40 years ago the Penlee Lifeboat set off into mountainous sea on 19 December 1981

[Capt Popeye]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, the skipper initially had no reason to suspect a catastrophic failure on his brand new ship. In pre-gps days he would also not have had a dot on an electronic chart to show him minute by minute how fast he was actually drifting. Both things leading him to underestimate the seriousness of his situation. The investigation didn't find him reckless.

He then (based presumably on cost v risk to safety) initially refused salvage terms but requested the tug come out and stand by, the tug (based presumably on cost) refused - exactly the reason that the coastguard can now make this decision regardless of cost.

I'm sure this has been done to death over the years, but the word "reckless", when the man was specifically exonerated of that, stuck in my craw.

Hi KevinV sorry about that , but it also sticks in my craw that so many perope died in this disaster ; From my experience there is or was a Fly in the Ointment about some of these official investigations , in that often those involved in the Investigations have been or are well versed in the operating procedures used (maybe employed /working some time or other in these activities) and so have not a clear outsiders viewpoint ., thats apparent to others : Similar to that Thames Speedboat Death (I have 5 years experienced out on patrols in that stretch of River so know the form shown by the previous Thames Division ) that to me showed up the rather lax attitude to boats Speeding and recovery shown by the investigations carried out


No its certainly NOT hindsight its just bloody common sense practical thinking , happening before the incident (NB Must not mention the report just published)

 

[Capt Popeye]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, the skipper initially had no reason to suspect a catastrophic failure on his brand new ship. In pre-gps days he would also not have had a dot on an electronic chart to show him minute by minute how fast he was actually drifting. Both things leading him to underestimate the seriousness of his situation. The investigation didn't find him reckless.

He then (based presumably on cost v risk to safety) initially refused salvage terms but requested the tug come out and stand by, the tug (based presumably on cost) refused - exactly the reason that the coastguard can now make this decision regardless of cost.

I'm sure this has been done to death over the years, but the word "reckless", when the man was specifically exonerated of that, stuck in my craw.

Well 'Brand New' you state , well all the more to be extra cautious then , to some it was an 'Untested' ship , to others as you state , it was 'Brand New' , so surely in the whole scheeme of things , if the Ship developed faults on its 'first trip' its an insurance job or a claim against the Builders or Designers , so accepting the early offer of a 'tow' would be covered by 'others insurance' not the Skippers Company : Maybe I do not understand Marine Shipping practice ?

 

[penberth3]

Well 'Brand New' you state , well all the more to be extra cautious then , to some it was an 'Untested' ship , to others as you state , it was 'Brand New' , so surely in the whole scheeme of things , if the Ship developed faults on its 'first trip' its an insurance job or a claim against the Builders or Designers , so accepting the early offer of a 'tow' would be covered by 'others insurance' not the Skippers Company : Maybe I do not understand Marine Shipping practice ?

Liability and costs are usually decided by arbitration after the event. In this case conditions were so bad a tow wouldn't have been possible anyway. This has already been discussed on the thread, or a similar one.