, covering the life and death of a yacht named Bayesian. - Davidships (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We could always wait until the investigation is concluded and revisit the question then. Jontel (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The current title is best. It defines the topic; it does not exclude elements of the topic. [If you have an article on the "death of Jane Smith", you get people who want remove information on Jane Smith because they say that the victim's life is not relevant.]-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Storm warning

@Southdevonian I think it is significant that nearby seafarers familiar with the area were aware that a dangerous storm was approaching, as this puts the onus on the yacht's captain to have monitored forecasts and prepared for the storm. We had the fisherman's testimony, reproduced below, in the article. Could it be put back in the article or paraphrased or replaced by some other information on what storm warning(s) were issued?

A Porticello fisherman said, "[w]e all knew that a storm was coming and that during that night it was better to keep the boats inside the port. We all know each other, and we were saying this among ourselves". Jontel (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Jontel (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jontel presumably the investigation will look at whether the captain had been monitoring forecasts and taken appropriate measures. I think the fisherman's quote would only be relevant if there was debate about whether the storm was forecast and of course there will be records of exactly what the forecasts were saying, so it won't be an issue. So far reports seem to be saying that bad weather had been forecast but nothing out of the ordinary, although it is not always very clear. For example: "The coast guard said bad weather had been forecast, but added that it was more virulent than expected."[14]; "Maritime director of western Sicily, Rear Admiral Raffaele Macauda, said the weather at the time of the yacht's sinking was abnormal and there was nothing to suggest such an extreme situation would arise" [15]. How about something along the lines of: "Bad weather had been forecast and local fishermen had decided to keep their boats in port, but there had been no warning of an extreme weather event.? Southdevonian (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that covers the issue well; thanks. Jontel (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jontel (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Fresh water and fuel capacity and levels

Regarding the freshwater capacity, I think it would be useful to specify the sources for the two different figures

• 10,900 <ref name=PN1/>, i.e. the perininavi.it web page
• 15,500 litres Bayesian formerly Salute brochure, which can be downloaded from the perininavi.it web page

I suspect the reason for the difference is that the freshwater storage capacity was changed. But I do not know the dates associated with each figure.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I agree re cause, though it is a big difference. Perhaps it was changed in the 2020 refit. It is odd for high end designers/ builders to have such a discrepancy in published material. I have also seen 12,400 and 14,000 from other sources. Very odd. Jontel (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Question: would the actual amount of water onboard make any difference to the vessel's stability or its capsize vulnerability? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

10,900 litres of fresh water weighs about 10.9 tonnes (2% of the yacht's displacement). If full water (and fuel) tanks are low in the hull, they add to stability. But, of course, at the time the yacht sank some of that water will have been consumed. Partly filled tanks of liquid (water or fuel) have a free surface effect (the water flows as the ship rolls), which reduces stability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. 2% isn't much. Even 15.5 tonnes would be only about 3%? If the tanks were nearly empty I guess they would have less free surface effect and might aid buoyancy. Not sure we will ever know the levels. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added the fuel capacity 49,700 and 58,700 from the website tech specs and brochure. As comparison, the keel box at the top of the keel, so not the extendable part, weighed around 200 tonnes. Jontel (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123 According to various media sources e.g. [16], it now has 18,000 litres of fuel on board, so less than half of its capacity, and so about 30 tonnes less ballast than it would have if it was full. Doubtles the investigators will take fuel and water levels into account and the crew should know, even if the water tank is depleted post salvage. It might be in the investigators' report when completed and if published.Jontel (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for explaining. I guess the nature and rapidity of the sinking may have left the vessel and its contents largely intact. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have moved those entries to "capacities" from "endurance". We already have a figure for "range", which is fuel-derived endurance (though obviously not the whole story for a sailing ship). Fresh water is not usually a limiting factor as some or all will be produced onboard by watermakers (unless fuel runs out, of course). - Davidships (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Did Bayesian have a watermaker? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen any information on whether the Bayesian had a watermaker. Davidships I take the point about the Endurance parameter. According to the template, this parameter is 'The time that a ship can operate without entering port for resupply.' This might relate to provisions, excluding fishing, and we do not have that information. However, Capacity is defined as 'Passenger and cargo capacity' which does not include water and fuel. Rather, the template recommends that they go in Notes, defined as 'Any information that does not fit into the above fields.' Jontel (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

OK in Notes. To be honest, watermakers are basic kit for any cruising yacht, large or small, so they tend not to be featured in charter specs - but do appear in "for sale" specs. I haven't found one advertising Salute, but here are the watermakers on four other big Perini Navi yachts:

• PN56: 2 x Idromar each with 12,000 l/day capacity[17]
• PN52: 2 x Idromar each with 7,000 l/day capacity[18]
• PN50: 2 x Idromar each with 7,000 l/day capacity[19]
• PN40: 2 x Idromar Mini Junior 2J each with 3100 l/day capacity[20]

This is not for the article, of course, and I only mentioned it to illustrate why, so far as water capacity is concerned, it's nothing to do with endurance. - Davidships (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ballast weight

A previous captain of the yacht made some interesting comments [21]. On the ballast, he says:

"The height of Bayesian’s mast was of course considered in the overall design of the boat by Perini’s engineers. To this end she was equipped with an extra 30T of lead ballast in her keel box (we’ll come to that in a bit) compared to the 56m ketch rigged sister ships. This was to counter the extra mass, higher centre of gravity and higher centre of effort (from sailing forces) that the sloop rig created. The main lead ballast was contained in a more or less rectangular box (keel box)attached below the canoe shaped part of the hull. The precise mass of this ballast I do not recall, but it’s probably around 200T or so. In the centre part of this box there is the moveable keel, which weighed around 60T and extended almost 6m below the keel box when lowered. This arrangement means that the majority of the righting moment of the vessel comes from the main ballast… the moveable keel acting more as a centreboard to reduce sideslip under sail (leeway)…"

I cannot decide from this whether the 60T moveable keel figure is included in the 200T. The only reliable independent source I could find that mentions it [22] infers that it is, so that is what I have gone with. Jontel (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems to make the weights of any fresh water or fuel, and any effects they might have on vessel stability, comparatively insignificant? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

No it all depends on the margins, and we do not have access to information that would allow us to assess them. That very tall mast has a very big effect on stability; partly because of distribution of weights; and partly because the wind pushes on the mast.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Meh. I bet the divers haven't even found any margins. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The "previous captain" should talk to Mr. Archimedes about the righting moment of a 60t keel bulb with a lever of ~10m vs. 140t (or 200t) with a lever of ~3m. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he thought that the yacht could right itself from a 90 degrees heel with the keel down but only 75 degrees with it raised, which would be normal at anchor. Jontel (talk)

S/Y name prefix

I have added this to the infobox as per the infobox guideline and builder's website [[23]] but other articles do not seem to have it; by all means take it out if wrong. Jontel (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Ship prefixes are optional (and self-declaring a personal preference for their omission for civilian vessels, where there is no special reason for inclusion). A quick look over the references suggests that, apart from Perini Navi, SY is little used. Note that the infobox guideline examples (eg HMS Victory) relate to ship article titles that include a ship prefix - this article doesn't. There is some useful guidance relating to both article titles and use within the article at WP:SHIPNAME#Optional prefix. Also the punctuated format "S/Y" is specifically deprecated. I have taken them out. - Davidships (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Podcast with Bill Prince

@Jontel I haven't been able to verify the text that is sourced to the Bill Prince interview. Perhaps I missed something while skipping the adverts, but I couldn't see anything about a wide beam or length of mast/turtling. Would you be able to give the minutes where they are discussed? I think in any case the views of Prince are rather misrepresented as he emphasises how thoroughly engineered the yacht was from the safety point of view and suggested the accident was down to an act of God (in quotes) and possibly wrong decisions on the part of the crew. Southdevonian (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Southdevonian I was not seeking to represent Prince’s views as a whole, simply to list certain specific potential contributory factors that he mentioned and which were not in the article, to make the article more comprehensive. Nor am I seeking either to ascribe particular or indeed any definite importance to any particular potential factor or contribution of factors or to reach any conclusions. Regarding the timing in the video of the causes I referenced to the video: low cockpits; 8.34 and 19.40; self-opening salon doors 23.08 in the Bill Prince video. Regarding the issues you could not find, I must apologise; I was watching several videos and misremembered - the wide beam and turtling issues were mentioned by Simon Boxall on [[24]] at 17.03 and 17.17 respectively. I have corrected the article. Jontel (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Jontel. It is important to distinguish between what we know happened, which belongs in the sinking section, and people speculating in the media about possible, in their opinion, causes. So I have removed anchor dragging from speculation as that appears to have been established and is already in the sinking section. I will move fishermen as well to the sinking section. As for the captain's reported comment "We didn't see it coming", that is reported fact not speculation so I have removed it from this section. I would prefer not to include it anywhere as it is not clear what they didn't see coming - the storm, the downburst, the sinking? - so it doesn't add anything, but if anyone wants it perhaps it should go after the sentence about him not answering questions. I have clarified in the text that the "potential contributory factors" are just things suggested by various people when being interviewed by various media and not things said by people who have any particular knowledge of the circumstances of the sinking. Southdevonian (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Southdevonian I do not disagree with any of that. I would raise two questions. Speculation is about four separate, through connected, questions, which have both shared and distinct causes: why did the yacht capsize; why did it fail to right, given many yachts do right after capsizing; why did it sink so quickly, and; why did some passengers drown. How should we address this? For example, we could mention them all as questions while not necessarily addressing speculation on each separately. Secondly, while it may be obvious, the timing has been cited by some commentators as a key factor: during the day, the watch may have seen the approaching storm, enabling greater preparedness, and all of the passengers would have likely been up and about, improving their survival chances. Should that be mentioned? Jontel (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

My own suggestion is to wait until we have more information. Are you sure that superyachts right themselves after capsizing? The article already says that the storm happened at night. If there was a storm in the daytime people might still have been in their cabins. And whatever time of day or night there should presumably have been emergency measures in place. Were they followed? Again, not Wikipedia's job to speculate. I think a brief section on media speculation is sufficient and leave the investigators to answer any questions. Southdevonian (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. Certainly, the yacht's Limit of positive stability was reportedly less than for smaller yachts. In fact, I am not seeing a detailed or at least reliable and agreed account of the exact sequence of the sinking in terms of ship motions; wthout that, commentators are discussing potential causes without knowing exactly what happened. Jontel (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Insurance

According to Reuters, [[25]] salvage will be covered by insurance, part of potential total claims of at least $150m. Not sure if anyone wants to add this to the article. Jontel (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it says: "The superyacht's hull was insured against physical damage by yacht insurance provider OMAC and a consortium of insurers including Travelers Companies Inc (TRV.N), Navium Marine and Convex, Reuters reported last week." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Downflooding angle

Some interesting data emerging on this: From a previous captain of the yacht "The Angle of Vanishing Stability is the angle of heel at which the vessel righting moment reaches zero, meaning that the vessel will not return to upright. Again, I forget the actual numbers for this, but the figures would be around 90 degrees with the moveable keel lowered and 75 degrees with it raised. The Downflooding Angle is much more important though in the scenario we are talking about. This is the angle of heel at which water will start to enter the vessel (usually through engine room or accommodation ventilation ducts)… once this starts the vessels is in serious trouble as stability is quickly reduced or lost due to the flooding. The downflooding angle for Bayesian was around 40-45 degrees… much less than the AVS. So, unless the vent dampers are closed (which with HVAC systems and generator running they would NOT be as they need to be open for that), the vessel will start to flood rapidly if heeled more than the downflooding angle." [[26]] and, from the present captain, "Cutfield said the boat tilted by 45 degrees and stayed in that position for some time, then it suddenly fell completely to the right"[[27]] My emphasis Jontel (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this the right citation?

@Southdevonian: I saw these edits? I understood how the Yahoo article referenced by <ref name=Theories/> supported stuff that it was cited for. But the edit in question has parked stuff previously supported by that article next to a citation to

"Tributes paid to superyacht chef 'whose smile lit up the room'". Daily Telegraph. 20 August 2024. Archived from the original on 21 August 2024. Retrieved 3 September 2024.

That looks like a mistake.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The Yahoo article was a round-up of the various theories going around, taking quotes from other articles rather than interviewing people itself. The Mercalli comments were taken from the Telegraph article. Now another editor has added bits of Mercalli's interview from the Telegraph article, I thought it better to keep them together. Southdevonian (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What the Italian article actually says

@Jontel this is what the Italian article says happened at "alle 3.50 il veliero era già in guerra contro il vento e l’acqua" which translates literally as "the yacht was already at war against the wind and water". Paraphrased = the yacht was struggling against the storm. "Driven by the wind" has a slightly different meaning and doesn't necessarily imply a struggle. Also, you have now put in two quotes from Borner before Sir Robert Baden Powell is even introduced. They need to be rearranged and perhaps, since he is now being extensively quoted, the captain could be named. Southdevonian (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Would naming the captain involve a breach of sub-judice? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Because he might be called as a witness in the event of a trial? It doesn't seem to have bothered any of the media. Even if he is not named, I think the name of the "nearby yacht" should be introduced at first mention. It looks odd at third mention. Southdevonian (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

That was the possible reason I was thinking of. But yes, he's already widely quoted in the press anyway? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, just by reading the sub-judice article, I cannot see anything that would prevent Captain Borner being named or quoted. Southdevonian (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Southdevonian 1. It is better to stick to one topic per section; the guideline is 'Make a new heading for a new topic' WP:TALKNEW. The reason is that, if the discussion is extensive, it becomes hard to follow if several subjects are covered.

2. Struggle has three meanings when used as a verb:

* To strive, to labour in difficulty, to fight (for or against), to contend.

* To have difficulty with something.

* To strive, or to make efforts, with a twisting, or with contortions of the body. struggle#Ver

I suppose a yacht under power and command could struggle against the elements, though this is anthropomorphic; it is really the helmsman doing the struggling. Here the yacht was not under power or command; I suppose the meaning is therefore the second one; it was having difficulty with the storm. But what difficulty? It is vague. It is based on AIS data i.e. repeated positions and therefore also speed and course. The only meaning I can think of is that the AIS showed that the ship was being driven from its initial position by the storm. I just thought it would be clearer to be explicit in what is a complex picture.

3. If someone's comments address different parts of a course of events, it is probably better to place them where they do that rather than force them together just because they came from the same person, if that is the rearranging you had in mind. It might be possible to bring the comments together but there is the danger of losing the thread of events. By all means, name the Baden Powell at the first point that it or its captain is mentioned. There were only two yachts in the bay.

4. We can name the captain if it is helpful WP:NPF; there is a general presumption in favor of privacy, though. As he is only involved by chance, I think it is an open question whether to name him or not. Jontel (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Despite valiant efforts to keep it in check, there is still too much focus here on press reports of what this or that expert (some of them anonymous) think about what may or may not have led to the outcomes for those on Bayeseian. In my view this kind of content should be minimised - it's pretty well all just opinion from people who may indeed be knowledgable about some aspects or other but are really just speculating. This is what news organisations do - but we are not one - and, in my view, most of it is quite unencyclopaedic.

As for the Italian paper in question Data from the tracking of the Automatic Identification System (AIS) showed that at 3.50 CEST Bayesian was already being buffeted by the storm and then began to drag its anchor. At 4.05 it was entirely underwater..., that is just fanciful journalese. The AIS transmits position, and consequently movement over time. Just that. Marine Traffic's data points may indicate movements around an anchorage position typical of bad weather; and then, some moments after 3.50 suggest a more obvious directional movement (interpreted as dragging anchor), before ending about 4.05, but nothing more than that. There's a partial static version here.

So far as Captain Borner is concerned, there is no reason to anonymise him, certainly in reference to him and his Mate, as first responders, taking the yacht's tender in immediate response to seeing the flare and bringing the 15 survivors to his yacht (I have seen no suggestion that that is not accurate). But what he said about the weather and the sinking we should treat with more caution, per WP:PRIMARY. It is unfortunate that those comments come before the "Sinking", but nevertheless, his ID, his yacht's ID and that this was the only other vessel out in the bay should appear at first mention. If that's awkward for the prose, some of that could be in a footnote. - Davidships (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree we should not include material simply because it is reported. However, people might feel that expert-led media theories and reported witness comments are legitimately included temporarily to fill the vacuum, but they will likely be replaced by the investigation findings in due course. On the point of 'anonymous' experts, they were anonymised by a Wikipedia editor but are often named in the sources so their names could easily be aded to the article if desired. Jontel (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a vacuum to fill. A longer article isn't necessarily a better article. An article can stay quite short and gradually lengthen with time as more information becomes available. Take a look at the other language versions of this article. None of them contain quotes or reports of what experts (who don't know what actually happened) said to the media. Southdevonian (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This commentator asserts that the AIS data is incomplete 'MISSING AIS Data from Bayesian Shows False Movement as She Sank'. [[28]] I do not know whether this is significant as regards what is in the article at present. Jontel (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

EPIRB deployment

I removed the section which said that the EPIRB deployed automatically from the top of the mast. EPIRBs are not fitted at the top of the mast, not least because they have to be checked regularly and tested monthly, therefore they are fitted in a mounting which is easily accessible from deck level. They are designed to self deploy and activate if the vessel sinks, and this is probably (but it’s speculation at this stage) what happened in this case, however they may also be released manually and taken into a life-raft or into the sea, and then activated manually.

The removed information is nonsense and speculation; please re-add it only with appropriate reliable sources for such an extraordinary claim (fitted at the top of the mast) and the speculation that it deployed automatically.

Springnuts (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that information is nonsense or not but that's indeed what the Corriere de la Serra wrote. There are not 36 ways to translate: l suo dispositivo di emergenza «Epirb» si stacca dalla cima dell’albero e lancia in automatico l’allarme, per avvenuto affondamento. Bayesian had a unique mast after all. At any rate that info is of relatively little importance. --Lubiesque (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I did read somewhere that the mast was wide enough to climb inside it, potentially accessing the top, but cannot remember where I saw it. Jontel (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes someone who saw Bayesian in dry dock said one could have walked on the mast. --Lubiesque (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)