Cheeki Rafiki deaths: Yacht firm boss guilty

[flaming]

If a coding surveyor was not available in Antigua then he would have had to fly one out from the UK ergo increased costs, I rest my case m'laud.

It's in black and white in the MAIB report.

Stormforce Coaching asked YDSA to grant an extension to allow the survey to be
completed when the vessel was back in the UK. YDSA passed the request to the
MCA, who confirmed that no extension was permitted under the SCV Code. Owing
to the cost of completing the survey while in the Caribbean Sea, it was not carried
out and Cheeki Rafiki’s Category 2 coding expired.

 

[Mark-1]

Owing
to the cost of completing the survey while in the Caribbean Sea, it was not carried
out and Cheeki Rafiki’s Category 2 coding expired.

Category 2 would not be the appropriate coding for the trip it would be undertaking so in legal terms AFAICT the survey makes no difference. In moral terms it all depends on how effective people think a professional survey would be compared to the people on the boat checking it out for themselves and we'll all have our own answer to that.

 

[Capt Popeye]

The northern route is the long accepted and normal route. Has been for centuries. Nothing at all remarkable in that choice.

Humm and the weather at the time has NO bearing upon the choice, cripes man, I do not understand that ?

 

[flaming]

Category 2 would not be the appropriate coding for the trip it would be undertaking so in legal terms AFAICT the survey makes no difference. In moral terms it all depends on how effective people think a professional survey would be compared to the people on the boat checking it out for themselves and we'll all have our own answer to that.

It was the only coding that Stormforce were intending to do.

The interesting thing here is that because the incident happened on the way back from the Caribbean coding has become an issue. If the keel had dropped off during the ARC then the boat would have been operating quite legally under anyone's definition and the regulatory questions would be very different, and would be focusing just as much on ISAF.

In my personal view the explosion in race charters for events such as the Fastnet and ARC have rendered the "when racing" exemption to the coding laws for commercial vessels out of date.

 

[Kukri]

Humm and the weather at the time has NO bearing upon the choice, cripes man, I do not understand that ?

See Post 156.

 

[lpdsn]

What you say in the first two points in no way excuses or is a defence for non compliance it is in fact quite the opposite.

OK, so he could've got Cat 2 at some multiple of the normal cost, which would've given him a piece of paper that would've been either irrelevant (under his interpretation that it wasn't a commercial voyage) or insufficient (under the MCA's interpretation that it was and that Cat 0 was necessary).

A survey wouldn't have included checking the keel (as stated in court) so in the end it is very unlikely to have made any difference. The de-bonding was hidden by the keel bolts clamping the hull and floors together.

Incidentally, when did you last have your own keel checked?

 

[Fr J Hackett]

OK, so he could've got Cat 2 at some multiple of the normal cost, which would've given him a piece of paper that would've been either irrelevant (under his interpretation that it wasn't a commercial voyage) or insufficient (under the MCA's interpretation that it was and that Cat 0 was necessary).

A survey wouldn't have included checking the keel (as stated in court) so in the end it is very unlikely to have made any difference. The de-bonding was hidden by the keel bolts clamping the hull and floors together1) His reluctance to comply with the MCA and obtain Cat 0 rating for purposes of financial expediency left him open to accusation and charge of not ensuring the vessel was operated in a safe manner i.e. it was not equipped for the intended voyage.
It is speculation whether the keel, its fixings or the surrounding laminate would have been found wanting, it is just as easy to say the would have could have.

Incidentally, when did you last have your own keel checked?

I think you will find if you go through the thread that the boat that flaming regularly races on has had its keel dropped after a grounding.

 

[Mark-1]

A survey wouldn't have included checking the keel (as stated in court)

Interesting. This was stated in court:

Yacht surveyor Julian Smith told the court on 5 July that had the Cheeki Rafiki been reassessed for its Category 2 code certification, it would not have been structurally tested during that inspection. “Percussion testing is not part of this inspection,” Smith said, “Keel bolt testing is not part of this”.
Describing the coding inspector’s role, Smith said: “We are like GPs, we take a broad view – we don’t pick up tools.”


It's really not clear to me what the survey *does* check. The due survey was not a 'renewal' survey which involves lifting the boat out. It was an intermediate examination. It's not clear to me that includes removing the table etc for a sight of keel fixings and/or swimming under for a look (if the water's clear enough).

I suspect a formal survey is a red herring in this case from a legal POV, and probably in terms of preventing this disaster. The crew checked the keel thoroughly inside and out. It's not at all clear that an intermediate survey would have been anywhere near as thorough. One thing the MAIB report tells us about this design is that it typically fails without any external indication.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Interesting. This was stated in court:

Yacht surveyor Julian Smith told the court on 5 July that had the Cheeki Rafiki been reassessed for its Category 2 code certification, it would not have been structurally tested during that inspection. “Percussion testing is not part of this inspection,” Smith said, “Keel bolt testing is not part of this”.
Describing the coding inspector’s role, Smith said: “We are like GPs, we take a broad view – we don’t pick up tools.”


It's really not clear to me what the survey *does* check. The due survey was not a 'renewal' survey which involves lifting the boat out. It was an intermediate examination. It's not clear to me that includes removing the table etc for a sight of keel fixings and/or swimming under for a look (if the water's clear enough).

I suspect a formal survey is a red herring in this case from a legal POV, and probably in terms of preventing this disaster. The crew checked the keel thoroughly inside and out. It's not at all clear that an intermediate survey would have been anywhere near as thorough.

The point is that the MCA had already told Innes that they considered Cat 2 coding unsatisfactory, the vessel required Cat 0. Innes tried to circumvent this by claiming it was no a commercial vessel at the time, legal opinion is that it was as it had his employees on board in charge of the vessel.

 

[st599]

Innocent until proven guilty.

Presumably the RYA could have it's own terms and conditions on removing members suspected of an offence. Most trade associations do.

 

[lw395]

A survey might well have spotted rust stains on a visual inspection of the keel bolts.
The surveyor might have spotted bilge water seeping from the hull/floor matrix joint.
Likewise, anyone who's been around similar boats might have made similar observations.

 

[Mark-1]

The point is that ... the vessel required Cat 0.

Yes.

Hence lack of survey is a complete red herring from a legal POV and, for different reasons, probably from a moral POV.

 

[st599]

That's what I said, delaying the survey. There's no evidence that he intended not to have a survey when the boat was back in the UK. And I've seen none (although evidence may have been presented) that he could've had a survey in the Carribean.



Accepted practice elsewhere is entire relevant. That's where the MCA can't escape some responsibility for this as they allowed the industry in general to do what he was doing. Otherwise I could just turn up tomorrow and lock you up for not practising your archery on a regular basis, even though the authorities have allowed the English population to get away with that for quite some time now.

1) Do surveyors not get on planes?
2) Once you've got an email from the MCA telling you what you're doing is wrong, you're on a loser with the accepted practice argument.

 

[lw395]

Category 2 would not be the appropriate coding for the trip it would be undertaking so in legal terms AFAICT the survey makes no difference. ....

I don't think that's true.
To avoid being negligent, and to operate a vessel in a safe manner, I think the law expects you to take all reasonable/practicable/best-practice precautions. Periodic surveys are part of those industry standard precautions. It's a work environment, safe practices are required before leaving the pontoon.
Then operating beyond the limits allowed by coding is a separate issue.

 

[steveej]

But the vast majority of boats being sailed back would not have been Cat 0

 

[Mark-1]

Category 2 would not be the appropriate coding for the trip it would be undertaking so in legal terms AFAICT the survey makes no difference.

I don't think that's true.
To avoid being negligent, and to operate a vessel in a safe manner, I think the law expects you to take all reasonable/practicable/best-practice precautions. Periodic surveys are part of those industry standard precautions. It's a work environment, safe practices are required before leaving the pontoon.
Then operating beyond the limits allowed by coding is a separate issue.

So you reckon if the boat had been Cat 2 at the time it sank he wouldn't have been guilty of "failing to ensure safety of Cheeki Rafiki". If so what would he have been guilty of?

If you're right it would certainly explain why so many other charter firms are still making the same trip exploiting the same (seemingly non-existant) loophole.

 

[flaming]

But the vast majority of boats being sailed back would not have been Cat 0

But if they're commercial they should be, even if no paying customers on board. According to the MCA.

 

[lw395]

So you reckon if the boat had been Cat 2 at the time it sank he wouldn't have been guilty of "failing to ensure safety of Cheeki Rafiki". If so what would he have been guilty of?

If you're right it would certainly explain why so many other charter firms are still making the same trip exploiting the same (seemingly non-existant) loophole.

Probably the only difference is getting 60 miles before breaking the law.
I have been told that the proper loophole used is to have the boat returned by a delivery company under a business to business arrangement so that they are not your employees and are not paying passengers. How that works regarding the crew being employees of the delivery firm I'm not sure!
But the owning/managing firm avoids 'operating' the boat for the crossing.
Other boats make the passage crewed by owners and non-paying guests.
Some are freighted. Some are coded cat 0.

 

[st599]

Probably the only difference is getting 60 miles before breaking the law.
I have been told that the proper loophole used is to have the boat returned by a delivery company under a business to business arrangement so that they are not your employees and are not paying passengers. How that works regarding the crew being employees of the delivery firm I'm not sure!
But the owning/managing firm avoids 'operating' the boat for the crossing.
Other boats make the passage crewed by owners and non-paying guests.
Some are freighted. Some are coded cat 0.

Reading the MCA document, I reckon the phrasing is designed to allow a company to have a corporate sailing club to potter around a few regattas, not for avoiding safety regs in mid-Atlantic.

However, it's all moot as the director was given advice by the MCA and ignored it. Whilst others could possibly say they read to rules to be X, he'd been told that what he was planning wasn't allowed.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Presumably the RYA could have it's own terms and conditions on removing members suspected of an offence. Most trade associations do.

Already been addressed the likelyhood is that the companies that had their accreditation were offering RYA backed courses others including Stormforce were not.