Bayesian Update: Perini-Navi (TISG) Threatens to Sue New York Times

IN AN ACT OF HUBRIS ON PAR WITH SEEKING TO OWN A YACHT WITH THE WORLD'S TALLEST MAST, THE BUILDER OF THE SUNKEN "BAYESIAN" PROMISES TO SUE THE NEW YORK TIMES FOR DEFAMING ITS REPUTATION

Nov 14, 2024

180-foot Sloop *Bayesian -* Image courtesy of SuperYacht Times

During the morning hours of August 19, 2024, the 180’ superyacht, Bayesian, was sunk by a storm whilst anchored off the coast of Sicily, with the loss of seven guests and crew, including her owner, British entrepreneur Mike Lynch. The causes of the sinking are still to be officially determined, but speculation — both informed and uninformed — has run rampant since the event. The Chief Executive of The Italian Sea Group, which owns the yacht’s builder, Perini-Navi, quickly set the tone for the ensuing discussion by claiming publicly that crew error was at the heart of the tragedy because the Bayesian was one of the finest yachts ever built and “unsinkable” — a claim decisively controverted by the facts since, when he made that statement, the yacht lay on the ocean bottom. Currently, reports are circulating that TISG is openly threatening to sue the New York Times for statements made in a recent Times article on the topic — statements which, allegedly, defame Perini-Navi’s reputation.

Our Opinion:

Look, I’m certainly not a lawyer, but as a boatbuilder, one-time chief executive of a large-yacht shipyard, and a former yachting magazine editor, I don’t see much, if any substance in the Perini-Navi (TISG) complaint — only a more than generous measure of ego and bravado.

Yes,the Times article on the Bayesian sinking almost perfectly illustrates the propensity of the mainstream press to barrel blindly down the tracks of journalism, believing that writers do not need an iota of familiarity with or expertise in the subject matter being covered. And yes, the NYT article badly mangles the known technical facts of the case and almost completely misstates the principles of yacht design and naval architecture that apply.

However, the Times article only reports what the Times believes a group of recognized industry experts have told its reporters. The Times does not itself purport to state its own, independent opinions, nor does it draw its own, independent conclusions. Consequently, as I see it, all that can be at issue is whether the Times’ writers did, in fact, talk to the industry experts referenced — which I have on good authority they did.

The yacht-building sector is rife with ego, and the larger the yachts involved, the larger the egos at play. Indeed, some of the “players” in this sector are so well-heeled, they can afford to spend millions on litigation just to pursue a grudge. So it is, perhaps, no surprise that the group which purchased Perini-Navi out of bankruptcy a few years ago has taken umbrage over the suggestion that the shipyard is not entirely blameless in the matter. But that doesn’t mean litigating is a good path for them or the industry at large.

True, the Times’ writers failed to display any genuine understanding of stability and the built-in potentially disastrous results of the vessel heeling to angles greater than 45-degrees. Instead, for example, they repeatedly wrote, in a blatant display of misunderstanding, about the vessel “listing” — an entirely different issue that is irrelevant to those which bear on the tragedy in question.

Moreover, at this point, although TISG has multiple times made reference to the Bayesian’s design having met “regulatory requirements” and having been approved by more than one classification society, nobody seems to be talking about the 800-lb gorilla in the room — in particular, the level of responsibility for the tragedy which accrues to those classification/certification societies whose “seals of approval” appear on the Bayesian’s plans.

The circumstances of the Bayesian tragedy bring to mind historical engineering failures. such as that of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940, in which the engineering process seems to become so enarmored of a solution to a perceived problem, that common sense falls by the wayside. In such cases, the primary objective should not be just to “nail” those responsible, but to identify the design issues which led to the failure and assure the mistakes are never repeated going forward.

— Phil Friedman