lw395
Well-Known Member
Obviously the judge felt there is a case to answer on the manslaughter charge.
Cheeki Rafiki deaths: Yacht firm boss guilty
- Thread starter bdh198
- Start date
Obviously the judge felt there is a case to answer on the manslaughter charge.
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
I hope he gets a better defence lawyer for the re-trial. He seems to have been convicted because he was fat and was down the pub when the texts came in.
For at least two or three decades there have been dozens of ads for schools taking boats across the Atlantic on the same basis and the MCA have not exactly done anything to clamp down on it. Could've been any school that ended up in this situation.
And in the end, as far as can be determined from a few photos, the keel fell off because the bolts pulled through the hull because the frames supported the hull had become de-bonded. None of the surveys carried out detected that de-bonding and I've seen no evidence that any of those missed would have been carried out in a way that would've detected that de-bonding. In future no doubt people will insist on removing the keel when surveying similar boats, but that is after the fact.
Does anyone know of a 40.7 or similar Bendytoy that had it's keel dropped for any survey before this incident? I've never heard of it. In which case you have to ask why they didn't publicise it far more, at least amongst relevant professionals, given they knew the limitations of the design and construction.
Trouble is they were far too big a target for the MCA. They didn't even go after the fabricator after Hooligan V capsized, and that was much more an open and shut case.
For at least two or three decades there have been dozens of ads for schools taking boats across the Atlantic on the same basis and the MCA have not exactly done anything to clamp down on it. Could've been any school that ended up in this situation.
And in the end, as far as can be determined from a few photos, the keel fell off because the bolts pulled through the hull because the frames supported the hull had become de-bonded. None of the surveys carried out detected that de-bonding and I've seen no evidence that any of those missed would have been carried out in a way that would've detected that de-bonding. In future no doubt people will insist on removing the keel when surveying similar boats, but that is after the fact.
Does anyone know of a 40.7 or similar Bendytoy that had it's keel dropped for any survey before this incident? I've never heard of it. In which case you have to ask why they didn't publicise it far more, at least amongst relevant professionals, given they knew the limitations of the design and construction.
Trouble is they were far too big a target for the MCA. They didn't even go after the fabricator after Hooligan V capsized, and that was much more an open and shut case.
bedouin
Well-Known Member
I am not sure how much you can read into that - whether the judge's actions imply that he thinks there is a chance of conviction on retrial or not.
As I understand it it is really down to CPS to decide whether to try again and having secured a conviction on the lesser charge they may decide their prospects of success are not high enough to warrant a re-trial.
I wonder if the judge or CPS know how the jury was split on that decision
{151760}
...
Legislation and regulation always lag behind events. I expect there has been much concern amongst yacht designers and producers who will be expecting some result from this verdict.
lukedh
Well-Known Member
The insurance implications may whey more heavily and be felt sooner than any regulation or coding issues.
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
I'm sure the effect on the schools has already taken effect. But then there's the question of a professional delivery of charter boat. I think some charter companies regularly move their boats between the Med & the Carribean.
And certainly there will be a big impact on surveyors. If you were a purchaser of a 40.7 or similar, would you be happy with a pre-purchase survey that didn't check the hull to frame bonding? That'll mean dropping the keel. That's going to up the survey costs. And how would you feel as a seller if the surveyor was taking the keel off?
I suspect the RCD protects the manufacturers and designers, which is maybe why the MCA didn't involve the builder.
lw395
Well-Known Member
I would imagine a small split in the jury could have been resolved as a majority decision?
As the judge has ordered the retrial, is it not out of the hands of the CPS?
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
The MCA Enforcement unit have been aware of this for many years and prosecuted a school Principal in 2009. His recognition was removed and he was fined £17500.
Others seem not to have learned from that.
Interestingly, his school recognition was suspended immediately the charges were issued and not two years later when the case came to court. There appers to be a change of protocol there.......
lw395
Well-Known Member
I think there are plenty of people who can check this kind of problem by ultrasound or other NDT.
I don't think you can pin too much on the builder when the hull has been crashed and repaired, and allegedly crashed again.
Wandering Star
Well-Known Member
Well said, fully agree. It was a tragic accident in my opinion, the boat had presumably already made a safe east/west crossing, how many of the hundreds of other boats who had made succesful east/west crossings that year (private or commercial) were lifted and surveyed, including close inspection of the keel supporting web structure, before they set off again on the return west/east crossing? I doubt any of them!
A tragic accident and trying to pin the blame on Stormforce is ignoring the fact that any crossing of the Atlantic (or any ocean) carries a risk things can go horribly wrong. I've made several crossings, in both directions, and never considered going so far as to drop my keel in order to inspect the keel bolts and keel attachment areas. Maybe as a result of the tragedy I will make a more thorough inspection, but never done so before.
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
Ultrasound maybe. Surveyors would have to get themselves properly trained to carry it out - don't think a recommendation along the same lines as they suggest getting the rigging and engine checked by someone else would cut the mustard.
Can't blame the builder/designer for the de-bonding but I believe they have to bear some blame for the poor maintainability. The issue as I understand it was that the repair was apparently not completed properly. You could share the blame for that between the repairer, builder and surveyor, but in the builder's case they should really have pushed that information harder, particularly to the surveyors' institutions in my view.
flaming
Well-Known Member
Yes. Amongst private racing owners it is not uncommon, I can think of several boats, including my regular ride, that have had the keel dropped and inspected by a surveyor after heavy groundings, even though there were no particular signs of anything untoward on initial inspection. Not a cheap process though.
Fr J Hackett
Well-Known Member
From what I have read, the yacht was not coded for the trip it's offshore rating having expired. It had been grounded 3 times and there were known problems with the keel bolts before it left. Here is a Guardian article detailing some of the prosecutions statements, it would on the face of it appear that he contributed to the events and outcome by his negligence.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ied-after-company-boss-cut-corners-jury-hears
lw395
Well-Known Member
Or already completed an unsafe east to west crossing perhaps?
The blame is already largely pinned on Stormforce, they stand convicted of not running the boat safely. The question is, does that constitute manslaughter?
I have to say I feel some blame attaches to the skipper. Once you have leak in a grp boat and it's not the plumbing, it seems to me that the keel has to be suspect. An older, more experienced skipper might have either nursed the boat to a safe refuge or abandoned it? Or at least made some preparations for the possibility?
I've sailed with a couple of skippers who are not really skippers, they are told what to do on a daily or even hourly basis by owners and agents.
None of that lessens the tragedy, but I think people are forgetting that the ocean involves an element of risk, and being skipper is supposed to be about taking a very high level of responsibility.
RobbieW
Well-Known Member
Beneteau apparently have a schedule for repairing a matrix hull bonding issue. A question to ask of any repair should be 'is this being done to the manufacturers specification ?' In earlier discussions comparisons were drawn between the boat repair industry generally and aircraft repair - is it time we, as boat owners, took a similar rigorous approach ? even if that has to be by mandate.
RobbieW
Well-Known Member
Even if the keel is dropped, how is the beginning of a separation between between matrix and hull to be detected ? Ultrasound scanning does appear to offer a way forward
lw395
Well-Known Member
I suspect it will be pretty obvious, as if the bond has failed, it's only the keel bolts holding the floors to the hull.
flaming
Well-Known Member
That I don't know as I'm not a surveyor, but I do know that inspections that are at least a bit better than having a look at the keelbolts and seeing if there are any obvious cracks when you swim past with a mask on, are a relatively frequent occurrence amongst privately owned boats which are subject to a grounding.
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
I race on a boat that has its keel dropped annually - two keel bolts and a keel box - owner likes to check the bolts as they're not 316 - some specialist higher strength s/s but I can't remember the number.
Not heard of it as a rgular thing on other boats and never heard of it on a 40.7 or any cruiser.
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
I'd rely on the MAIB report a lot more for facts than the Guardian. Seems he should've left the pub and run around in circles waving his arms in the air. Not a lot the UK Coastguard could've done. Once the Yanks are called you only have one chance - leave the boat there and then or they'll never come back. 999 out a 1000 this would have been a trivial issue at that stage where it was checking if the water was salt or fresh. After that it would be a matter of checking seacocks, engine and other potential sources as the most likely. Only then would they have been thinking of more serious issues.
The Guardian, and by implication the prosecution and jury, don't seem to have understood that the keelbolts pulled through the hull rather than broke. Only one minor keel bolt appeared broken in the photos and I don't remember ever reading anything that that was detectable before they set off.
Taking Cat 2 boats across the Atlantic seems to have been pretty common. One post above shows a previous prosecution, but given the openess of the advertising there appears to generally have been a blind eye turned to it. Yes the CAT 2 had lapsed, but I think the witness regarding the survey to renew it says the keel wouldn't have been checked anyway.