Kid on watch…
“I don’t think the boat could have been saved. I could have called the captain earlier, I could have closed the four small hatches on the bow sooner.”
Latest from the process in Sicily
(I used Google tranlate)
watch made zero difference
it was designed to sink at x heal
thanks for the report. would be interesting to see a computer model of the existing weather conditions with the keel down
the righting moment would have been substantially different though the outcome might be the same
Captain’s testimony now reported…
“I was sure it wouldn’t sink…”
(once again, Google translate)
Reading down, this and the last article appear to be reports of their statements made in the immediate aftermath, now submitted to the hearing. I don’t think it is new testimony.
Just done a survival course (pool based) and, if you are upside down , you have to put your fist in it.
I was at the back and couldn’t hear very well; could anybody elucidate?
There is very little difference, down flooding would have still sunk it but how fast is not in the stability book.
I agree. At 90°, past all angles, it was over.
I can’t help wonder - if Stab Books included (in addition to full/50%/arrival/lightship conditions) a set of data for centreboard up stability, would it have changed thinking.
It started down flooding according to stability book at about 45 degrees
AVS keel up was 75 degrees
Report says investigation commissioned the keel up (motoring) study. Original SIB all conditiins board down.
(same on the Perini I once drove)
stability booklet contains information on board up as it should othewise it can never be raised
From MAIB…
“The SIB did not contain such curves for when Bayesian was operating in the motoring condition where the centreboard was raised and no sails were up”
but it did for sailing so far worse a condition.
Centreboard got nothing to do with it wind force was going to lay it over well past down flooding angle and hold it there regardless of where the board was
“…Bayesian’s SIB contained curves for the sailing conditions when at maximum load, contractual full load and in the light load condition.
In all three of these conditions the centreboard had to be lowered”
You made the comment about “AVS keel up”.
I am making clear that they did not have any “keel up” info at all!!!
how did they know that, because they did a stability study with it up.
Is the MAIB saying the MCA gov issued a stability booklet for a commercial yacht but didnt know what would happen if the board is raised?
i think they would since the boat wasn’t a racer. there should be a stability curve for different points of sail.
you wouldn’t want the keel all the way down if you were going down wind as the extra drag and board length would affect the performance of the vessel IE slowing it down
its a blade and bulb arrangement the lower the bulb the more stability and the righting moment GM in general would stop the angle of heel
Sure but even with the keel full down it would of still blown over as the force was great enough.
Issue was the down flooding so when held down it sinks before it rights.
I bet its the most dangerous boat MCA have ever approved
I stand corrected! 
You have access to more than I do. I had not seen that info reported anywhere.
Odd that the Interim Report made the statement I quoted (& just reread in OP)
It will be interesting, will the widow sue the MCA for allowing such a dangerous vessel to be approved?
When anchored with keel up you have to abandon ship if 60kts forecast