Cheeki Rafiki deaths: Yacht firm boss guilty

[Kukri]

+1.

 

[flaming]

I agree entirely. I'd say it wasn't well known prior to this incident, but it is now.

Not sure... for their report MAIB found and spoke to 5 repairers who'd done work on 40.7s keel matrix's. I'd say that's a well known issue, especially in the small world of 40.7 race charters. Remember this is a boat that was for many years the race charter boat for corporate events in the Solent, with event organisers chartering in boats from a wide range of owners and charter companies when they needed 20+ boats for an event.

 

[lpdsn]

Not sure... for their report MAIB found and spoke to 5 repairers who'd done work on 40.7s keel matrix's. I'd say that's a well known issue, especially in the small world of 40.7 race charters. Remember this is a boat that was for many years the race charter boat for corporate events in the Solent, with event organisers chartering in boats from a wide range of owners and charter companies when they needed 20+ boats for an event.

But they couldn't get them to agree to the methodology for detection and and proving the repair of damage. I'd be surprised now if any surveyor in the UK still doesn't realise that there could be undetected damage to the floors of a 40.7 or boats with a similar arrangement, so that is one advantage of this. Going to up the costs of surveys for those boats though.

 

[lw395]

so my understanding of the case.......
...

A commercially endorsed delivery skipper being paid to bring a boat back home is not regarded as a commercial activity on the basis there are no paying customers (even though the skipper may be getting paid). This is clearly stated in the legislation. I believe the crew were made up of two stormforce employees and two non paying crew. Seems pretty black and white to me when you read the legislation, but I can understand why others would struggle to not see it as a commercial operation. The MCA need to revise their guidance in this area.

A commercial skipper taking a client's private boat is a different proposition. The skipper is in the trade, the client is not.
Once the boat is run as a business, the game is changed.

When the crew are employees of the owner/manager things change again.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

When the crew are employees of the owner / manager they are covered under HASAWA General duties sections 2&3 there could easily be a prosecution there.

 

[JumbleDuck]

If it does change the rules it will have a devastating impact on this sector of the charter/sailing school business.

Though not, of course, as devastating an impact as the Stormforce approach to the rules had on four families.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

The arguments are not around the possibility of detecting or not by any method of survey but around the fact that he chose not to have a survey.

 

[Tranona]

Is that possible? I thought that if unregistered the nationality of the boat was the nationality (or country of incorporation) of the owner. Although that may vary between countries.

The whole question of ownership of new boats on delivery is a can of worms. Take my last boat. It was delivered by road to Slovenia, commissioned and title was passed to the management company, although I was the beneficial owner of 50% of it. Registered in Austria for the delivery trip to Corfu, then deregistered and finally put on the Greek register 6 weeks later.

Many charter boats are owned by individuals but registered by operators using a register acceptable where it is operating. On its delivery trip it may not be registered at all until it arrives. The owners, operators and crew may be be resident or citizens of more than one different state. Many of the "convenient" states do not have any equivalent to MCA coding for yachts. My boat was uncoded (and indeed lacked much of its safety equipment) until it was surveyed in Greece.

The problem with Reliance Marine was that the boat was not seemingly registered, and definitely not in UK but the crew who lost their lives were British and self employed - so fell into a hole.

BTW think I am right in saying that CF was privately owned and just managed by Storm Force.

 

[alant]

I think he will be sentenced for that - he may or may not actually face retrial - the authorities may decide it is not worth it given they have a guilty verdict on a lesser charge

Surely they would want a verdict on the higher charge.

 

[steveej]

A commercial skipper taking a client's private boat is a different proposition. The skipper is in the trade, the client is not.
Once the boat is run as a business, the game is changed.

When the crew are employees of the owner/manager things change again.

for my own interest, please point me in the direction of the relevant legislation that says that.

 

[steveej]

The whole question of ownership of new boats on delivery is a can of worms. Take my last boat. It was delivered by road to Slovenia, commissioned and title was passed to the management company, although I was the beneficial owner of 50% of it. Registered in Austria for the delivery trip to Corfu, then deregistered and finally put on the Greek register 6 weeks later.

Many charter boats are owned by individuals but registered by operators using a register acceptable where it is operating. On its delivery trip it may not be registered at all until it arrives. The owners, operators and crew may be be resident or citizens of more than one different state. Many of the "convenient" states do not have any equivalent to MCA coding for yachts. My boat was uncoded (and indeed lacked much of its safety equipment) until it was surveyed in Greece.

The problem with Reliance Marine was that the boat was not seemingly registered, and definitely not in UK but the crew who lost their lives were British and self employed - so fell into a hole.

BTW think I am right in saying that CF was privately owned and just managed by Storm Force.

I believe you are correct in that it was only managed by stormforce. Confirmed to me by someone who had sailed on Cheeki with the owner

 

[steveej]

The arguments are not around the possibility of detecting or not by any method of survey but around the fact that he chose not to have a survey.

there are two charges here, the first and what he has been found guilty of is s100 of the merchant shipping act, using all available means to ensure the yacht is safe. My view is that he could have had a survey but didnt and that is what the jury have found him guilty of. Of course, its a very grey area of whether or not a survey would have even showed this with non destructive testing and the surveyor in defence during the trial advised not.

the second issue is whether there was negligence and whether he did not do what other reasonable professionals would do in the same situation.

 

[Kukri]

Surely they would want a verdict on the higher charge.

Not necessarily; the CPS is not made of money; they have had one shot and missed and they may feel that to go for a retrial having failed once would be a waste of quite a lot of the public's money. After all, they do have real criminals to prosecute.

 

[steveej]

When the crew are employees of the owner / manager they are covered under HASAWA General duties sections 2&3 there could easily be a prosecution there.

completely separate issue and not what he was tried for though was it

 

[steveej]

I have absolutely no connection with the company whatsoever, so please dont think I am defending them, but what I find hard to believe is that for the last three years they have continued to run as business, Instructors and skippers have continued to work for them, the RYA has continued to send YM examiners down there. If there had been something going on outside of the industry norms, people and the RYA would have distanced themselves a long time ago. They all knew this court case was coming up and would have distanced themselves in droves

 

[Wandering Star]

Possibly encroaching into Lounge territory, but morally (?) what's the difference between someone with a lot of wealth playing around with offshore companies and Trusts in a way to legally avoid paying taxes and Stormforce playing around with categories of coding etc and unpaid crew statuses in order to legitimise a passage In a way to increase profits? Bpth are probably wrong (in my opinion) but both scenarios exist. Stormforce just appear to be the scapegoat the MCA have chosen to make an example of, in the same way some tax avoidance schemes have occasionally been busted by the taxman. I wouldnt have classed Stormforce as being any better nor any worse than any other other yacht charter operator - a lot pf whom appear to exploit the rules on classification etc. It was just very unfortunate (a tragedy) that Cheeki Rafiki sank but the boat could or would have sank whether operated by Stormforce or by any other operator?

One thing I don't understand is the claim Cheeki Rafiki was too far north? In my opinion, she was only too far north because she was unseaworthy (an unrecognised factor at the time of departure), had she been seaworthy the boat was sailing the recommended route for an west/east crossing - surely? Not many boats take the direct southerly route unless they have the capacity for extensive motoring.

 

[steveej]

Possobly encrpaching into Lounge territory, but morally (?) what's the difference between someone with a lot of wealth playing around with offshore companies and Trusts in a way to legally avoid paying taxes and Stormforce playing around with categories of coding etc and unpaod crew statuses in order to legitimise a passage In a way to increase profits? Bpth are probably wrong (in my opinion) but both scenarios exist. Stormforce just appear to be the scapegoat the MCA have chosen to make an example of in the same way some tax avoidance schemes have occasionally been busted by the taxman. I wouldnt have classed Stormforce as being any better nor any worse than any other other yacht charter operator - a lot pf whom appear to exploit the rules on classification etc. Just very unfortunate (a tragedy) that Cheeki Rafiki sank bit the boat could or would have sank whether operated by Stormforce or by any other operator?

One thing I don't understand is the claim Cheeki Rafiki was too far north? In my opinion, she was only too far north because she was unseaworthy (an unrecognised factor at the time of ceparture), had she been seaworthy the boat was sailing the recommended route for an west/east crossing - surely? Not many boats take the direct southerly route unless they have the capacity for extensive sailing.

+1 she was on the standard route. The MCA should be getting into trouble. This has been going on for years and they have done nothing to change the rules. Yet they wait for an accident and then go after a scapegoat. Not exactly pro active or particularly moral

 

[duncan99210]

CR was a charter vessel being operated without an in date survey as well as being brought back across the Atlantic after the MCA had advised that they would consider the voyage to be commercial. That, as I understand it, is the basis of the conviction for operating the vessel in an unsafe manner. The keel being unsafe and failing was a symptom of the company's attitude to the regulations and that is why the conviction succeeded. The debate as to whether a survey would have discovered the damage to the keel is moot: the conviction is because the survey never took place. The failure of Stormforce to comply with fairly basic rules about surveys is, to me, evidence of a lack lustre approach to safety which was only reinforced by reports of Innes' failure to engage with the crew and skipper with any degree of urgency.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I have absolutely no connection with the company whatsoever, so please dont think I am defending them, but what I find hard to believe is that for the last three years they have continued to run as business, Instructors and skippers have continued to work for them, the RYA has continued to send YM examiners down there. If there had been something going on outside of the industry norms, people and the RYA would have distanced themselves a long time ago. They all knew this court case was coming up and would have distanced themselves in droves

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

CR was a charter vessel being operated without an in date survey as well as being brought back across the Atlantic after the MCA had advised that they would consider the voyage to be commercial. That, as I understand it, is the basis of the conviction for operating the vessel in an unsafe manner. The keel being unsafe and failing was a symptom of the company's attitude to the regulations and that is why the conviction succeeded. The debate as to whether a survey would have discovered the damage to the keel is moot: the conviction is because the survey never took place. The failure of Stormforce to comply with fairly basic rules about surveys is, to me, evidence of a lack lustre approach to safety which was only reinforced by reports of Innes' failure to engage with the crew and skipper with any degree of urgency.

At last someone understands.