iain789
Well-Known Member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-43896228
I assume it's OK to post this as it's on the BBC news channel
I assume it's OK to post this as it's on the BBC news channel
Cheeki Rafiki yacht operator cleared over sailor deaths
- Thread starter iain789
- Start date
Wandering Star
Well-Known Member
Oh, great, very saddened by the deaths, but my gut feeling is that this was always going to be the right verdict. I just hope that Doug Innes can get his life back on track.
awol
Well-Known Member
That might add a new slant to the thread on negligence. The cynic in me assumes the jury was weeded for anyone who had any nautical knowledge.
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
+1 It was never fair to try to pin it on one man. The only thing he was guilty of was skipping the Cat 2 survey and he's still to be sentenced for that.
He'll have to find something else to do for a living I suspect though.
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
Probably not. This was a major structural failure of a yacht, for which they tried to blame the operator. Bear in mind that the design office publically stated (on Sailing Anarchy) that they'd never had sight of the builder's maintenance instructions, just like most boat repairers and surveyors.
mainsail1
Well-Known Member
Agreed.
I wish the boat builders and the MCA would put their houses in order but I won't hold my breath.
[3889]
...
Weeded by whom? The defence's right to challenge jurors with no legal basis was abolished in 1988.
Topcat47
Well-Known Member
He also made no attempt to alert rescue services and carried on drinking at the pub instead of clarifying the problem with the crew or providing any help whatsoever. Crass if not negligent. If a mate sent me a message like that, I"d want to know if there's anything I could do to help, never mind a delivery crew on my own boat.
Stemar
Well-Known Member
I agree, it's what I would have done, but being realistic, what difference would it have made?
The weather's crap and, while something's obviously wrong, would you advise them to take to their liferaft without knowing what it is? When the keel did finally let go, it appears that the boat went over far too quickly to do more than jump, if that. Since the liferaft was still attached to the boat, it doesn't appear that the crew thought the problem was severe enough to prepare to abandon until it was too late.
From what I've read, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think there was probably an element of negligence in the general maintenance of the boat, but the jury obviously decided it wasn't severe enough to amount to manslaughter.
The weather's crap and, while something's obviously wrong, would you advise them to take to their liferaft without knowing what it is? When the keel did finally let go, it appears that the boat went over far too quickly to do more than jump, if that. Since the liferaft was still attached to the boat, it doesn't appear that the crew thought the problem was severe enough to prepare to abandon until it was too late.
From what I've read, and with the benefit of hindsight, I think there was probably an element of negligence in the general maintenance of the boat, but the jury obviously decided it wasn't severe enough to amount to manslaughter.
Wandering Star
Well-Known Member
I believe that's incorrect, the boat started taking on water the day before she sank, the crew had ample time to fire off the EPIRB, use their satphone and ready the liferaft if they thought there was a chance the boat was doomed. It was the following day they used the satphone to call Doug Innes who (and why not?) happened to be in a pub. Doug Innes did instruct the crew at that time, to ready the liferaftand he also alerted the coastguard albeit without too much urgency.
But he wasnt aboard Cheeki Rafiki, he was in a pub in the UK and I’m guessing he felt if the situation was critical and not just worrying, the crew would make the decision to activate the EPIRB and handle the Mayday broadcasts themselves if Doug Innes had broadcast a Mayday (Mayday Relay?) from a pub in the UK and the US rescue services had gone out 700 miles to rescue the crew only to find eveything was actually under control, they’d be pretty miffed. In my humble opinion, it was absolutely down to the crew to initiate Mayday procedures at the appropriate time. Doug Innes provided advice to the crew and alerted the UK coatguard to the possibility of a sinking, but he couldn’t have done anymore - the final decisions had to be made by the crew onboard Cheeki Rafiki.
penberth3
Well-Known Member
You're wrong, you might want to check the report and correct that comment.
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
Maybe we shoudl all make a point by raising a Mayday every time we get a leaky hose connection.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but you should try to exclude it when considering the actions of others. I suspect all involved were considering a much more mundane source of the water until the late stages and his urgency was not incompatible with the understanding of the situation at the time.
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
There’s not much more to say about this tragedy that hasn’t already been said.
Some may remember that Mr Innes was a long time poster here before these tragic events, I hope he can get over this tragedy in due course, although I doubt he will completely get over it. There are, sadly, many victims in this case.
Some may remember that Mr Innes was a long time poster here before these tragic events, I hope he can get over this tragedy in due course, although I doubt he will completely get over it. There are, sadly, many victims in this case.
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
Not Guilty. A hung Jury first time, At least its over now. Are we any wiser as a result of the process. I doubt it.
4 lives were lost. Their loss could and should have been avoided. Their families will never be the same again, and will probably never get over it.
I think Doug Innes was no more or less guilty than any of the other sailing schools who offered similar trips. Using similar practices. Hopefully these practices have stopped.
Perhaps he was more arrogant deciding he new the rules better than the MCA. For which he and his business were found guilty. His business is no more. Not Guilty is not the same as innocent. I am sure he is aware he is partially responsible for the loss.
In the end I hope everyone will be able to move on and make the best of life as it is in front of them.
I do remember his posts, prior to this tragic event. As a result I thought his sailing school was a good one with a good reputation. I thought his intern program was a good opportunity. Two of the fatalities were part of this program.
I had even gone so far as to make enquiries. not as an intern.
After most accidents I have looked at I also say there but for the grace of god.
I aint perfect.
4 lives were lost. Their loss could and should have been avoided. Their families will never be the same again, and will probably never get over it.
I think Doug Innes was no more or less guilty than any of the other sailing schools who offered similar trips. Using similar practices. Hopefully these practices have stopped.
Perhaps he was more arrogant deciding he new the rules better than the MCA. For which he and his business were found guilty. His business is no more. Not Guilty is not the same as innocent. I am sure he is aware he is partially responsible for the loss.
In the end I hope everyone will be able to move on and make the best of life as it is in front of them.
I do remember his posts, prior to this tragic event. As a result I thought his sailing school was a good one with a good reputation. I thought his intern program was a good opportunity. Two of the fatalities were part of this program.
I had even gone so far as to make enquiries. not as an intern.
After most accidents I have looked at I also say there but for the grace of god.
I aint perfect.
Last edited:
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
I don't know Mr Innes. I do have an old friend who was responsible for a fatal accident many years ago. Unfortunately people died. Nothing can change that. while I don't think it compares to the family. His life was never the same again. I don't think he ever got over it. I would say he was a victim as well.
jimi
Well-Known Member
this is worth a read http://www.sailing.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/MAIBInvReport_8_2015.pdf , I was particularly interested in P26 where a repair after a grounding is detailed. It raises the question in my mind of the rigour of structural testing after such a repair. This then leads to the further question of who is liable if such a repair fails, is it the owner, operator or repairer?
I'm not saying that is the case here, but it certainly raises the question in my mind as I've seen a few less than adequate repairs by allegedly reputable marine institutions.
I'm not saying that is the case here, but it certainly raises the question in my mind as I've seen a few less than adequate repairs by allegedly reputable marine institutions.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I'm not impressed by anyone who tries to exploit the enthusiastic by getting them to work for free. Cheapskate operation all round, it seems.
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
For me the clear lesson from this was that with a particular type of construction it was hard to monitor the structural integrity and to carry out repairs with the techniques used in the cottage industry we rely on. Unfortunately I fear that lesson has been lost in the attempt to go after Doug Innes.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
That is not an easy one to answer because there is little agreement about how this sort of damage should be repaired, partly because there is a lack of guidance from the designers and builders, partly because relatively so few have been damaged and partly because each damaged boat has its own peculiar issues. Not sure there is any form of effective post repair structural testing - indeed AFAIK there is no testing of newly built boats. So repairs rely on the repairer assessing what the damage has been and repairing to the original specification.
The question with this type of structure is firstly whether the real damage can be identified and secondly whether it can be repaired successfully in a non factory situation. There were also question marks about whether the design and manufacture is actually sound, although the report seems to agree that it is.
The recommendations focused on repairs and asked that the designer, builder and experienced repairers investigated these issues with a view to establishing best practice. Not sure if there has been any progress on this.
What this case does highlight is that it is difficult to prove negligence of an individual in a case of manslaughter.
PhillM
Well-Known Member
It wasn't work for free. There was pay for work done and free training. I actually looked into it for one of my sons. Seemed like a good program and nice way to bring new blood into the industry.
I have no axe to grind either way re the case. No idea but the courts have decided. It is worth reminding ourselves that everyone that takes to sea knows the risks. Even in the Solent, things can go wrong. We all know it and we all make our own decisions re the risks we take. We get away with it nearly all of the time. However, risk means there is a downside that unfortunately does cost one or more of our community their life.