Confidential reporting

[kimhollamby]

Thanks to the many of you who have contributed here. Some 187 posts later, many of them actual incident reports, the problem is clearly not going away.

However, concern is one thing but getting that to translate across to any means of action is another. That is especially so when incidents caused by collision with flotsam and jetsam or fouling by rubbish and fishing gear are so rarely getting thrown up in MCA and RNLI figures. It tends to suggest that most occurences are getting dealt with by owners themselves and via the assistance of non-lifeboat tows, commercial yards and private divers. Statistically, the problem doesn't exist, so it is hardly likely to get looked at by government. That is the problem the RYA faces when being asked to challenge the status quo.

For that reason the RYA is now encouraging boatowners to start filing incident reports on the confidential system run by the charitable UK Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme, or CHIRP for short. This organisation was founded in the early 1980s to serve the aviation industry, but launched a maritime programme in July of last year with the assistance of government funding. Although weighted heavily towards commercial interests, the advisory board includes Steve Johnson, the RYA's Cruising Manager and Nick Parker of the British Marine Federation.

You can read more about CHIRP by , which is a little quirky but contains some useful background if you want to understand who you might be offering your reports to. We are now also hosting the relevant reporting form on ybw.com. This form looks a little daunting at first but only if you pay too much attention to the questions asking whether you are a captain or chief engineer and whether you serve on a tanker or cargo ship. You can access it at <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/pdf/CHIRP_report.pdf>http://www.ybw.com/pdf/CHIRP_report.pdf

At the moment CHIRP has received barely more than a handful of reports covering fouling and collision incidents, so any new feedback will raise this matter further up the agenda, or perhaps at least put it on the table.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Birdseye]

The thing that has always puzzled me about pot buoys is why, when so many of them are put in well trafficked places and either marked badly or with sinking marks, no one has ever sued the fisherman for the damage caused. Surely they must have some"duty of care" to mark them effecively if they are placed where boats might go.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[alpha]

Hi all,

CHIRP has been part of the aviation safety scene for years, and has achieved some notable successes. I am sure that under Peter Tait's direction, the marine CHIRP will grow to be a worthwhile mechanism.

On the subject of unmarked pots, I honestly don't know why we don't all simply cut the lines of those we find. This would be the simplest and most effective way of solving this problem. Two wrongs don't make a right, but as Kim so ably explains, the problem is not going to go away without some action, somewhere.

So, I echo Kim's recommendation. Give CHIRP your support, and use it - it is only one tool in the safety kit, but it's a sharp one.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DavidP]

Hi

" I honestly don't know why we don't all simply cut the lines of those we find. This would be the simplest and most effective way of solving this problem."

I said to myself if ever i picked up a pot bouy this is what i would do in the future, but another fourm member made a very good case for not doing this in as much as they will be probably be marked with a GPS position ,so not to much trouble to retreive and secondly if the pot is not found and left on the botton, crab goes in eats the bait then starves to death then the next crab goes in eats first crab then starves to death and so on and so on.

Dave.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[WayneS]

I would rather 100 000 crabs starve to death than a yottie die as a reult of fouling the pot marker.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[mike_bryon]

I respectfully suggest caution if you intend to cut the lines of fisherman's gear which are not fouling your vessel. Some fisherman are likely to react inappropriately if they find you doing this. Things could get violent. It would be totally wrong but a real possibility.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[maxi]

Calshot - Lepe

Not an incident so, presumably, of no interest to CHIRP, until someone is injured or dies.

The entire inshore area between Lepe and Calshot is now totally peppered with dozens & dozens of wholly inadequately marked pot bobbers - directly on the lay-line for small boats heading to, or returning from, the West.

With ABP's insistence that the main channel is a no-go area for small craft, these craft are largely forced to the North of the channel and therefore into direct conflict with this maze of bobbers with their inherent dangers.

Even the most inept barrister would surely have no problem whatsoever, in proving the relevant authority, whom I assume to be ABP, to be negligent in their duty to ensure safe navigation.

Is this just another instance of the bloody mindedness of fishermen carrying the day, because no one has the guts to take them on - legally or on their own terms?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sunnyseeker]

Re: Calshot - Lepe

Rope round your prop is like getting a puncture it might never happen but you still carry a spare? if you have an engine you need a rope cutter...weve picked up stuff...bits of nets line etc just floating around off spain more than once, its not always going to be attached to a pot...fishing line (if long enough) with hooks and floats can cause as much damage. There is a new cutter (in Y World this month quickutter? ) that has even cut ss wire so in most situations now you will not get trapped or have your drive system disabled. Its something Ive always planned for and have mask and knife always ready, just in case.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[alpha]

Re: Calshot - Lepe

Andrew Weir, in his excellent book 'The Tombstone Imperative', explains why it is that people generally DO have to die before change is actioned.

It would be extremely straightforward to enact legislation requiring all pot markers to be marked to a standard (flag, radar reflector, minimum pole height, automatic flashing light active at night, with identification marks indicating who the owner is).

My experience outside boating suggests that this legislation might rapidly follow a fatality, but will not come about without one. Really, we (reasonable people) should be able to do better.

So, how do we tackle this serious problem?

Is education (of the offenders) a possible answer? The CAA's general aviation safety department have made a huge success of 'roadshows' around the country preaching aviation safety messages - do we need something for boaters and fishermen? I think this could be a real winner - with RNLI involvement, it could be a strong tactic.

Should we (the motor boat community) get together to design and manufacture a 'standard' pot marker in sufficient numbers to equate to very low cost, and then actively market them - or offer them for free - to the fishermen?

Should we be more aggressive in tackling 'offenders' - when your sterngear is fouled, how could you track down the offending fisherman and prosecute, given present rules?

The present debate over light dues is a parallel. Most bouyage is handy, but not essential, for most of us. It doesn't provide genuine improvement in our ability to avoid hazard or reduce risk. Proper pot marking would, so do we need to join the two issues together somehow?

Go on, let's have some lateral thinking...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Planty]

Re: Calshot - Lepe

Surely, most of our concern is to do with cost and inconvenience. Personally I have no problem with a visible well marked pot that can be avoided quite easily, my concern and I presume that of others, is the dark, ex oil bottle, barely apparent above the surface. Almost invariably situated in a wholly inappropriate spot.

Thus perhaps the only course open to us as a "group" is to loudly publicise our intentions as a "group" to dispense with any inappropriately positioned, unmarked, invisible pot markers. I am talking "en masse", we should declare without fear or favour that these things are a menace and will not be tolerated after a certain predetermined date. Simply, stop, lassoo incorrect pot marker and cut it off. if we joined forces publicly and stated that was our intention in the relevant periodicals, we would probably never have to cut one at all. They would either be removed or marked correctly post haste. Its only because we accept non compliance it occurs.
I don't want to see some one deceased to affect change as mentioned earlier, wait for legislation? Give me a break.

When enough "cost and inconvenience" has been caused or even just threatened to these people, I will not honour them with the title Fishermen, we will see change. If it were an action taken by many, there simply isn't enough "violence" to go around us all. Paul

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[CaptainCava]

Re: Calshot - Lepe

I agree - just cut them off.
Don't wait for the 'threat' to get round by word of mouth....it wont.
Just cut them off.
By the way, does anyone know, is it illegal?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[maxi]

Kim, CHIRP 'appears' to be wholly directed to reactive reporting, their forms do not seem to allow for proactive prevention of problems that may arise in the future. The impression is that CHIRP is pretty much an exclusively big-ship thing.

The seemingly unregulated proliferation of fishing gear, particularly the poorly constructed gear that is begging for an incident, does urgently need to be addressed but if CHIRP is the direction to go, than it must be made accessible to small boat reports.

In the humble opinion of this ex Big Ship man, who is now a small boat sailor and who has already been deterred by the CHIRP forms.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[LORDNELSON]

The Dutch fishermen seem, in general, to mark their nets etc., very well and to an understandable code; could we not find out how they have managed to arrange this?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kimhollamby]

Ummm...

...your reaction mirrors mine. When I first saw the form in an RYA committee I more or less said "do you expect someone to fill in one of these"

Sad to relate the form hasn't changed. But I was also made aware that its very big-ship-ness was obviously deterring all leisure boaters and therefore they weren't filling it in and therefore the prop fouling issue didn't exist! For that reason I thought it best to encourage people to use what appears to be the only way of getting on the map, even if flawed.

Fascinatingly I've since heard of some fairly spectacular incidents with lobster pots and fast ferries (which can struggle if ingesting one up a water jet or catching one across a stabiliser) so one would hope CHIRP is picking that up.

All still reactive of course, but it's obvious too that no-one is running around checking these things on the water. On a cross-Channel recently we got buzzed by a MAFF plane but quite obviously it was on the hunt for illegal fishing, not small craft dropping polyprop and 5-litre washing up bottles.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BobA]

Hi Alpha

A couple of weeks ago I was pottering along off Clacton with somewhere in the region of 25 other vessels of varying size. headingwest on an incoming tide which does run a bit quick at times, I saw the yacht infront of me (about 50yards) suddenly vear to starboard towards the shore which was about a quarter of a mile, he could not go to port because on closer inspection there was a drift net set up in a semi circle about 10 yds to his port side with no flag marks or anything all you could see was the occasional float on the top line.
I was motoring at the time - so hard astern and tea all over the cabin sole.

I agree they should be well marked and not in a "normal channel" for vessels from the Colne

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[moodycruiser]

Re: Calshot - Lepe

There's a lovely little dark blue one just outside the outer line of moorings at Yarmouth - great fun at night if you don't know it's there !

<hr width=100% size=1>Tony

 

[Zeewulf]

Hi Kimhollamby

Part of the problem with HM Coastguard figures is that on an incident such as fouled prop, we can log it as a "Vessel - Fouled prop" in the incident log, but the incident is not Search and Rescue (SAR) unless the vessel is in danger and the RNLI are not obliged to launch unless the vessel is in danger... all we in the Rescue Coordination Centres can do is ask them if they will launch to a tow job, some lifeboats will and others will definitely not. Beyond that we can request nearby vessels to assist and this is almost invariably the quickest and safest solution if the casualty is not in immediate danger.

Please remember HM Coastguard are SAR specialists and not policemen. We will do all we can to help anyone who is in trouble, but it is nigh on impossible for HM Coastguard alone to force legislation which is why we ar part of the MCA. If a mariner reports that their Prop is fouled by fishing gear it will be recorded and with our new Information Management System these incidents will be flagged up if they are reported at the time, then maybe statistics will speak for themselves and perhaps the MCA may be able to act. Unfortunately near misses arent recorded.

There is legislation for marking of pots in the UK, the pot must be marked with a floating buoy showing the Fishing Vessels name and FV number. the business is an intensely competitive one and fisherman will not want flags because of the real danger of divers and other fishermen lifting their pots... it is a very lucrative business - I have known fishermen not give their position even in a distress, for fear of giving it away to the competition! Long line fishermen are required to buoy and flag the ends of the longline... why the difference noone can tell me.

Speaking for myself, I have encountered these problems and been fouled myself... in time honoured British maritime spirit I went over the side and cut the prop free then helped myself to a lobster on the way.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Lifeboat]

Now speaking here on MY account & NOT that of the RNLI. I find it very worring that so many of you also have such a disregard for another mans living & the law, why all this he is an "offender"? Why is he the offender when it's you who is there for pleasure not your livelyhood.

Now dont get me wrong i'm in support of anything that will make it safer at sea, so if its a good thing it gets my vote. I'm just pointing out the other side to the coin. And before you ask, no im not a fisherman.

All i would say is that they are not all bad, & we need to focus on sorting the job at hand, not just giving fishing & fisherman a good slagging! It's a tough one, but one that will get sorted out!

 

[Lifeboat]

Out of interest, what sort of input would be wanted from the RNLI? And explain more of how it could/would help. I know that sounds daft, but it would paint the whole picture.

 

[BrendanS]

no one has anything particular against potters, but you've jumped in without having followed a lot of the debate. There are many amateurs who put pots in main channels and in other dangerous places, often with little or inadequate marking, connected by floating line etc etc