Captain Calamitys

[prv]

But I wonder, in this day and age of human "rights" etc., what is the legislation and power to enforce any decision to "refuse to allow to sail".

To the best of my knowledge none, and rightly so.

Nearest thing would probably be sectioning under the mental health act, but I doubt you'd find a doctor willing to put his name to that (and again rightly so).

Pete

 

[longjohnsilver]

They were the main news item on BBC SW last night, one of them said that he had every right to be rescued and to call out the lifeboat as and when he wanted. Not quite what I expected him to say! No sign of regret or contrition.

 

[macd]

They were the main news item on BBC SW last night, one of them said that he had every right to be rescued and to call out the lifeboat as and when he wanted.

He's perhaps assuming he'd be rescued by something like the US Coast Guard, as he would at home. "I've paid my tax dollars..." sort of mindset. USCG don't (and legally can't) charge for rescue.

 

[marie galante]

RKJ has a few words to say

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-35423469

Notice the poster behind his shoulder, advertising his business..... 'No Experience Necessary!'

 

[Wooden Boat Fittings]

The police could escort the owners off the boat and then take away vital components "for safe keeping"?

It has happened before, although the "safe keeping in case bits get nicked" bit might be harder to justify if the boat is already in a harbour.

http://www.hooness.org.uk/article_detail.php?ArticleID=56

In regards to Chico, that was pretty high-handed action on the part of the local coastguard. The ship wasn't in any trouble, and she certainly wasn't a navigation hazard as she'd been safely beached. If everyone had kept their noses out of what wasn't their business, Chico could have been repaired and refloated by the owner without assistance from anyone.


As regards the two 'Captains Calamity' though, in my view they're feckless fools. Not a clue between them. By all means let them sail, but the RNLI should tell them they'll be charged in advance for any further call-outs.

Further discussed here.

Mike

 

[NorthUp]

He's perhaps assuming he'd be rescued by something like the US Coast Guard, as he would at home. "I've paid my tax dollars..." sort of mindset. USCG don't (and legally can't) charge for rescue.

The US CG will certainly rescue them in their home waters- but not their yacht. That will be abandoned to the mercies of the weather and salvors when the crew are taken off.

 

[Bru]

To the best of my knowledge none, and rightly so.

Nearest thing would probably be sectioning under the mental health act, but I doubt you'd find a doctor willing to put his name to that (and again rightly so).

Pete

Doesn't the MCA have the power to detain a vessel if it or it's crew are deemed unsafe? (They certainly do in the case of commercial vessels,, from the MCA website there's several foreign ships currently detained)

I'm not normally an advocate of such drastic methods but these two idiots are going to kill themselves, never mind the trouble they are causing

 

[macd]

The US CG will certainly rescue them in their home waters- but not their yacht. That will be abandoned to the mercies of the weather and salvors when the crew are taken off.

You know that, we know that, but do these numpties know that...or even how far it is to their home waters? Eight days, indeed.:ambivalence:

 

[JumbleDuck]

USCG don't (and legally can't) charge for rescue.

They also, as I understand it, never rescue boats, only people. You want your boat recovered, you pay a commercial towing operator. Otherwise the USGC are likely to sink it with gunfire to remove a hazard to navigation.

 

[prv]

Doesn't the MCA have the power to detain a vessel if it or it's crew are deemed unsafe? (They certainly do in the case of commercial vessels

As you say, it's routine for commercial vessels after a Port State Inspection. Does this apply to yachts? Certainly it's never normally done, but does the law allow it? I don't know, quite possibly it does, by default as it were (very much doubt it mentions yachts explicitly). But against what standards would they be measured? The boat itself is probably sufficiently safe, having only recently been purchased by these numpties. No minimum manning standards for yachts, either in numbers or qualifications. I think they would need to be objectively in breach of something before the MCA could detain the vessel. If nothing else, how else do they later become un-detained? Ships are held until they repair defects to the satisfaction of a surveyor - would these guys have to promise not to have any more accidents?

Pete

 

[chrishscorp]

Doesn't the MCA have the power to detain a vessel if it or it's crew are deemed unsafe? (They certainly do in the case of commercial vessels,, from the MCA website there's several foreign ships currently detained)

I'm not normally an advocate of such drastic methods but these two idiots are going to kill themselves, never mind the trouble they are causing

+1

 

[RupertW]

I could not be more pleased that our boating tradition has left us with laws that allow any fool in any old leaky bathtub to set out not matter what their track record.

The few odd cases like this musn't encourage laws that could lead to thousands of us being affected by somebody having the right to inspect our boats, or us, for being "safe" according to the rules of the day, e.g. you must have an engine, a compass, a chartplotter, an approved towing rope, survival suits for maximum crew members. I had to go through all that with Croatian authorities (with many silly examples) and it's just an excuse for an industry.

So let the RNLI keep practicing, let them go and kill themselves if that's what floats their boat, but lets not encourage anybody to have the right to take propellors or "vital equipment" off my boat just because I am a complete numpty.

 

[C08]

+1
Very well put.

 

[ianc1200]

Isn't there a length requirement re the MCA having control - ie the boat rather than the crew unsafe. Friends of friends got caught by this taking a narrowboat on a Thames/North Foreland/Lands End/Bristol cruise. They got detained in Newhaven, (but eventually made the complete trip) with the MCA demanding a survey/upgrade to equipment etc. I think it was because they were over 60'.

 

[prv]

Isn't there a length requirement re the MCA having control - ie the boat rather than the crew unsafe. Friends of friends got caught by this taking a narrowboat on a Thames/North Foreland/Lands End/Bristol cruise. They got detained in Newhaven, (but eventually made the complete trip) with the MCA demanding a survey/upgrade to equipment etc. I think it was because they were over 60'.

A load of stuff kicks in at 24m, hence a lot of big blingy mobos bunched up at 78 feet (a few inches below the limit). Then they add a huge "bathing platform" off the back that doesn't count for MCA length measurements .

Pete

 

[Poignard]

Good post. I agree with all that.

I could not be more pleased that our boating tradition has left us with laws that allow any fool in any old leaky bathtub to set out not matter what their track record.

The few odd cases like this musn't encourage laws that could lead to thousands of us being affected by somebody having the right to inspect our boats, or us, for being "safe" according to the rules of the day, e.g. you must have an engine, a compass, a chartplotter, an approved towing rope, survival suits for maximum crew members. I had to go through all that with Croatian authorities (with many silly examples) and it's just an excuse for an industry.

So let the RNLI keep practicing, let them go and kill themselves if that's what floats their boat, but lets not encourage anybody to have the right to take propellors or "vital equipment" off my boat just because I am a complete numpty.

 

[Biggles Wader]

I could not be more pleased that our boating tradition has left us with laws that allow any fool in any old leaky bathtub to set out not matter what their track record.

The few odd cases like this musn't encourage laws that could lead to thousands of us being affected by somebody having the right to inspect our boats, or us, for being "safe" according to the rules of the day, e.g. you must have an engine, a compass, a chartplotter, an approved towing rope, survival suits for maximum crew members. I had to go through all that with Croatian authorities (with many silly examples) and it's just an excuse for an industry.

So let the RNLI keep practicing, let them go and kill themselves if that's what floats their boat, but lets not encourage anybody to have the right to take propellors or "vital equipment" off my boat just because I am a complete numpty.

Absolutely.Im convinced there may be a way to stop the tiny number of complete nutters by using mental capacity assessment individually rather than blanket legislation affecting everyone.And if these guys can demonstrate that they have mental capacity leave them alone in their folly.A charge for "frequent flyer" rescue demands might be appropriate too.

 

[Divemaster1]

G......, does anybody here know what she is? Certainly looks like Colin Archer type, with a hideous dogbox tacked on top.

In accordance to Norwegian press she is a Colin Archer. ... started the Journey from Florø in Norway....

 

[Resolution]

I am a bit disappointed in the modern day Cornish. In times past the wreckers would have waited till dark, lit up a false lighthouse, lured the boat onto the rocks, killed the crew and looted the wreck. Today's RNLI reception seems a bit over-soft.

 

[Robert Wilson]

Good post. I agree with all that.

Another +1 from me.