Cheeki Rafiki deaths: Yacht firm boss guilty

[Elessar]

I'm not entirely convinced the RYA has acted consistently here. I can think of another Southampton based training school that lost its licence to train when two members of staff were taken to court by the MCA. There was no loss of life involved. The business collapsed unsurprisingly without any cash flow to support it. When the case came to court it was dismissed.

The tragedy here is the loss of life and the difference of opinions here possibly reflects the deliberations the jury went through. The MCA does need to clarify the rules.

Don't you think it's good they learned from their mistakes then? To take out a business and punish the owner, their family, the employees and their families when no one was guilty of anything at all can't be right.

And those who express sympathy for Doug make sense.

The court has decided he made a mistake. Imagine making a mistake that a court thinks may have contributed to people losing their lives. How would that play on your mind?
Stepping out of your business to fight for your life. And that of your wife, kids and employees.

I agree with Minn that examples may have been being made here. There are no winners whatever the punishment and verdict. Maybe there is a deterrent effect to other operators. Maybe. But lets avoid cheerleading for retribution, it won't bring anyone back. There has been a lot of punishment already.

 

[Frogmogman]

I crossed biscay in a blow with that skipper as my mate. We got through some scrapes.
I gave him a job in my business when we got back.
Despite his age he had more experience, more tenacity, more ability, more inventiveness, and more intuitive reasoning than most of the posters here.
No one will ever know how he was overwhelmed, but he was better placed to get out of any situation than most.
Yes you may have sailed with some skippers who are not really skippers, but Andy was not one of those. I resent the implication that he was when you didn't know him.
I would have been happy for him to take my daughter on an ocean crossing.

Totally agree with you Elessar. The slur on Andrew Bridge is totally unwarranted.

He behaved as almost any decent skipper would. No one expects the keel to fall off, and I'd say it's fair to say that most of us have had it drummed into us that you should only ever 'step up into the liferaft'. It's facile to suggest that he should have headed for a safe haven or should have taken to the liferaft, as Cheeki Rafiki was in the North Atlantic many hundreds of miles from a safe haven.

 

[Kukri]

+1.

 

[lw395]

I crossed biscay in a blow with that skipper as my mate. We got through some scrapes.
I gave him a job in my business when we got back.
Despite his age he had more experience, more tenacity, more ability, more inventiveness, and more intuitive reasoning than most of the posters here.
No one will ever know how he was overwhelmed, but he was better placed to get out of any situation than most.
Yes you may have sailed with some skippers who are not really skippers, but Andy was not one of those. I resent the implication that he was when you didn't know him.
I would have been happy for him to take my daughter on an ocean crossing.

If he was a real skipper, he'd have realised that a big portion of the buck stops with him.
Al skippers should bear that in mind.

 

[Elessar]

If he was a real skipper, he'd have realised that a big portion of the buck stops with him.
Al skippers should bear that in mind.

So you are saying that a quiet, unassuming, extraordinarily capable young man that you never met wasn't a "real skipper".

Says far more about you than it does about him.

 

[Frogmogman]

If he was a real skipper, he'd have realised that a big portion of the buck stops with him.
Al skippers should bear that in mind.

Nothing which came out in the trial suggested that Andrew Bridge was in any way responsible for the catastrophe.

You are totally out of order.

 

[Resolution]

the rules are the rules as written in the legislation. .... . They seem very black and white to me about what constitutes a commercial passage and what does not.

I have agreed with much of what you have been writing, so I took a long look at the definition of "pleasure vessel" in the Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) Regulations 1998 as amended. Sadly, I find it very hard to wriggle out of the conclusion that, if CR was owned by a private individual and managed under contract by Stormforce, then this for return voyage it was not a pleasure vessel.

""pleasure vessel" means-
(a) any vessel which at the time it is being used is:
(i)
(aa) in the case of a vessel wholly owned by an individual or individuals, used only for the sport or pleasure of the owner or the immediate family or friends of the owner; or
(bb) in the case of a vessel owned by a body corporate, used only for sport or pleasure and on which the persons on board are employees or officers of the body corporate, or their immediate family or friends; and..."

I wonder if most of the other sailing schools who classify their return trips from the Caribbean as "pleasure" use are able to do so because their boats are corporately owned and therefore fall into the (bb) category?

 

[Sailfree]

I have only read the first 10 pages but as a Structural Engineer that has been involved in building structural failures/problems plus a boat owner that had his boat charter through a sailing school and a charter company for some 18yrs I would comment as follows.

1. The charter Industry is operated on very narrow margins. When I chartered my first boat with Hamble School Of Yachting, two competitors that I was considering went bust. From the infrequency that boat owners were paid by the then owners of HPYC (1998) is was obvious to me they were struggling - they later changed ownership.

2. For the charter industry to survive they cannot operate in the most thorough manner that some on here suggest. However many cut corners and I do not believe StormForce operated any differently from many of their competitors.

3. Both the MCA and RYA are aware of how the UK charter industry operates.

4. Up to this incidence the lack of thoroughness in ensuring the structural integrity of yachts did not involve fatalities (these do focus the mind)

5. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but no one was shouting about the state of this boat before this incidence.

6. A factor in deciding negligence is to compare the actions of a person to that of their contemporaries. As such I don't see StormForce acted vary differently from the rest of the charter market.

7. As a structural Engineer I have always been concerned with the adequacy of an inner eggcrate type inner hull being bonded to an outer hull and hence bought my current boat in 2005 as one of the last jeanneau's built with conventional ribs etc but economics and competition has driven ALL production boat builders to go the inner hull bonded to an outer. this solution keeps boats cheap, is structurally adequate in normal use but possibly suspect with extensive hard use and especially in groundings.

8. It is possible to improve yacht design and strength but this would cause increased costs and must be internationally agreed and implimented. Car impact tests that resulted in the demise of the early Mini are an example. Its more difficult to get agreement on the kind of impact a boat must survive undamaged. Keel or Hull impacts, Rock or Soft mud, 8kts at impact or 3kts?

9. The authorities in this case were embarrassed by the 4 deaths and to absolve themselves of complicity by them not stopping what was common practice threw the book at StormForce via the CPS.

10. Pictures of Doug in the press were not flattering and a lot of juries would convict him on appearance alone. Unfortunately appearances do matter.

I would add in conclusion that I have no personal knowledge of this case other than I have read on here and from the media and have no connection with the parties involved.

 

[alant]

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.

Would have thought being considered responsible for 4 deaths, might be thought of as "real criminal".

 

[alant]

I wouldn't say it was rubbish.
The rules have a loop hole. People have been driving busses through. Some companies are still exploiting the same loopholes.

It would appear there is a good case for changing the rules to close the loopholes.

So the question now is
What are the MCA, RYA and ARC going to do about it?

What has the ARC got to do with it?
"Racing, going to a race, returning from a race" exempts vessels from any MCA regulations or manning rules, which is probably why commercial yachts like CR can drive a bulldozer through them.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Nothing which came out in the trial suggested that Andrew Bridge was in any way responsible for the catastrophe.

You are totally out of order.

+1

 

[englishrobs]

Don't you think it's good they learned from their mistakes then? To take out a business and punish the owner, their family, the employees and their families when no one was guilty of anything at all can't be right.

And those who express sympathy for Doug make sense.

The court has decided he made a mistake. Imagine making a mistake that a court thinks may have contributed to people losing their lives. How would that play on your mind?
Stepping out of your business to fight for your life. And that of your wife, kids and employees.

I agree with Minn that examples may have been being made here. There are no winners whatever the punishment and verdict. Maybe there is a deterrent effect to other operators. Maybe. But lets avoid cheerleading for retribution, it won't bring anyone back. There has been a lot of punishment already.

Learning from mistakes is good. I'm simply suggesting that the RYA has taken a remarkably different approach to two training schools in within a relatively short timespan. The former losing its licence to train before anything came to court and where no conviction was reached, the latter continuing to operate RYA schemes for several years where a far higher price had been paid by individuals concerned. I'm not cheerleading for retribution, far from it, just suggesting that the RYA appears inconsistent in its approach. Others here are also suggesting that clarity is required from the MCA. It's not just Stormforce that have lessons to learn.

 

[lw395]

So you are saying that a quiet, unassuming, extraordinarily capable young man that you never met wasn't a "real skipper".

Says far more about you than it does about him.

I didn't know him, so I don't know what kind of a skipper he was.
But he was the skipper.
But three other people died on his watch.
Those are facts.
Had he lived and the others not, would he have been in the dock with Mr Innes?
I'm afraid I think he would.
The point is, many of us YMs could be in that position.

We all know that corners are cut in the trade, and that a lot of things are not quite as they should be.
When occasional tragedy happens everyone likes to think 'can't happen here',we're not as bad as XYZ Co.

 

[Uricanejack]

What has the ARC got to do with it?
"Racing, going to a race, returning from a race" exempts vessels from any MCA regulations or manning rules, which is probably why commercial yachts like CR can drive a bulldozer through them.

Precisely the point I wa trying to make
If the ARC is a race it allows charters to enter the "race" on commercial voyage the boat would not be coded for
The ARC slows them to use this loop hole
It started as a rally no loop hole

 

[duncan99210]

again absolute rubbish. the legislation is the legisaltion. It is either commercial or non commercial it is pretty black and white in the legislation, but sailing schools and the MCA interpret it in different ways. which is why the rules should have been changed

Read the MAIB report. It quite clearly shows that Innes was in consultation with the MCA about the status of the return voyage. He was advised categorically that the voyage was considered commercial: he didn't like the advice, he chose to ignore it. That compounded the problems surrounding the lack of a survey. And it doesn't matter at all what others were doing: he had quite clear advice. That's why he was found guilty of the offence. No loop holes, no questions, no defence.

Robs point about the RYA is interesting. I suspect that the RYA removed recognition from the schools in question because the incidents involved activities where they were offering services under the RYA brand: mile building courses, coastal skipper or some such. The RYA revisited their certification as a result of the incidents, found the schools lacking and removed their approval. Stormforce wasn't providing any RYA based courses during the CR incident and therefore the RYA had no basis for action in relation to their accreditation.
As to gross negligence manslaughter, that's still an open book and the CPS may yet return to court with the case. Then the lawyers can argue to their hearts content about the difference between negligence and gross negligence.

 

[Uricanejack]

the rules are the rules as written in the legislation. Do you have a commercial endorsement? If you do then you should know the basics. They seem very black and white to me about what constitutes a commercial passage and what does not. Im afraid to say that mining quarries is a different industry and what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

Even then, some of the rules around what constitutes operating the vessel in a safe manner are very grey to say the least, as there are no explicit rules around how often you have to have a survey. Coding is irrelevent in this case as it was not a commercial voyage according to the law.

If companies/schools are operating in a manner that the MCA do not agree with then the MCA need to lobby government to get the rules changed and/or tightened up. Being disatisfied and waiting for decades for an accident to happen and then pursue a scapegoat does not seem to me to be the moral and best way to go about things.

I fail to see how gross negligence can be proven in this case when all the other operators are doing exactly the same thing. This is because to prove gross negligence you need to have behaved in a way that was not what other reasonable individuals involved in the industry would have done.

No I don't have a commercial endorsement. I don't require one.

I believe you believe absolutely you are right bassed on your reading and understanding of the rules
I suspect you are not alone. The commercial endorsement is an 8 hour on line course according to rya website.
Clearly this topic is not explained well enough
If people who run sailing school do not understand this was a commercial voyage

It's not my opinion
It's the MCA's opinion they are in charge of the regulations and its thier interpretation
The CPS agreed
The judge agreed there was a case to answer or he would have dismissed the charges
Most important the jury agreed

If this was not a commercial voyage there would have been case to answer.
This boat was being moved from one area where it was doing charters to another by the charter company
To continue it commercial operation.

Did Doug Innes understand this?
The MCA sent him an email explaining it
That email was probably very significant without it
He could have claimed he just didn't understand the rules

Even now it still appears a lot of people don't get it.

Probably because it has not been explained very well and the MCA has not done a very good job of explaining it
Does the law have to change? Maybe, maybe not.
Education on the law does

I think The Race entry exemption should change. That's just my opinion.
I just can't see the logic of saying a boat is not up to the standard for a commercial voyage beyond a limit
Then saying but it is if it's a race.
What changed?

 

[englishrobs]

I suspect that the RYA removed recognition from the schools in question because the incidents involved activities where they were offering services under the RYA brand: mile building courses, coastal skipper or some such. The RYA revisited their certification as a result of the incidents, found the schools lacking and removed their approval. Stormforce wasn't providing any RYA based courses during the CR incident and therefore the RYA had no basis for action in relation to their accreditation.

Good point.

 

[Elessar]

I didn't know him, so I don't know what kind of a skipper he was.
But he was the skipper.
But three other people died on his watch.
Those are facts.
Had he lived and the others not, would he have been in the dock with Mr Innes?
I'm afraid I think he would.
The point is, many of us YMs could be in that position.

We all know that corners are cut in the trade, and that a lot of things are not quite as they should be.
When occasional tragedy happens everyone likes to think 'can't happen here',we're not as bad as XYZ Co.

You commented on his ability when you didn't know what you were talking about.
Now you are saying he did something illegal, and again you don't know what you're talking about.
He can't answer back you know. Your aspersions are therefore as unpleasant as they are innaccurate.

 

[lw395]

Other YMs might want to bear in mind that in the Hot Liquid case, the skipper also ended up in court.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

We are looking at an uncomfortable relationship on which the regulation of yachting in the UK is built - the MCA- RYA relationship. This is very delicate ground. I am not at all comfortable with extending regulation on grounds of "safety" or anything else.

Whilst the regulation of yachting is seen to be in the hands of the MCA and RYA once a business is involved and there is a serious accident or fatality there are other regulations and laws that can and should come into play.