[airship]

Whilst "quite innocently" endeavouring to determine the requirements of another Lloyd's registered and classed motor-yacht recently in terms of supplying them an approved "emergency towing-line", I came across this official accident report concerning the M/Y JEMASA. One death and 1 severely injured as a result...

And I would seriously question the Cayman Islands final report / investigation / inspectors on a single point: that the M/Y JEMASA at the time was supposedly equipped with:

All mooring ropes were Nylon Double Braid ropes of 56mm nominal diameter and with a minimum tensile strength of 805.1 kN.

. Whilst the photos in the report have no scale attached, I doubt that any M/Y of this size 50m LOA would have been supplied mooring lines of a diameter greater than Ø36/40mm in nylon (polyamide) normally. The photos in the report certainly suggest a much smaller diameter and more comparable to the usual Ø36/40mm mooring lines supplied to such vessels by reputable ship-chandlers.

Additionally, I would not be able to usually supply such Ø56mm nominal diameter nylon ropes from normal stock, especially with a minimum tensile strength of 805.1 kN (as supposedly equipped by the M/Y JEMASA) to clients here on the French coast. According to my calculations, the Ø56mm nylon double-braided lines that the M/Y JEMASA "was supposedly equipped with" would have had to have a breaking resistance of over 80,510daN, which corresponds to a Ø64mm nylon / polyamide double-braided construction mooring line and which weighs approx. 90kgs per 100m. And not at all a mooring line which could be easily handled aboard usually...

I believe that that's enough on the mooring lines for a moment.

The point I'm trying to make here, is that even the world's foremost yacht designers / naval architects / builders / yacht brokers / classification authorities / managing agents etc. together, basically collaborated and allowed a simple design default (having to position the wing-control station throttles in "full-ahead" position before stowage) during the whole design / build process and beyond incorporating sea-trials and onto eventual delivery, of a very-poorly thought-out control system that eventually resulted in the death of a (presumably relatively-poor Thailand citizen).

The same incident might have occured in a EU or USA port (but with much greater threats of litigation and eventual costs to the owner in case of casualties). All I have to say is that there are some important anomolies cited in the Cayman Islands Maritime Authorities' report above which do not bode well for CI yachts involved in future accidents when within the more properly-regulated waters of the EU or USA...

Perhaps convenient for the "flag (state)" under the circumstances. But altogether, quite unsatisfactory when it comes to protecting the (beneficial) owners. And additional proof that the extra Euro millions initially expended on building a motor yacht in Europe as opposed to eastern Europe, Turkey, China etc. are increasingly debatable. If one of the best and most experienced European yacht-builders allows their yachts to be equipped with such "un-safe" wing-control stations, why bother with them anymore...?!