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

When I was an apprentice, many, many moons ago, I cocked up and was told "don't worry, the man who never made a mistake never made anything". As an older bloke I now think concentrate on the important things. A little dink on the boat is not important, ensuring the safety of the crew is important. The chief instructor, in this case, seems to have lost concentration and taken his eye of the ball. Can any of us say we have never done the same? I can't! I my cases the worst didn't happen, in his it unfortunately did.
Allan
 
At my strictly leisure club it's been a rule for years that nobody gets on a rescue boat without training and a lifejacket ( not Buoyancy Aid ) and each boat has an equipment pack maintained by the Bosun inc flares, VHF, anchor etc taken aboard for each use.

In the very sad CBYC case I think the term ' anti-collision lights ' would be more suitable.
 
Interestingly, the two young women boat drivers in this case were also tried and found not guilty. They admitted piloting the boats without lights but had the other charges of failing to keep a proper lookout and speeding dismissed by the trial judge.

To my mind what happened here was a failure of management by the chief instructor, who was effectively an employer in these circumstances: it is irrelevant that it was a yacht club that was the enterprise behind it. He had a clear responsibility to ensure a safe operation, which he didn't by his failure to ensure simple basic standards such as proper safety gear and compliance with local by laws. There can be no comparison to traffic offences, as the reason he was found guilty was not because he caused the accident but because the safety management systems he was meant to have in place simply did not exist.
 
Allan said:
The chief instructor, in this case, seems to have lost concentration and taken his eye of the ball. Can any of us say we have never done the same? I can't! I my cases the worst didn't happen, in his it unfortunately did.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a matter of one person briefly taking his eye off the ball - it was a whole chain of failures by a whole series of people. The yacht club bid to run the event, including using RIBs for transport, without considering licensing or coding issues; they allowed the RIBs to get into a state of disrepair with grossly inadequate safety equipment; house mothers didn't feel able to speak up after a previous incident of thrill seeking; medical care after the collision was poor and so on and so on.

duncan99210 said:
To my mind what happened here was a failure of management by the chief instructor, who was effectively an employer in these circumstances: it is irrelevant that it was a yacht club that was the enterprise behind it. He had a clear responsibility to ensure a safe operation, which he didn't by his failure to ensure simple basic standards such as proper safety gear and compliance with local by laws. There can be no comparison to traffic offences, as the reason he was found guilty was not because he caused the accident but because the safety management systems he was meant to have in place simply did not exist.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just the chief instructor, though - remember that the club got a swingeing fine and costs as well. It's all too easy when something like this happens to blame one person for getting it wrong, but it's clear that the club just didn't have an effective safety culture of any kind.
 
Last edited:
JumbleDuck said:
It wasn't a matter of one person briefly taking his eye off the ball - it was a whole chain of failures by a whole series of people. The yacht club bid to run the event, including using RIBs for transport, without considering licensing or coding issues; they allowed the RIBs to get into a state of disrepair with grossly inadequate safety equipment; house mothers didn't feel able to speak up after a previous incident of thrill seeking; medical care after the collision was poor and so on and so on.

It wasn't just the chief instructor, though - remember that the club got a swingeing fine and costs as well. It's all too easy when something like this happens to blame one person for getting it wrong, but it's clear that the club just didn't have an effective safety culture of any kind.
Click to expand...

I think that is the issue, if you compare it to fines given to firms that break H and S legislation and injury results, the club got off fairly lightly.
 
I suspect a part of it as well might be the current habit I see all the time of putting stupidly big engines on RIBs; don't know if that was the case here but it often seems dangerous and wasteful, some people would clamp on a Merlin engine if they could get one...:rolleyes:
 
Seajet said:
I suspect a part of it as well might be the current habit I see all the time of putting stupidly big engines on RIBs; don't know if that was the case here but it often seems dangerous and wasteful, some people would clamp on a Merlin engine if they could get one...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Read it and weep...

1.7.3 Ribcraft RIB

The Ribcraft RIB (Figure 4) was built in 2010. Fitted with blue buoyancy tubes and
a single jockey seat for the driver, it was powered by a 50 horsepower (hp) outboard
engine that, subsequent trials demonstrated, gave the boat a top speed of 25 knots
with a similar weight loading to that at the time of the accident.

The builder’s plate (Figure 5) located on the transom showed that the boat’s
manufacturers recommended that the RIB could carry up to six people while
underway. At the time of the collision there were seven persons on board.
The boat was observed to be in very good fabric condition.

1.7.4 Tornado RIB

The Tornado RIB (Figure 6) was built in 1997, prior to the introduction of the
Recreational Craft Directive (RCD), and no builder’s plate was fitted. Fitted with
orange buoyancy tubes and two jockey seats, it was powered by a 50hp engine.
The boat was observed to be in a generally poor fabric condition.

1.7.5 Equipment and fittings

When MAIB inspectors attended CBYC the only equipment found in the boats
involved in the collision was an anchor and warp. Four, time expired, pyrotechnic
flares were found in a locker on the Tornado RIB involved in the collision. It was
noted that the grab rope was missing from one of the other boats in use during the
week.​
 
duncan99210 said:
Interestingly, the two young women boat drivers in this case were also tried and found not guilty. They admitted piloting the boats without lights but had the other charges of failing to keep a proper lookout and speeding dismissed by the trial judge.

To my mind what happened here was a failure of management by the chief instructor, who was effectively an employer in these circumstances: it is irrelevant that it was a yacht club that was the enterprise behind it. He had a clear responsibility to ensure a safe operation, which he didn't by his failure to ensure simple basic standards such as proper safety gear and compliance with local by laws. There can be no comparison to traffic offences, as the reason he was found guilty was not because he caused the accident but because the safety management systems he was meant to have in place simply did not exist.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same as with traffic offences. With HGV's the transport operator can be prosecuted for failings in how his vehicles are operated on the road.

If the chief instructor was doing the job on a voluntary basis I must admit that I would have a bit of sympathy for him, but that's not to diminish the consequences for the injured girl. It does seem a little unfair that volunteers can have the same duties in law as paid employees.
Something to think about for all those on this forum who volunteer for things out of a simple desire to "do their bit". I don't know what the answer is. There probably isn't one.
 
Rigger Mortice said:
If the chief instructor was doing the job on a voluntary basis I must admit that I would have a bit of sympathy for him, but that's not to diminish the consequences for the injured girl. It does seem a little unfair that volunteers can have the same duties in law as paid employees.
Click to expand...

They can cause the same injuries as paid employees, though, so have to take the same precautions. I run a small organisation which runs residential activities for around 100 children each year with a wholly volunteer staff, and I think it's quite right that we should take safety every bit as seriously as commercial operators.

A recurring theme of serious accidents to children (and others, but those are the ones I tend to follow more) is that there is rarely one failing which causes the problem. It's almost always a combination of things - overconfidence, complacency, showing off, faulty equipment and so on - which have been allowed to develop over time. Then something quite minor happens and triggers a whole series of further and unnecessary failures which lead to the disaster.

That's why it's so important, if you are trying to develop a safety culture, to encourage everyone to spot small problems which might grow, or which might combine with other small problems to create a large problem. Once they have been spotted they an be dealt with.

Unfortunately there are too many people around who resort to easy "health and safety gone mad" grumbles at this point. Done sensibly it's not mad, it's just a simple and routine awareness of small problems. It's spotting a rope beginning to fray and then not only replacing it but making sure that the replacement doesn't fray too.
 
Seajet said:
At my strictly leisure club it's been a rule for years that nobody gets on a rescue boat without training and a lifejacket ( not Buoyancy Aid ) e.
Click to expand...

At a sailing club that is not practical in the day when you are training people to sail.

I would agree that at night Life jackets with light and auto inflation for a professional organisations should be supplied to people on a RIB travelling at speeds of over 7 knots.
 
Brings out the pedant in me.

Seajet said:
At my strictly leisure club it's been a rule for years that nobody gets on a rescue boat without training and a lifejacket ( not Buoyancy Aid ) .
Click to expand...
"Hold on there in the water, it won't take long while I give you the training and take your buoyancy aid off so we can fit a lifejacket to you to allow us to pull you out of the water into our safety boat"
Sorry I know what you meant, but....
I concur with your club ruling as an intent but I recall more than one occasion when at a small club on a gentle day the safety boat crew had not all arrived. Does the OOD have to send everyone home or do you allow a competent but unqualified person to join the safety team?
 
johnphilip said:
I concur with your club ruling as an intent but I recall more than one occasion when at a small club on a gentle day the safety boat crew had not all arrived. Does the OOD have to send everyone home or do you allow a competent but unqualified person to join the safety team?
Click to expand...
That's the problem with a club where just about everyone is a volunteer. If it were a commercial setup the answer would be clear and understood by all, and the person who failed to turn up could also be disciplined. In a club, people would be likely to get uppity if their fun had been curtailed and who is going to discipline a fellow volunteer? Nobody can force volunteers. Ultimately an employee can be ordered to do something. It's a tricky dilemma for clubs.
 
Our club is indeed all volunteer, but we have certain ' duties ' which we volunteer to do, and every now and again get told we are on the list - well in advance.

There is a fine - I think £50 - for not turning up but I can't remember that happening, usually extra people turn up - for instance I'm helping clean the slipway on Saturday but only because I volunteered.

There are separate courses for the rescue boats, run out of normal sailing times.

Rescue boat crew is a duty and it has been known to have more rescue boat crew on the water than in the dinghies they're escorting !

It has to be taken seriously or would prevent people sailing if no rescue cover, plus the club is heavily into Sailability so people who perhaps don't normally sail come from all over the area looking forward to a sail.
 
Last edited:
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...

Co-incidentally, I have just received an email with a link to the latest CHIRP: https://s5.newzapp.co.uk/i/23592/nz-docs/Marenews/MFB35.pdf

N.B. It says:
OUR SPONSORS
We are grateful to the sponsors of the CHIRP Maritime
Programme. They are:
● The Corporation of Trinity House
● The Lloyd’s Register Foundation
● The Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association Ltd
● International Foundation for Aids to Navigation (IFAN)
Click to expand...

(Rather than having anything to do with MAIB.)

See also http://www.chirp.co.uk

Mike.
 
Seajet said:
I suspect a part of it as well might be the current habit I see all the time of putting stupidly big engines on RIBs; don't know if that was the case here but it often seems dangerous and wasteful, some people would clamp on a Merlin engine if they could get one...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
50 hp stupidly big??
I taught on one with twin 400s. Now that's big. And rather capable, not stupid.
 
Capable as what, an exocet replica ?!

50 is too big for excitable youngsters let alone at night; for the taxi purpose they were meant to be on 10-25 would be ample.

As for training with twin 400's, I'll restrain myself from saying what I think ! :rolleyes:
 
Seajet said:
Capable as what, an exocet replica ?!

50 is too big for excitable youngsters let alone at night; for the taxi purpose they were meant to be on 10-25 would be ample.

As for training with twin 400's, I'll restrain myself from saying what I think ! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A puny engine is no good for training or a rescue boat. And they are not going to swap engines. A 25 would be too fast anyway at night if flat out.

Far better a decent engine and decent training/supervision.

The twin 400 RiB was huge fun. Could overtake the redjet like it was standing still. But it did need enormous respect. The new owner, who was very capable, was wise enough to buy 5 days training.

He wanted it as a mile eater. And it could do that with ease. A comfortable 35-40 knot cruise with hardly a ripple of wake.
 
Last edited:
Another earlier report on this by Cardiff harbour authority

http://www.cardiffharbour.com/objview.asp?Object_ID=72

Some intersting points raised which have been discussed on here:

On the Vessels used paragraph 14

Vessels. There is no suggestion that the vessels used were unfit for their
normal use as safety boats during sail training and other dinghy fleet activities.
However, the vessels were not coded, and were not equipped to operate in
darkness. In particular, they were not fitted with navigation lights.

On U18 driving RIbs paragraph 15

The drivers of RIBs B and D did not meet the age limit. However, though
the Harbour Regulations are still referred to, these have been superceded by the
Harbour Byelaws; and this particular age restriction no longer applies.

Intersting to note that whist recognising the serious nature of the incident (paragraph 28),
the harbour authority did not intend to prosecute (paragraph 29)

Given the internal action which has been taken by the Club, Cardiff Harbour
Authority does not intend to take regulatory action in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top