A blast by The Editor

[oldbilbo]

I've just read Editor David Pugh's 'Waiting For The Tide' editorial - Issue 585 - entitled 'Applying common sense at sea'.

This reflects parts of the Irish MCIB damning report into the avoidable wrecking of the STY 'Astrid' near Cork in July 2013, and I find myself agreeing emphatically with all he has to say. More than that, I applaud his forthright language.

In this age of 'weasel words' and folk who ought to know better ducking and diving away from all risk of responsibility or criticism, it is satisfying to read an Editor of a long-respected boating publication 'tell it like it is'.

Yottie journalists - and others - have long been keeping their corporate heads down, scared stiff of some twerp's complaining of a concocted 'offense', slight, or slander.

This editorial view is IMHO long overdue. Yes, it's carefully crafted. And yes, it's like a ray of sunshine through the gloom.

PBO and others in this stable have a long tradition of challenging the orthodoxy when their respected editors judge, in their experience, that comment is justified. That both raises our awareness and our game. It's very much in our interest that their freedom and their responsibility so to do is cherished and acknowledged.

Thank you, Pugh.

 

[keelbolt]

For those of us a long way from magazines, can someone post it here please?

 

[Poignard]

For those of us a long way from magazines, can someone post it here please?

And for those of us too mean to buy it.

 

[[70521]]

I do hope the wondeful Celtic word "eejit" was used!

 

[Mudisox]

Likewise the letter from Graham Lascelles in the latest RYA magazine. He deserves the bottle of whisky.

Apologies to all as I have only just opened the magazine, or rather the advertising blurb sent out in the name of an informative piece of membership benefit.

 

[sailorman]

Likewise the letter from Graham Lascelles in the latest RYA magazine. He deserves the bottle of whisky.

Apologies to all as I have only just opened the magazine, or rather the advertising blurb sent out in the name of an informative piece of membership benefit.

Thanks for the prompt, i have just read it.
Its surprising that suicides dont wear L/Js but are included, in the drowning figures.
we have rarely worn L/Js whilst sailing, lumpy it was a harness. we have just started to use L/Js in the dinghy as were getting older & less agile but i have just bought 2 deckvests with the intention of using them more often

 

[skyflyer]

On reading the full report I was not surprised to see the skipper's letter of objection to the draft (all interested parties see a draft, make representations and their letters and MCIBs comments are attached in an appendix to the report)

However I WAS surprised to see (and forgive me if my précis is wrong) that the Netherlands authorities also seemed to support many of the skippers objections and defences.

It would appear that the harmonisation of rules and regs across the EU has actually done nothing of the sort.

 

[lpdsn]

On reading the full report I was not surprised to see the skipper's letter of objection to the draft (all interested parties see a draft, make representations and their letters and MCIBs comments are attached in an appendix to the report)

However I WAS surprised to see (and forgive me if my précis is wrong) that the Netherlands authorities also seemed to support many of the skippers objections and defences.

It would appear that the harmonisation of rules and regs across the EU has actually done nothing of the sort.

That's the way the MCIB seem to work. Reading between the lines, you'd think they'd barely spoken to the skipper and crew. There's no mention of who made the VHF call or any discussion of any attempt to find out. I've seen a number of reports where pretty significant factual discrepancies have not been resolved before the report was published.

 

[skyflyer]

The skipper also made the (IMHO0) quite reasonable point that the absence of current qualifications, certifications and so forth did not in themselves lead to the accident, which MCIB have stated as the root cause.
(in doing so he tacitly admits that the root cause must therefore be poor decision making, but there you go!)
He also mad a representation that the radio call was not a Mayday but was an attempt to contact the organisers of the event. Makes sense when you read the words used etc, but MCIB rejected this.
Don't get me wrong, I am not going to stand and defend what happened, but I do feel that the MCIB have unilaterally rejected some not unreasonable arguments and submissions from not just the skipper but from the netherlands authorities.
How would you feel if you had an incident and were investigated by them and despite the MCA saying your boat was seaworthy and complied with this, that and the next thing according to UK standards, they nevertheless criticise you for not complying with their preferred standard?
I may well be misinterpreting this as I am not up to speed with SOLAS let alone the Netherlands rules etc., but thats how it looks as far as I can work it out.
More than happy to be corrected

 

[prv]

I haven't read this report, but what's being said doesn't surprise me. I've read several MCIB reports before and they all seemed amateurish compared to what we're used to from the MAIB.

Pete

 

[keelbolt]

Please could I reiterate the request for someone to reprint the editorial mentioned by the OP for those of us some distance from a magazine shop?

 

[William_H]

The skipper also made the (IMHO0) quite reasonable point that the absence of current qualifications, certifications and so forth did not in themselves lead to the accident, which MCIB have stated as the root cause.
(in doing so he tacitly admits that the root cause must therefore be poor decision making, but there you go!)
He also mad a representation that the radio call was not a Mayday but was an attempt to contact the organisers of the event. Makes sense when you read the words used etc, but MCIB rejected this.
Don't get me wrong, I am not going to stand and defend what happened, but I do feel that the MCIB have unilaterally rejected some not unreasonable arguments and submissions from not just the skipper but from the netherlands authorities.

How would you feel if you had an incident and were investigated by them and despite the MCA saying your boat was seaworthy and complied with this, that and the next thing according to UK standards, they nevertheless criticise you for not complying with their preferred standard?

I may well be misinterpreting this as I am not up to speed with SOLAS let alone the Netherlands rules etc., but thats how it looks as far as I can work it out.
More than happy to be corrected[/QUOTE

Regarding "their prefered standard"

There are lots of standards around for emergency equipment and safety design features of boats. I think it quite reasonable that any skipper especiallya proffesional skipper responsible for the lives of many people should be aware of the implications of various requirements. So even if these are not mandated in the home port/country he should at least consider these requirments and consider implementing them. If he does not implement them then at least have considered them and chosen not to comply on the basis of cost or any other reasonable reason. I am not aware of the details of the skipper's short comings but in all things he must exhibit a duty of care. This means that he should do what any reasonable person in his siuation with his experience and responsibility would do. This also IMHO means that he should rightly be criticiised to at least some degree if he or the ship, did not comply "with their chosen standard" . Or he should have a reason to not comply. olewill

 

[oldbilbo]

Please could I reiterate the request for someone to reprint the editorial mentioned by the OP for those of us some distance from a magazine shop?

There's a wee problem with that. Might I suggest you ask the Editor of PBO, by email in the morning, to accede to your request. After all, this forum is sponsored by him/his magazine.

David Pugh.... http://pbo@time.com

 

[FWB]

You can read the editorial for free by looking at the preview of the online edition, should you not wish to buy the magazine.

 

[skyflyer]

Regarding "their prefered standard"

There are lots of standards around for emergency equipment and safety design features of boats. I think it quite reasonable that any skipper especiallya proffesional skipper responsible for the lives of many people should be aware of the implications of various requirements. So even if these are not mandated in the home port/country he should at least consider these requirments and consider implementing them. If he does not implement them then at least have considered them and chosen not to comply on the basis of cost or any other reasonable reason. I am not aware of the details of the skipper's short comings but in all things he must exhibit a duty of care. This means that he should do what any reasonable person in his siuation with his experience and responsibility would do. This also IMHO means that he should rightly be criticiised to at least some degree if he or the ship, did not comply "with their chosen standard" . Or he should have a reason to not comply. olewill

hmmm. in my professional life, (flying, not sailing) I have to take an American built aircraft, modified at time of manufacture to meet UK standards, subsequently modified years later to meet Joint Aviation Authority standards and recently further modified to meet new European Aviation Safety Agency standards, and fly it to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the USA. At all times the crew and passengers are subject to UK law but when in another nation's airspace or on their ground they are also subject to that nation's own laws. One only hopes that no two laws directly conflict, but that one is simply more restrictive than the other. The aircraft similarly must be operated to the more restrictive of the laws pertaining to the area of operation or those of the UK/EASA

Am I 100% certain at all times that everything complies? No - not really. The practicalities of this is that I cannot be.

What is not going to happen is that the company is not going to start adding or taking away major items of safety kit for the specific trip on the day.

In the Astrid case the skipper and the Dutch authorities are of the view that as the vessel was primarily a sail vessel and not mechanically propelled that SOLAS did not apply. The MCIB differ in their interpretation.

As I said earlier, I am no expert on SOLAS, and I most certainly don't hod the skipper or operator blameless, I just find it strange that the MCIB seem so focussed on what was described in a parallel thread as 'technicalities'.

 

[William_H]

hmmm. in my professional life, (flying, not sailing) I have to take an American built aircraft, modified at time of manufacture to meet UK standards, subsequently modified years later to meet Joint Aviation Authority standards and recently further modified to meet new European Aviation Safety Agency standards, and fly it to Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the USA. At all times the crew and passengers are subject to UK law but when in another nation's airspace or on their ground they are also subject to that nation's own laws. One only hopes that no two laws directly conflict, but that one is simply more restrictive than the other. The aircraft similarly must be operated to the more restrictive of the laws pertaining to the area of operation or those of the UK/EASA

Am I 100% certain at all times that everything complies? No - not really. The practicalities of this is that I cannot be.

What is not going to happen is that the company is not going to start adding or taking away major items of safety kit for the specific trip on the day.

In the Astrid case the skipper and the Dutch authorities are of the view that as the vessel was primarily a sail vessel and not mechanically propelled that SOLAS did not apply. The MCIB differ in their interpretation.

As I said earlier, I am no expert on SOLAS, and I most certainly don't hod the skipper or operator blameless, I just find it strange that the MCIB seem so focussed on what was described in a parallel thread as 'technicalities'.

Yes I understand what you are talking about re aircraft. I have in my day spent a lot of time checking and confirming Australian compliance of other country built or registered aircraft. I think I must have issued hundreds of CofAs as a delegate of the authority. Yet for all that an aircaft has to meet a certain basic standard that is beyond the nit picking of individual authorities. In am sure there is a standard that you would expect of safety equipment on your aircraft. Your company would meet it as a matter of course. So if you carry extra flashlights or oxygen or anything else above the standard of your own country of origin or that country you visited then that it good and reasonable.
Likewise across the whole world there is a standard albeit not specified yet obvious for safety equipment on ships and boats.
Now even for small boats our local authority is quite expansive in specifying equipment you must carry to go to sea. I know this is not mandated in UK yet I would describe any skipper who did not carry this gear as morally failing in his duty. Lifejackets, flares, radio, EPIRB anchor, buckets, bilge, pump fire extinguisher etc. Yet even that requirement does not include first aid kit. Surely an obvious thing to carry. Then there are the racing category safety equipment requirements of ISAF and the various yachting associations. Again varying slightly but there is a thread of good sense which goes beyond requirements. It is this good sense thread that I think all skippers are morally obliged to meet as appropriate to their voyage. olewill

 

[andygc]

It's probably best to read the report (http://www.mcib.ie/reports/?thisid=2103) before criticising the MCIB. They give a clear explanation of the legal position at the beginning of the report, including why the ship was subject to SOLAS. They also list all the certificates which the ship required, several of which had expired. The crew members' certificate of competence were all below the level required by Dutch legislation and the master's had in any case expired.

This is one of the relevant bits

Some sail training ships may be classified by the Administration as “not propelled by mechanical means” if fitted with mechanical propulsion for auxiliary and emergency purposes. However, this is only permitted for domestic voyages for non-EU flagged ships and such a designation is not recognised under the International Conventions. In this case the vessel was propelled by mechanical means as the ship was fitted with an engine. Additionally the “STV Astrid” made the passage from Weymouth to Penzance propelled by its engine, i.e. by mechanical means.

I don't think I would want to be on board a commercial vessel with out-of-date Passenger Ship Safety Certificate, out-of-date Liferaft Certificates Annual Survey, and a crew of whom none held the certificates of competence required by their national authority. The multiple omissions in compliance suggest that the owners took a somewhat cavalier approach to their duty to passengers.

 

[[70521]]

It's probably best to read the report (http://www.mcib.ie/reports/?thisid=2103) before criticising the MCIB. They give a clear explanation of the legal position at the beginning of the report, including why the ship was subject to SOLAS. They also list all the certificates which the ship required, several of which had expired. The crew members' certificate of competence were all below the level required by Dutch legislation and the master's had in any case expired.

This is one of the relevant bits

I don't think I would want to be on board a commercial vessel with out-of-date Passenger Ship Safety Certificate, out-of-date Liferaft Certificates Annual Survey, and a crew of whom none held the certificates of competence required by their national authority. The multiple omissions in compliance suggest that the owners took a somewhat cavalier approach to their duty to passengers.

Thanks for the link, a well written and clearly set out report.

 

[lpdsn]

It's probably best to read the report (http://www.mcib.ie/reports/?thisid=2103) before criticising the MCIB.

I read that report and quite a few others from the MCIB before criticising it (them). I stand by all my criticisms. I am not trying to defend the master and crew of Astrid in any way by criticising the report.

There's an undue focus on paperwork technicalities. I'm sure MAIB would've included these too, but I would have expected much more coverage of the actions that actually caused the accident. This is not the first time by far where I've formed the impression that MCIB have reached their conclusions without sufficient detailed interviewing of the participants. I've seen obviously significant facts raised in comments too many times, and not just by those at risk of sharing some of the blame for the accident where it could be argued that they have something to hide. We don't see the comments on MAIB reports, but in general, they do seem to note and discuss varying versions of the facts.

They certainly put a lot of effort in to trying to prove it was a passenger vessel. There's a bit of a background to this. There's nothing in Ireland covering sail training vessels and even school boats have to be 'coded' as ferries, as there are no closer regulations. I'm not surprised that they developed a logical argument good enough to convince themselves but not good enough to convince the Dutch. It'll be interesting to see what happens next time they try to organise a tall ships rally in Ireland.