Bayesian mystery, all the unclear points of the terrible shipwreck

Hour after hour the tragic shipwreck of the Bayesian takes on more and more the contours of a mystery, in fact there are many unclear points of the accident that most likely caused 7 victims.
The official version spread by the main stream media in our opinion has too many gray areas, and several elements seem to be implausible which would suggest that in this puzzle reconstructing the shipwreck there is some missing piece.
The Sailing Newspaper has tried, by hearing some sources and talking to several planners, to highlight what are the unclear points of this terrible affair.

Bayesian shipwreck – It wasn’t a whirlwind

Since the first hours, news has been circulating that the violent weather phenomenon that allegedly caused the shipwreck was a whirlwind.
According to reports collected by the Sailing Newspaper this news is false.
The violent phenomenon was felt simultaneously, in a time frame identified between 4:10 and 4:30 a.m. on August 19, not only in the area of Porticello, where the accident occurred, but also in the municipalities of Altavilla, Trabia, Termini Imerese and Campofelice, with an extension of more than 20 kilometers.
Just the extension, and the near simultaneity with which the event was reported, rules out the whirlwind.
It would thus be the so-called “downburst” gusts descending from a maritime thunderstorm that feeds on excess heat from a sea that, in the area of the incident, is reported to be in the 30s or slightly above.
The winds generated by these storms can exceed 100 kilometers per hour, and thus blow well over 50 knots in intensity.
The event in question is estimated to have touched 70 knots.

Bayesian shipwreck – The doubts about disembarkation

The Journal of Sailing polled several designers and some mast specialists, all of whom agreed on one point: in the absence of construction flaws, and even in 70-knot gust conditions, a mast like the Perini’s could not break in any way.
Construction flaws that are highly unlikely since the boat had been sailing without known problems for so many years, any factory defect would have caused the dismasting much sooner.
Instead, a plausible reason could be inadequate maintenance.
The mast was made of aluminum, a material that can be prone to corrosion, even in places not immediately visible without careful inspections.
The vibrations and resonances caused by the storm, with the boat dry of sails, could have exposed the mast structure to unclassical stresses, causing it to break but provided there were corroded areas or components, not in the case of a healthy mast.
The boat by the way 4 years ago had undergone a refit.
In any case, it is not explained how the dismasting could have caused the boat to sink so quickly.
Assuming that the mast that fell into the water began to beat against the side of the hull, opening one or more waterways, these could never have been of such a size as to cause a 56-meter unit to sink so quickly that the entire crew could not be evacuated.

Bayesian shipwreck – unlikely scuffle

We know that the Bayesian’s keel, probably pivoting, had an extension of 4 to 9 meters.
Normally, it is recommended that the skippers of these units keep the keel up only in protected waters, inside a marina or in a sheltered bay, as there is a physiological reduction in stability in this position.
Logic would dictate that the commander of the unit, at anchor, would have positioned the keel at its maximum extent, an eventuality we cannot be certain of at present.
According to the planners we contacted, even with the keel at 4 meters, it still appears difficult that the unit, despite the strong gusts could have heeled to such an extent that it reached the angle beyond which it would have begun to take on water until it sank rapidly.
On this point, however, our sources were not categorical, although they described the eventuality as highly unlikely.
However, an additional hypothesis could be made, the presence of a possible side hatch (an additional descent to the sea for example), close to the waterline, which turned into a waterway.
From the material available to us, however, there is no indication of the presence of such an element.

Arousing some thought, however, is the large side opening leading inward near the end of the bridge: these are two large symmetrical openings present on both edges, which if reached by water could turn into a potential hazard.
However, for water to reach those openings, the heeling must have been at such an angle as to lie the Bayesian on its side.
Certainly such a side opening may be more easily reached by water than a central one, but it remains a fairly remote, albeit not impossible, hypothesis.
The boat would have had to be heeled over at a very high angle not for a few seconds, but for such a length of time, perhaps minutes, as was necessary to cause so much water to embark that the stability of the boat would be compromised.
A hypothesis that remains rather difficult.

Bayesian Naurage – the shoal of the Ants

According to the shoal and Bayesian AIS track coordinates available on Marine Traffic, there would not have been a collision with the shoal.
This could have been accounted for by a fast sinking of the vessel, provided, however, that the ship struck the shoal violently, at high speed.
The AIS seems to report a swinging movement on the anchor cable, it would almost seem that the anchor was never withdrawn according to the scale offered by Marine Traffic the movements are a few tens of meters.
For all these reasons stated above there seems to be a missing piece in this affair, a detail that we do not know, an event or vice that caused a rapid and inexorable sinking of a 56-meter sailing vessel.
Indeed, without this mysterious element it appears difficult to be able to justify such a serious accident, and it is in that direction that the judicial authorities will most likely move to solve the mystery of the Bayesian sinking. Mauro Giuffrè