Cheeki Rafiki deaths: Yacht firm boss guilty

[JumbleDuck]

The worrying thing about the MAIB report is that it is no longer available from links to the government website ...

That seems to be standard practice with MAIB reports (and I think AAIB ones) when there is a prosecution - the report is removed while the matter is sub judice. They reappear later.

 

[Mark-1]

I find such misrepresentation of the information damaging to the credibility of their reports.

Me too, but I'm sure we've all made incomprehensible howlers in our working lives and it was in a section entitled "Background" rather than somewhere critical like a conclusion. Wonder if they wrote a draft before the Surveyors report came back and then didn't have as much time as expected to revisit the text.

Quite seriously they could beta release these reports & crowd source reviews to pick up this kind of thing.

 

[Mark-1]

The worrying thing about the MAIB report is that it is no longer available from links to the government website and the copied report of the au. site lacks the appendices. If anyone has a link or copy of the appendices or the full report it would be useful to the discussion.

I've already linked to the appendicies up there. ^^^^^^^^^^

 

[lw395]

And you have been consistent in your views.

As for Beneteau they manufactured a boat that met the relevant criteria of the day and subsequently had the design tested which showed compliance in most areas when standards were issued in 2012. They issued repair guidelines for matrix detachment issues so I fail to see what else they could do. It is a relatively old design........

I've only been familiar with a handful of boats where repairs to the floors have been required as a result of groundings.
But 'normal practice' seems to be to make the repair stronger than the original.
I believe that's what you need to do, because the old grp will have been stressed and won't have the same properties as before.
Therefore it needs to be backed up by more reinforcement.
Particularly, the material around the bolt holes will have suffered, so bigger washers/plates etc should be fitted?

I don't see how Beneteau can be expected to have a foolproof one size fits all repair, when every grounding is different.

At the end of the day, boats will get grounded in inshore racing. Sometimes things will break.
Maybe it is just fundamentally not sound to cross oceans in a boat that has been bumped around the rocks for a living?
Maybe it's OK for consenting amateurs to do so, but not employees or the paying public?

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I've only been familiar with a handful of boats where repairs to the floors have been required as a result of groundings.
But 'normal practice' seems to be to make the repair stronger than the original.
I believe that's what you need to do, because the old grp will have been stressed and won't have the same properties as before.
Therefore it needs to be backed up by more reinforcement.
Particularly, the material around the bolt holes will have suffered, so bigger washers/plates etc should be fitted?

I don't see how Beneteau can be expected to have a foolproof one size fits all repair, when every grounding is different.
I believe that is what Beneteaus advice amounts too, it is advice and not definitive, surveyors and repairers will have to act according to individual cases.
Beneteau had provided advice on its recommended repair method in documentation
issued to its after sales and dealer network. This advice recommended that a ange
of at least 5cm be retained and that the bonding paste should be ground out and
replaced before the matrix was then glassed to the hull, in order to retain the ‘I’
beam effect and matrix stiffness.



At the end of the day, boats will get grounded in inshore racing. Sometimes things will break.
Maybe it is just fundamentally not sound to cross oceans in a boat that has been bumped around the rocks for a living?
Maybe it's OK for consenting amateurs to do so, but not emplees or the paying public?

I agree

 

[south_landy]

not a sailor but interested in this case, can anyone provide any insight on the following;

- As the boat was not coded / not of a suitable code at the time of the accident during what is considered a commercial operation, is the companies indemnity insurance invalidated?
- when will the re-trail likely be if CPS take that route?
- i presume there is no civil case to answer after any retrial, as it was a company?
- Will the MCA formally clarify / make a statement on the issue of MCA code requirements to and from races / charter areas, as seems as though other charter companies commonly do the same thing? how would they be able / want to enforce it?

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I've already linked to the appendicies up there. ^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks I missed it assuming it was the report without appendices. It seems clear the only major hurdle is outlined in 17.4 (conclusions) and 7 (Damage Survivability) relating to damage stability requirements and the fitting of a watertight bulkhead. He makes the comment that it would require significant modifications that would then debatably invalidate 4.2 (fuel & tankage)?

So not impossible but a lot of expensive work.

 

[Tranona]

not a sailor but interested in this case, can anyone provide any insight on the following;

- As the boat was not coded / not of a suitable code at the time of the accident during what is considered a commercial operation, is the companies indemnity insurance invalidated?
- when will the re-trail likely be if CPS take that route?
- i presume there is no civil case to answer after any retrial, as it was a company?
- Will the MCA formally clarify / make a statement on the issue of MCA code requirements to and from races / charter areas, as seems as though other charter companies commonly do the same thing? how would they be able / want to enforce it?

Welcome.

Don't think anybody here can give a definitive answer to any of those questions, although if you read the whole thread there is much opinion and speculation.

However a couple of observations.

Insurance will depend on the terms and conditions of the contract.

A retrial could be at any time after the CPS makes a decision - could be months

A civil case is quite possible. Normally these take place after the criminal trial, although the outcome of the criminal case is not binding on the civil. There may not be a civil case, though if there is not insurance in place or there is likely to be no personal or company assets. That is for the relatives and their legal advisors to decide.

Who knows what the MCA will decide?

 

[lpdsn]

Particularly, the material around the bolt holes will have suffered, so bigger washers/plates etc should be fitted?

I think if I were the owner or purchaser of a 40.7 I'd want the washers beefed up anyway. Although built to the standards of the day this was the area where it was identified it would fall short if built today, regardless of possible groundings in its history.

 

[lpdsn]

So not impossible but a lot of expensive work.

He's pretty clear it couldn't be done in 7.4.

You'd probably need to position watertight bulkheads that would cut off the fore and aft cabins from the saloon although I think bigger boats just have a smaller WTC for and aft of the accommodation.

The rest of it is not impossible but expensive, but that one is a show-stopper.

 

[capnsensible]

He's pretty clear it couldn't be done in 7.4.

You'd probably need to position watertight bulkheads that would cut off the fore and aft cabins from the saloon although I think bigger boats just have a smaller WTC for and aft of the accommodation.

The rest of it is not impossible but expensive, but that one is a show-stopper.

Before you do any of that, you need a Stability Category Allocation. That is the show stopper.

 

[lpdsn]

- Will the MCA formally clarify / make a statement on the issue of MCA code requirements to and from races / charter areas, as seems as though other charter companies commonly do the same thing? how would they be able / want to enforce it?

I suspect on that one it'll ultimately need a change to tighten up the wording of the law. The previous acceptable interpretation that was allowed to persist for some time was far laxer than the interpretation applied in this case. I suspect there will be some companies that will want to challenge the new interpretation as being stricter than the law actually states. As Minn said many posts ago, a large commercial company would've lawyered up to a far greater extent than Stormforce were ever going to be able to do. With this loophole closed I'm sure a few imaginative minds will find new ones.

PS I'm pretty sure the exemption for the passage too and from races is in the law. The question (well it wasn't really a question as I think it was clear) that the boat wasn't on a passage from a race as the race had finished sometime ago and they'd engaged in other activities. If they'd turned around and sailed back after the ARC then they could've claimed they were on a passage back from a race - again though I think the MCA were saying that the support for the trip back wasn't equivalent to that during the race. If taken the whole way that would stop commercial boats travelling from the S Coast of England to Cork Week unless they were Cat 1.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

not a sailor but interested in this case, can anyone provide any insight on the following;

- As the boat was not coded / not of a suitable code at the time of the accident during what is considered a commercial operation, is the companies indemnity insurance invalidated?
I don't know it will be up to the insurers but given the nature of insurance and wriggling I guess so.
- when will the re-trail likely be if CPS take that route?
Don't know and I guess no one does at this time it will be down to court schedules.
- i presume there is no civil case to answer after any retrial, as it was a company?
I don't see how that follows as a civil action by the deceased relatives would probably rely on the foregoing trials but perhaps not as the burden of proof would be less, I expect that there will be civil action following a retrial or if there is not a retrial.
- Will the MCA formally clarify / make a statement on the issue of MCA code requirements to and from races / charter areas, as seems as though other charter companies commonly do the same thing? how would they be able / want to enforce it?

You will have to ask the MCA as for other companies given a successful prosecution based on MCA advice to Stormforce and the nature of the voyage and the vessel not being coded for it they will be reviewing there operations and so will there insurers. Inevitably enforcement comes when their is evidence of breach i.e. an accident then there follows a period of self enforcement in the knowledge that there has been a prosecution. I don't expect the MCA to be inspecting all transatlantic and delivery voyages but if there were another incident then they with the CPS would be quick to initiate prosecution on the basis of this incident and the precedent it has created. It will be a case of self enforcement if nothing more than to comply with insurance but I am sure there will be rogues out there.

What is your interest and why are you interested and what led you to the forum? I will add that all my posts and this response is purely a personal opinion based on my experience in general and not on any experience of the charter business or the operations of MCA or MAIB.

 

[south_landy]

What is your interest and why are you interested and what led you to the forum?

pure curiosity, heard about the accident when it happened, recently ended up on the ybw forum from another search and saw this thread that caught my eye which seemed to have some pretty insightful information on the issues. had some questions and thought would see if anyone could shed some light.

 

[Mark-1]

He's pretty clear it couldn't be done in 7.4.

Seemed to me he was pretty clear it couldn't be done full stop. If anything the damning conclusion section seemed optimistic to me compared to the detail of the text.

For me the clincher is that if you did completely rebuild the boat to meet Cat 0 (including the stability requirements & enough room for diesel and water) then the crew would still not meet the required criteria due to skipper/medical/radio qualifications. It was just not legally possible for that crew to make a commercial trip that far from shore no matter what work you did to the boat.

All of which is a total red herring since the solution to not being Cat 0 is not to make the boat Cat 0 but to ship it/not do the trip at all/organize an ARC style psuedo race/change flag.

 

[lpdsn]

He was pretty clear it couldn't be done in general. If anything the conclusion section seemed optimistic to me compared to the detail of the text.

For me the clincher is that if you did completely rebuild the boat to meet Cat 0 (including the stability requirements & enough room for diesel and water) then the crew would still not meet the required criteria due to skipper/medical/radio qualifications. It was just not legally possible for that crew to make a commercial trip that far from shore no matter what work you did to the boat.

All of which is a total red herring since the solution to not being Cat 0 is not to make the boat Cat 0 but to ship it/not do the trip at all/organize an ARC style psuedo race back/change flag.

Skipper/mate/medical/radio requirements could all be met I think a fair bit easier than many of the other requirements. I've even thought of doing the medical course myself - there's a local training company does various STCW medical courses - the main market is ferry crew but they're not exclusive. I did the First Aid to get my YM there.

I'm sure the actual owner could also have contracted a third party to bring the boat back. Then made an out of court settlement with Stormforce for the cost. Stormforce could then have charged to bring another school's boat back. No doubt there's people thinking up ways they think they can get around this now - I also presume their are other Cat 2 boats in the Carribean that are wanted back

 

[Mark-1]

Skipper/mate/medical/radio requirements could all be met I think a fair bit easier than many of the other requirements.

Fair point - If you're going to hypothetically modify/change the boat you can hypothetically modify/chage the crew.

No doubt there's people thinking up ways they think they can get around this now

Probably. Although based on zero evidence I'm wondering if the Schools/Charter Firms care about the legal side of this. It's seems clear they're not going to be prosecuted unless there's a disaster and if there's a disaster the prosecution is going to be the least of their worries. In fact if there's a disaster, they'd probably find themselves convicted of *something* even if they get all the obvious legalities right. (I'm imagining someone comercially operating a small plastic boat 600 miles from help might be deemed to be breaking S100 in the event of pretty much any catastrophe. Whale collisions/fires are forseeable dangers after all.)

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Seemed to me he was pretty clear it couldn't be done full stop. If anything the damning conclusion section seemed optimistic to me compared to the detail of the text.

For me the clincher is that if you did completely rebuild the boat to meet Cat 0 (including the stability requirements & enough room for diesel and water) then the crew would still not meet the required criteria due to skipper/medical/radio qualifications. It was just not legally possible for that crew to make a commercial trip that far from shore no matter what work you did to the boat.

All of which is a total red herring since the solution to not being Cat 0 is not to make the boat Cat 0 but to ship it/not do the trip at all/organize an ARC style psuedo race/change flag.

Indeed agree with all of that. However Innes chose to try and beat the system.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Fair point - If you're going to hypothetically modify/change the boat you can hypothetically modify/chage the crew.



Probably. Although based on zero evidence I'm wondering if the Schools/Charter Firms care about the legal side of this. It's seems clear they're not going to be prosecuted unless there's a disaster and if there's a disaster the prosecution is going to be the least of their worries. In fact if there's a disaster, they'd probably find themselves convicted of *something* even if they get all the obvious legalities right. (I'm imagining someone comercially operating a small plastic boat 600 miles from help might be deemed to be breaking S100 in the event of pretty much any catastrophe. Whale collisions/fires are forseeable dangers after all.)

Risk assessment.

I am sure there are boats in all sorts of places their owners and charterers would prefer them not to be an they will be weighing up costs and risks. Is a yacht delivery a commercial venture? I have seen the definitions and need to revisit them.

 

[lpdsn]

Is a yacht delivery a commercial venture? I have seen the definitions and need to revisit them.

Delivering a boat for a private owner is explicitly non-commercial, albeit I've heard of delivery skippers fixing things or fitting kit before they've considered the boat safe enough.

Delivering a boat for an unrelated commercial enterprise, that's a question.


PS just playing around with the colours to see what pops-up.