Discussion in 'Turquoise Yacht' started by discokachina, Feb 17, 2012.
The pictures I seen sure do not show force 8 sea state...
I'm wondering why they had a complete loss of power if one engine overheated and melted the bellows. What about the other engine? On one engine the boat should be able to make enough speed in order to keep stability, as well as possibly enough speed to keep water coming in the open exhaust on the melted bellows in order to plug it? I don't buy the bellows story, since the exhaust has a shutoff valve according to the article (although it might be too hot to get to).
I'm just speculating here, but it surely sounds to me that they ran the day tank out of fuel and ended up dead ship, with the rough seas it would take a little while to transfer enough to the day tank, then the process of priming engines would be a nightmare in 10' + seas. I'm willing to bet the engineer was sleeping, miscalculated fuel use because of the rough seas, and with the rough seas the day tank got low and the fuel in it started sloshing and everything sucked air and lost prime.
Everything here is just speculation, but it sounds like a lot of mismanaged events caused this, not just a bellow......between an overheat alarm on the engine, high water alarms in each bilge, they should've been notified at the helm long before the boat was unsavable........short of an opening in the bottom of the hull.
Well Capt.J. I see your speculation is very much targeted on the crew which I am somewhat against, the reports state thay they were warned of the conditions, and for sure they were aware of the conditions through the electronics on board. Then the issue of the day fuel tank, it is not logical in many ways, the least of wich is that on a 200' boat, the tank is fairly large, then the crossing is not that long between western Turkey and eastern Greece, not to mention that they stopped for rest the night before according to AIS data, which means they knew the weather they were getting into and most probably prepared well ahead to ride it with ease.
I agree that the story announced uptil now doesn't hold water (At least not enough water to sink such a boat!), that bellows issue is not enough, unless it caused a rupture somewhere on the starboard side, which again is not plausable. I don't even think the side windows failed unless hit head-on with a rougue wave if the boat was going through the force 8 sideways.
Hitting a submerged caontainer, since the area there is the shipping path towards the bosphour, is acceptable and could add to the bellows issue, which you made a good point about that the valve might be very hot to reach to.
Until further reports, this thing will keep the speculations on and the baffle too!
I also thought that Captain Tork Buckley's comment (see below) was pretty spot on as far as speculation - like we are now doing on this forum.. I read somewhere that he had project managed a new build at Proteskan some years ago and so should be better informed than most.
The problem is that every way you look at it - crew error, build error, external catastrophe - it just does not add up for a new build ABS certified yacht.
So it is perfectly understandable why we are discussing what must be the most catastrophic event in our business for many years with far reaching implications for insurance, building, operation, management and regulation of large private yachts and of course ownership, because there must be some very worried owners and charterers out there planning to take their friends and family to sea.
At least this forum is out of the general public debate, has very knowledgable contributors who know about operating yachts and occasionally is an area for some inside information to be revealed and discussed in an appropriate manner.
Captain Tork Buckley commenting in Superyachtnews
As with Costa Concordia there are questions to answer. However, those cannot be answered by speculation in the absence of fact. Already trial by rumour has begun and I've been told some are attempting to blacken the reputation of some or all of the parties involved; worse it's been suggested this is being done to gain commercial advantage.
There will be an accident investigation. We all hope fervently all the questions will be answered, but we must be prepared for the fact that for technical reasons some may not be.
Given Yogi was in class and LY2 compliant the prime question is why did Yogi not survive. Assuming there was water ingress into only one watertight division and given the mandatory requirements of class and LY2, Yogi should not have sunk.
It has long been known that accidents are very often caused by a chain of events and this incident will be no different. There are a number of parties involved all of whom may prove to be responsible for one or more links in the chain. These parties include regulators, class, the naval architect, the designer, the shipyard, the owner, the yacht management company, the master and the crew.
We have at best second-hand partial information about this incident. So it is pointless trying to assign blame. Doing so only damages our industry’s image and reputation. Worse yet, when done by rumour unfairly damages the reputation of any or all of the above mentioned parties.
It is natural for industry members to discuss and theorise what may have gone wrong. But such discussions should remain in the private domain and the motivation should be the same as the accident investigations; to improve best practice and to avoid repetition; not to find a scapegoat or scapegoats.
Beyond the excellent news that everyone survived, we should remember that today all we really know definitively is what one newsfeed headlined in a statement of the obvious “M/Y Yogi sank off Skyros, Greece, after taking on water”
Sure is spot on, assigning blame is not right at this point, we have to be fair atleast to our selves and stick to what we assume as a chain of weather and technical issues that might have caused the incident. After all, and after being on ships bigger and smaller than Yogi was, I see it is hard to swallow it really sank! And any quest for reasons is not for pointing fingers and cutting heads to roll, it is for everyone to take a lesson and avoid such a tragedy. I just hate seeing any boat in such distress.
Just to be clear I only share things seen from past experiences and not to try and imply what happened to Yogi.
But to share this, what I have seen a lot in newer builds is the lack of limber holes in engine room bilges to allow water to run center to bilge pump pick ups. Reason for this I am told is anti pollution acts, engines leaks oil and it is contained in that area to be sucked out with a oily water separator @ maybe 3 gallons per minute or so.
I can see how a breach in the wrong place of the ER can flood an area to cause a list. Now your listing the water even farther from your bilge suction pick ups and creating more space for that water to remain safe from bilge discharge.
As far as shutting off an exhaust valve, I can't tell you how many ceased jammed exhaust valves I have seen in my life, on older boat and new builds a like.
And for water to travel past a water tight bulk head, I can't tell you how many times I have found improper holes cut in the water tight bulk heads for that needed wire or piping run or for who knows what else.
We call them Splash-Proof...
One would assume these holes for wiring wouldnt be large enough to allow the volume of water necessary to down a vessel like this?
Also, there are some mentions that "stabilizers were inactive" and therefore she may have rolled too much and had further problems... This surely shouldnt be the case... Stabilizers arent taken into account for stability calculations, they are a comfort equipment not a safety one...
You really need to move up to a better class of boats.
I appreciate every single vessel I have ever worked on as they all have had something of value to give me that I can hopefully give back to others to succeed with
Better class vessels? Classification surveyors and flag state surveys, What a paradox we have here. Builders will continue to use the trickle down effect of what "worked" on the last vessel constructed and what was flagged and placed on the "correction needed" list during builders trials last time. Shipyards employ full time employees as technical directors to sort through and understand the ever evolving regulations set forth and then trying to implement these regs into building production schedules. Yes, All builders use production schedules and draw a hard line against anything that will disrupt that schedule. I've been involved as a new build project engineer on several large vessels the last twenty five years from the best of the Northern European yards in Alsmeer and Rendsburg to a couple in Ancona and the Pacific NW and feel that I have a good working knowledge of the trade.
Builders trials take place with the classifcation society surveyors aboard and they go through volumes of check lists with shipyard personel concerning the functions and quality of operation of different systems. 99% of the time any defects in equipment installations and or equpment not performing to specifications are caught and corrected. Checks that would be germain to this thread would be checks of plumbing and valving for bilge, ballast and fire mains for redundant cross valve operation etc. Surveyors always seem to get these done right with the exception of the Bilge oil water seperator and its final ppm @ the discharge but thats another topic. What they don't seem to getor discover is the errant flex seal multi gland cable penetration sleeve going through a transverse bulkhead that the CAD system inputed when the plates were cut but didn't pan out as a viable option for cabling and or pipe runs when constructed. I found severalof these type penetrations were affixed with a plate or a blank that was strap welded in lieu of full penetration welded. Is this enough to sink a vessel?
Absolutley not but at the same time the bulkhead is'nt watertight as the regs say it must be. I've witnessed piping penetrations for fuel fill station vents and new lube oil fill vents @ the weather deck level not sealed but were only found due to air pressure from the ventilation system. Stern anchor systems that would ship water through the spurling pipe in heavy following seas and flood the chain locker until the sensor in the steering compartment bilge would sound. Shell doors in paticular and the aft "clam" doors that would weep water at the side seals and bottom to the point the builders fix was to install a drain in the deck to take away residual water leaking. What I'm trying to say here is that class surveyors cant catch everything that goes astray in a three or four day period of builders trials but the crew has to pay close attention to the "Heart beat" of a new build for the first 6 to 12 months of a yachts service and thats why good crew/ engineers will be on top of systems not operating within the paremeters and log, photograph and document any and all defects found as to be corrected under the builders warranty period.
No classification society or flag state surveyor is perfect and some may be better than others. Be it some writer here that thinks that certain yards "Cheap it out" for fuel cooler installations on 35 series Cats. My reply would be that the vessel in question was built under Rina code and that Rina is the oldest operating society out there. And to the writer that goads C4ENG to "work on a better class of vessel" Just because someone stamps an "L" on a crankshaft or stands nearby with a coffee in hand to witness the shafts being fitted throught the stern tubes dosnt mean they have anything better than the next guy. All of us need to work together on this, Builders, Classification societies, Captains and Engineers in the new build project mgmt sector. Things are getting better as more and more societies and flag states are holding symposiums asking for input from this sector and many a frank discussion of what are the real time problems and possible solutions some of the newer regs bring about.
Captain, you said it all. Some poeple just wanna feel good by acting as if they are better than the rest, but when s*** hits the fan, their tears will do the flooding!
I knew somebody would read that as Class and launch a tirade about Class instead of small c "class" as in a better grade or standard of boat.
Glad it gave you an excuse to get it off your chest anyway.
That's what I'm talking about! Captholli just shared some serious knowledge of experiences that you just can't fake.
A 130ish' MY went down off of the Bahamas and was a similar scenario. Rough seas, middle of the night, it did run the day tank out of fuel. When the boat went dead ship it sent off a chain of catastrophic events, much like here. The engine room vents allowed a lot of water into the engine room as it floundered in the ocean. They couldn't get a generator or anything running and couldn't transfer fuel fast enough. I forgot the name of the vessel. It's entirely possible.......The question of the day is, why was the boat dead ship if one engine overheated, and in the rescue video/photo's a generator is running 6 or 7 hours later. That makes no sense to me.
I've also been on many large and smaller yachts where the day tanks were small. I worked on a 97' that held 6,000 gallons of fuel split between 4-1500 gallon tanks. It had 2 day tanks, 1 for each motor/generator. The day tanks were 25 gallons each, and it had gardeners that burned 7.5 GPH at cruise plus whatever the generator was burning. Needless to say this was a yacht that did a transatlantic on it's own bottom and long range, yet you had to transfer fuel every 4 hours.
Well, the real facts of the day are going to take so long to be announced, I don't know what is the current investigation problem but the boat yard team was not allowed to meet with the crew, and they say it will take 10 more days for that to happen!
Does anyone think it is still floating the way it was during the rescue? I have a feeling that because it looked so stable as is then that it would remain like that unless beaten again with the weather.
Yogi on Cover of Exclusive Boat!
Yogi is on the cover of the english version of Exclusive Boat 2012/01: "60 meters for charter lovers"
I wonder if they include a submersible service to get on and off it?
Seized /Jammed exhaust system pipeing valves really?C4 What fouls them?soot? Have you closed and opened them periodically to ensure they work when needed? Or have you sent a written notice up the chain of command that the a shut off valve is defective and needs maintenance? and that your vessel is a bellows failure away from having a 10 or 12 inch hole in your eng compartment. If not then its you're bad!! In an investigation "I told him "doesn't carry as much weight as a paper trail.
Easy there, no need to be so harsh and demeaning.
How many times have we walked past a perfectly well operating piece of equipment that all of a sudden blows off it's hoses and leaks capacitor blood all over the decks? If it is mechanical it will fail. When and how we will learn later and try and prevent future episodes.
Engineers will always have a hard dilemma to confront. We can only make suggestions to our superiors with expensive time consuming repairs (and it's not hard be viewed as a bad news thorn in other peoples side). Our superiors might say "No" to our suggestions and we then are powerless.
Butterfly valves are notorious for failing in the unknown position. The shaft that is pined to the sealing disk inside the valve might loose it's connection as the pins corrode out. As you move the handle, you do not know for sure if you are actually moving that sealing disk or even what position the valve really is in. Think about that the next time you feel the need to exercise your exhaust valves before starting that million dollar replacement cost engine.