Cardiff Bay Yacht Club Fined £40,000 and £14,400 costs!

SAPurdie said:
In that regard may I respectfully suggest that forumites refrain from advancing any opinions regarding the seamanship or otherwise of those involved as this forum will undoubtedly be accessed and referenced by the lawyers involved. Lets leave the MAIB report as the final arbiter of seamanship here please.
Click to expand...

Having read the MAIB report some time ago, and having refreshed my memory now, I see absolutely no reason to do anything to help the club. They deserve all they get. That said, I suspect that the MAIB report will hold more weight when assessing matter than opinions here. It couldn't really be more damning, to be frank.
 
Capt Popeye said:
Yes, thank you RM, have just read the report, in particular the reference to absence of Navigational Lighting, and apparently, a reference to low freeboard craft being prohibited from using the Bay during hours of darkness. Well well well, deep poo or what?
Click to expand...

And the boats not being coded (MCA) or licensed (CHA) for public transport and overladen and the two drivers being under 18 and therefore in breach of CHA rules and one of them having been previously rebuked for irresponsible thrill-seeking and the use of buoyancy aids instead of lifejackets and the absence of VHF radios and there only being four time expired flares on one boat and none on the other and ... oh hell, it just goes on and on and on getting worse and worse and worse. They were extremely lucky only to injure three kids.
 
johndove said:
To much light clutter, effecting visibility!

Slow down? Drive at safe speed!

Bet Doug@ storm force is worried!

1, Cat. 2, 60 miles from safe haven in mid Atlantic.

2, inadequate safety gear?

3, one young Skipper!

4, one intern/student!

5, two passengers!

Four tragic deaths!

Still trading and a RYA training centre?
Click to expand...

Stupid list. Irrelevant. And annoying.
Take your "young skipper" comment. I presume that is a criticism? If so you are as stupid as your list.
 
Allan said:
As has been said above, any further legal action would be based on the MAIB and the legal case that resulted in the fine and community service.
Allan
Click to expand...

No. That is not how it works. The MAIB report is just that - a report on the incident and does not seek to apportion blame. The MCA action is brought under the MSA on the basis of the evidence they have and the court decides. Any legal action by injured parties will be a civil case for negligence and the outcome will depend on the evidence to support the claim. Clearly the defence is likely to be weakened by the previous court decision, but the claim for damages is subject to different tests.
 
Tranona said:
No. That is not how it works. The MAIB report is just that - a report on the incident and does not seek to apportion blame. The MCA action is brought under the MSA on the basis of the evidence they have and the court decides. Any legal action by injured parties will be a civil case for negligence and the outcome will depend on the evidence to support the claim. Clearly the defence is likely to be weakened by the previous court decision, but the claim for damages is subject to different tests.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt, so a much easier hurdle than a criminal case. The MAIB report cannot be used as evidence in either the criminal or civil cases - it states such in the preamble to the report. But a civil case can use the evidence produced in the criminal case to establish blame and hence liability. The next step is to establish the level of compensation, which will be dependent on medical evidence.
 
The only thing that is wrong with this is the implied requirement to undertake a "Risk Assessment" to cross an estuary. It cannot be right that every trip has to be precluded by a written risk assessment.
 
If as I understand it the boats were used as "taxis" to return the girls from their place of training to their accommodation; - surely a better analogy is to suppose it was two minivans driven by unlicenced drivers, with no lights, at a speed inconsistant with the conditions. And it was "approved of" and set up by the main training manager.

Perhaps a better view.

Also shows up the problems of making a "Club" into a commercial enterprise.
 
Seven Spades said:
Well if they had an unwritten risk assessment it was not accepted.
Click to expand...

It seems one just cant have been done. No lights despite complaints, no grab bag despite that having been recently highlighted, no lifejackets, no flares on one boat, out of date on the other, no vhf, 20 knots in the dark. If someone had thought, "what could go wrong and how can we mitigate it?" then this would probably have been avoided. 6 knots in convoy would have made it safe even with the inadequate kit.
 
This agency gets my vote.

The calm investigation and clear and concise recommendations from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch are an example of government at its best. The preface to their reports saying that they cannot be used in law to apportion blame prevents them becoming judge and jury and removes that pressure on them. I have read a few of their investigations and am always struck by the clarity and balance. This is the best way to help others address the future and prevent repeat mistakes.
The stark contrast to the polarised opinions quickly generated here could not be stronger.
I pray that their role is maintained in this era of government cuts. Their role is hardly vote winning so they must be at risk. I hope that even politicians appreciate the strength of their professionalism.
 
Last edited:
johnphilip said:
The calm investigation and clear and concise recommendations from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch are an example of government at its best. The preface to their reports saying that they cannot be used in law to apportion blame prevents them becoming judge and jury and removes that pressure on them. I have read a few of their investigations and am always struck by the clarity and balance. This is the best way to help others address the future and prevent repeat mistakes.
The stark contrast to the polarised opinions quickly generated here could not be stronger.
I pray that their role is maintained in this era of government cuts. Their role is hardly vote winning so they must be at risk. I hope that even politicians appreciate the strength of their professionalism.
Click to expand...

Very well put. It is a shame they cut the regular publication they did (chirp?) as it raised their profile.
 
Elessar said:
Very well put. It is a shame they cut the regular publication they did (chirp?) as it raised their profile.
Click to expand...
You are right about "CHIRP", I had forgotten it myself. It made a wider audience aware not just of their existence but also their recommendations.
 
Seven Spades said:
The only thing that is wrong with this is the implied requirement to undertake a "Risk Assessment" to cross an estuary. It cannot be right that every trip has to be precluded by a written risk assessment.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, this incident shows how important it is to do a proper risk assessment.

Seven Spades said:
Well if they had an unwritten risk assessment it was not accepted.
Click to expand...

It's not enough just to do a risk assessment. It has to be done well, which means actually considering what might go wrong, what might happen as a result and how the risks might be mitigated.
 
Rigger Mortice said:
The drivers and the club have both been to court so the criminal proceedings are probably over. Whether or not any civil proceedings will follow is not known.
The interesting thing about theMAIB report is that it appears that it is not admissible in any proceedings..........


Dunno how that works.
Click to expand...

It works so MAIB can derive the lessons learnt from incidents, not apportion blame. That way all involved can speak candidly to MAIB without fear of prosecution, to ensure that such incidents do not occur again.
 
johnphilip said:
The calm investigation and clear and concise recommendations from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch are an example of government at its best. The preface to their reports saying that they cannot be used in law to apportion blame prevents them becoming judge and jury and removes that pressure on them. I have read a few of their investigations and am always struck by the clarity and balance. This is the best way to help others address the future and prevent repeat mistakes.
The stark contrast to the polarised opinions quickly generated here could not be stronger.
I pray that their role is maintained in this era of government cuts. Their role is hardly vote winning so they must be at risk. I hope that even politicians appreciate the strength of their professionalism.
Click to expand...

+1
 
chanelyacht said:
It works so MAIB can derive the lessons learnt from incidents, not apportion blame. That way all involved can speak candidly to MAIB without fear of prosecution, to ensure that such incidents do not occur again.
Click to expand...

Perhaps one useful consequence of the MAIB report on this incident is that it highlights, for other clubs, the need for urgent review of what they do, what risks they run, and what mitigation needs to be put in train to address any concerns.

I'm quite certain that numerous clubs will have taken on responsibilities in an 'ad hoc' way over the years, and also that a loose system of overview - if even that - exists. Clubs' management committees ought to be taking a long hard look at their potential vulnerabilities - but I'm also sure that some won't bother.
 
johnphilip said:
The calm investigation and clear and concise recommendations from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch are an example of government at its best. The preface to their reports saying that they cannot be used in law to apportion blame prevents them becoming judge and jury and removes that pressure on them. I have read a few of their investigations and am always struck by the clarity and balance. This is the best way to help others address the future and prevent repeat mistakes.
The stark contrast to the polarised opinions quickly generated here could not be stronger.
I pray that their role is maintained in this era of government cuts. Their role is hardly vote winning so they must be at risk. I hope that even politicians appreciate the strength of their professionalism.
Click to expand...

+1 brilliantly said.

i think many things we do in our lives are only a simple error away from tragedy the MAIB points out the bigger picture.

Driving on the motorways this weekend i had some caravan unexpectedly pull out in front of me and i got that rush of adrenalin that i get once in a blue moon. Had i had kids in the back who at that very moment did something that caused me to lose concentration for a split second i could well not be here now.

We cannot drum the safety cards too much as we will never achieve anything in life, we merely need to read the reports that the MAIB produce so we can have 'what not to do' in the back of our minds, we are only human.

Having said that, it wont entirely sort out the problem and accidents will happen again somewhere. Look at the housing bubble this feels equivilent to finding out that Cardif yacht club is still organising events that has 17 year olds with just PB2 to drive boats at night carrying passengers at 20knots.

Read the reports: i just thought of a new book club. Research MAIB reports and take it in turns to talk about them at the yacht/sailing clubs during the winter.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top