Cheeki Rafiki deaths: Yacht firm boss guilty

[Grumpybear]

As always, the problem is proportionality. Measures intended to eliminate the risk of a very very low probability fatal accident in the open ocean will inevitably be extended to vessels which are even more unlikely to go there and suffer that kind of disaster. That will raise the cost of all boats and drastically reduce the affordability of our pastime for many people, especially if the effect of changes is to render the use of existing boats in relatively benign conditions illegal. You advocate bringing leisure sailing under the remit of the HSE, and you may well be fortunate enough to absorb the costs of that. Many of us will be fearful that you might get what you wish for.

 

[Kukri]

As always, the problem is proportionality. Measures intended to eliminate the risk of a very very low probability fatal accident in the open ocean will inevitably be extended to vessels which are even more unlikely to go there and suffer that kind of disaster. That will raise the cost of all boats and drastically reduce the affordability of our pastime for many people, especially if the effect of changes is to render the use of existing boats in relatively benign conditions illegal. You advocate bringing leisure sailing under the remit of the HSE, and you may well be fortunate enough to absorb the costs of that. Many of us will be fearful that you might get what you wish for.

Exactly.

 

[westernman]

As always, the problem is proportionality. Measures intended to eliminate the risk of a very very low probability fatal accident in the open ocean will inevitably be extended to vessels which are even more unlikely to go there and suffer that kind of disaster. That will raise the cost of all boats and drastically reduce the affordability of our pastime for many people, especially if the effect of changes is to render the use of existing boats in relatively benign conditions illegal. You advocate bringing leisure sailing under the remit of the HSE, and you may well be fortunate enough to absorb the costs of that. Many of us will be fearful that you might get what you wish for.

Nothing should make the use of existing pleasure boats illegal. I am very much of the opinion that as adults we should be pretty much allowed to take any risks we so choose.

However, the method of design and construction of this boat, such that a dangerous condition or damage cannot reasonably be ascertained, I consider to be a design fault which should not be tolerated in new builds which are destined for sale to the general public.

IMHO such a design should not be tolerated in existing boats which are used for commercial purposes - such as hire or charter.

If I charter a boat, the keel should not fall off. Ever.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

As always, the problem is proportionality. Measures intended to eliminate the risk of a very very low probability fatal accident in the open ocean will inevitably be extended to vessels which are even more unlikely to go there and suffer that kind of disaster. That will raise the cost of all boats and drastically reduce the affordability of our pastime for many people, especially if the effect of changes is to render the use of existing boats in relatively benign conditions illegal. You advocate bringing leisure sailing under the remit of the HSE, and you may well be fortunate enough to absorb the costs of that. Many of us will be fearful that you might get what you wish for.

I suggest that the use of leisure boats in a commercial venture could be regulated and policed by the HSE, there is nothing to stop people manufacturing boats to comply with any of the RCD categories the problem comes when people push them to the limits and beyond in a commercial venture. It would not stop people buying and sailing such boats for personal use but it would stop organisations using such boats for purposes that stretches their capabilities and then not monitoring them in light of that.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Nothing should make the use of existing pleasure boats illegal. I am very much of the opinion that as adults we should be pretty much allowed to take any risks we so choose.

However, the method of design and construction of this boat, such that a dangerous condition or damage cannot reasonably be ascertained, I consider to be a design fault which should not be tolerated in new builds which are destined for sale to the general public.

IMHO such a design should not be tolerated in existing boats which are used for commercial purposes - such as hire or charter.

If I charter a boat, the keel should not fall off. Ever.

Agreed.

 

[Kukri]

Nothing should make the use of existing pleasure boats illegal. I am very much of the opinion that as adults we should be pretty much allowed to take any risks we so choose.

However, the method of design and construction of this boat, such that a dangerous condition or damage cannot reasonably be ascertained, I consider to be a design fault which should not be tolerated in new builds which are destined for sale to the general public.

IMHO such a design should not be tolerated in existing boats which are used for commercial purposes - such as hire or charter.

If I charter a boat, the keel should not fall off. Ever.

Well said. Agree very strongly.

The point at issue is not whether the boat was being used commercially, etc. The point is that the keel came off. Keels should not come off.

The right to mess about in boats without the Government getting involved (unless you are smuggling!) has been as much a part of British culture as the right to own a gun is in the States. The RYA set up its training scheme(s) to keep the Government out, the MCA helped in a constructive way and as we can see from the international acceptance of the RYA/MCA qualifications it works rather well.

 

[alant]

Foreign operators just charter it out cheap to some one who wants to sail it back for them.

Hence my belief that overall safety would be improved if MCA Cat 0 made a little easier to get, and then the rules on commercial operation were tightened up to ensure that charter yachts crossing oceans were coded to Cat 0 and properly manned (CR was properly manned IMHO and not an issue) instead of the present situation.

Otherwise, it seems that the rules on commercial operation are going to be more rigorously enforced and that many UK charter operators are going to end up as foreign companies running foreign registered boats to get around the Cat 0 coding difficulties. This does not make anything safer for anyone.

"made a little easier to get"?

Its supposed to ensure safety, so why should the rules be diluted?

 

[westernman]

"made a little easier to get"?

Its supposed to ensure safety, so why should the rules be diluted?

There is no point in having gold plated rules if no one ever respects them and uses some offshore flag to avoid any legal consequences.

The objective is to raise safety standards overall - not to create more imaginative ways to avoid being subject to them.

 

[lw395]

....IMHO such a design should not be tolerated in existing boats which are used for commercial purposes - such as hire or charter.

If I charter a boat, the keel should not fall off. Ever.

I don't think you can legislate for that.
Any design of keel can come off, in the limit.
You hit the bottom hard enough, damage will be done.
I'm also not sure it's right to blame the original construction and design, when the boat that failed had been repaired twice in this area.

Should we consider how many boats built differently, grounded and repaired might fare in 50 knot gusts and 5m waves? After 7 hard seasons of sea school use?

There is an irony that the matrix/liner construction is closely related to certain boats market as unsinkable.

 

[alant]

Some interesting points:
A Cat 2 initial survey will check for structural integrity and has to be done by a qualified surveyor, it is valid for 5 years and the owner / manager can survey for the first two years then an independent survey is required this may or may not be an in water survey. One should bear in mind the history of the boat being surveyed I am sure a surveyor who informed of a history similar to CR would require the boat out of the water.

I take your point about the RCD and indeed there were introductions to the design criteria re keels and attachment post CR design and build. However again I think your point is valid in that designs that include attachment points like the matrix deck on the 40.7 should be outside the RCD as it is both difficult and expensive to detect problems.

What is "a qualified surveyor"?
Anyone can call themselves a yot surveyor.

 

[mainsail1]

I agree with Westernman.
To me, it is all pretty simple. A keel should never fall off.
Benetoy have done a good job on this occasion at 'quietly slipping away into the night'.
If a keel falls off it is very often fatal to some or all of those onboard.
Manufacturers should take this to heart and spend a few more quid on a very robust design providing a strong hull and for fixing the keel to the hull.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Agreed.

+1

 

[Fr J Hackett]

What is "a qualified surveyor"?
Anyone can call themselves a yot surveyor.

Have a look on the MCA/ RYA website re coding it will tell you. Even google might help but the Daily Mail won't.

 

[alant]

Have a look on the MCA/ RYA website re coding it will tell you. Even google might help but the Daily Mail won't.

Perhaps you can provide a link.

However this might suffice.
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?49305-Career-in-Yacht-Surveying

Seems like you can get some paper qualifications, but from my understanding, anyone can profess to do it, preferably someone who can afford the longterm indemnity insurance they need.

 

[Uricanejack]

I think I see what may have happened. You may have interpreted my plea to leave the MCA out of recreational sailing in boats of less than 45ft O.A. - which I would have thought was uncontroversial - it is after all the formal position of the RYA, and has been for donkey's years - as "an axe to grind with the MCA". It isn't. The MCA will be the first to tell you that they have neither the budget not the manpower nor the wish to get involved in it. Hence the RYA/MCA relationship which some of us think is an excellent example of British pragmatism at its finest. My point was - "Let's keep it that way!"

That sounds very reasonable but it also appears to be quite different to what you have been saying.

Up to now I have taken your position to be no more regulation.
The MCA are wrong it was not a commercial voyage.

I personally don't agree with the MCA using prosecutors to resolve issues.
I don't think prosecuting this chap has done anything to improve safety of small vessels.
Perhaps I am wrong
The problems were identified by the MAIB
The MCA has the ability to respond by clarifying or changing regulations
They can still delegate to the RYA

Unfortunately the MAIB made recommendations and the underlying problem
Or practice of using CAT 2 boats for trans Atlantic voyages which look like walk like and quack like commercial voyages continue.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Perhaps you can provide a link.

However this might suffice.
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?49305-Career-in-Yacht-Surveying

Seems like you can get some paper qualifications, but from my understanding, anyone can profess to do it, preferably someone who can afford the longterm indemnity insurance they need.

I think you will find that to be an accredited surveyor who can issue coding in line with MCA you need more than just a bit of paper, do your own research.

 

[Tranona]

I agree with Westernman.
To me, it is all pretty simple. A keel should never fall off.
Benetoy have done a good job on this occasion at 'quietly slipping away into the night'.
If a keel falls off it is very often fatal to some or all of those onboard.
Manufacturers should take this to heart and spend a few more quid on a very robust design providing a strong hull and for fixing the keel to the hull.

It is worth noting that keel loss is EXTREMELY rare, and there is little systemic common cause, except grounding and racing, or more commonly both. Also perhaps related to poor maintenance and repairs. It simply is not an issue for private boats, or the gentler end of the charter market.

So, let's not get carried away with the idea that there is an epidemic. It is a very focussed issue for a very narrow section of the market. The standard for keel attachments and supporting structures has recently (2012) been revised and margins of safety increased. Most of the losses have been on boats built to the earlier standards, or standards did not apply.

The reality is that keels on production boats do not fall off when boats are sailed within their design envelope. There are some here that argue that boats should be able to withstand grounding, but there are many examples of boats with different keel designs claimed to be more robust that have been lost through keel damage - the most recent an HR 48 that hit a whale. So, where do you stop? There is no such thing as perfect keel design that will withstand all damage.

We must also remember that keel loss and damage is nothing new as those who were around in the heyday of the 1970s -80s when fin keels first came on the scene in large numbers, will know. Then as now the problems were related to groundings, and most common in inshore racing where the water is thin and advantage can be gained by using the thin water parts of the course.

So, in my view keel damage goes with the territory. If you want to race hard in a production boat, or even in a dedicated race boat built to the limit and bounce it off the hard bits you have to accept that at some point there will be failures. If you then take such a boat into extreme conditions in the open ocean do not be surprised if it breaks.

Not sure how you break this cycle, but I guess it will persist as long as there are owners and crews prepared to accept the risks.

 

[Tranona]

Perhaps you can provide a link.

However this might suffice.
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?49305-Career-in-Yacht-Surveying

Seems like you can get some paper qualifications, but from my understanding, anyone can profess to do it, preferably someone who can afford the longterm indemnity insurance they need.

That is irrelevant to this discussion. A coding surveyor has to be approved by the MCA, so not "anybody" can do it.

Always best if you keep you contribution to the point and not try and divert it.

BTW insurance is not a matter of just being able to afford the premiums, but being able to satisfy the insurer that you are a good risk. It is therefore easier (and probably cheaper) for a well qualified, competent surveyor with a good tack record to get insurance.

 

[alant]

That is irrelevant to this discussion. A coding surveyor has to be approved by the MCA, so not "anybody" can do it.

Always best if you keep you contribution to the point and not try and divert it.

BTW insurance is not a matter of just being able to afford the premiums, but being able to satisfy the insurer that you are a good risk. It is therefore easier (and probably cheaper) for a well qualified, competent surveyor with a good tack record to get insurance.

Needs to be a sailor as well then.

 

[Uricanejack]

I think I see what may have happened. You may have interpreted my plea to leave the MCA out of recreational sailing in boats of less than 45ft O.A. - which I would have thought was uncontroversial - it is after all the formal position of the RYA, and has been for donkey's years - as "an axe to grind with the MCA". It isn't. The MCA will be the first to tell you that they have neither the budget not the manpower nor the wish to get involved in it. Hence the RYA/MCA relationship which some of us think is an excellent example of British pragmatism at its finest. My point was - "Let's keep it that way!"

I do not know what the point of the prosecution of D Innes and Storm Force was. p
Probably several different reasons.
People died. Those people have friends and families who are probably quite angry after reading the MAIB report
There friends and family put thier trust in Storm Force as a reputable sailing school and charter company.
In 2 cases to be trained and work as Yacht Masters on commercial Yachts
And in 2 cases to get expierince

Storm Force was and is a commercial business taking paying punters out to sea on small commercial vessels.

I don't see why the responsibility would change because the boat was less than 45ft

I agree keels should not fall off big boats or small boats

The question of commercial or not was answered by judge and jury
It was commercial.

A couple of questions for you as a professional manager in the shipping business

Would you ever send one of your ships on a voyage it was not certified to undertake. Of course not.
Would you take advantage of a regulatory loop hole. Depends on the loop hole and risk.

Now the actual question
If one of your Captains called you and repotted they had done some damage to the ship and had a problem with some required gear. The ship is in Bongo Bongo and there is no repair facility

You would call or suggest Capt call. Lloyds, insurance, P&I
And ask if it's ok to move ship to a port where parts and repairs are available

What would you do if MCA or Lloyds or Insuarnce orP&I said no it's not ok.

Curse and swear. Probably
Call his boss. And ask him to be reasonable
Air freight a new anchor and repair crew toBongo Bongo

Or just say the MCA are wrong and sail anyway