Cheeki Rafiki yacht operator cleared over sailor deaths

[Mark-1]

I read it as Mark-1 illustrating the weaknesses in the position of the hindsight experts.

Exactly. (I thought that was obvious!)

If you're going to have a pop at the crew with the benefit of hindsight, you have to look at how crazy the crew would look if they'd taken the action required if they had known the keel was going to imminently completely detach.

 

[Mark-1]

It's like saying that the Titanic would probably have survived if that last helm order hadn't been given. She would (almost certainly) have survived a head on collision- it was a side-swipe that breached too many compartments that sank her.

Yup. Exactly like saying that. That's pretty much what counterfactuals are.

 

[Wandering Star]

Exactly. (I thought that was obvious!)

If you're going to have a pop at the crew with the benefit of hindsight, you have to look at how crazy the crew would look if they'd taken the action required if they had known the keel was going to imminently completely detach.

I think prople should be able to debate the matter without without having to worry about being accused of “taking a pop at the crew” because the crew sadly aren’t able to defend their actions. In view of the timeframe (leak noticed at least a day before, and worsening to a worrying degree on day of sinking) I strongly feel that as skipper I would have had all the life saving kit ready for instant deployment whatever the unidentified source of water ingress was. As skipper the possibilty for losing the keel wouldnt have necessarily been a factor for my consideration of a potential forced abandonment scenario, the rapid ingress of water from whatever source would have been. I don’t think that’s”with benefit of hindsight” at all, i thought it was the process all skippers followed.

 

[lpdsn]

I think prople should be able to debate the matter without without having to worry about being accused of “taking a pop at the crew” because the crew sadly aren’t able to defend their actions. In view of the timeframe (leak noticed at least a day before, and worsening to a worrying degree on day of sinking) I strongly feel that as skipper I would have had all the life saving kit ready for instant deployment whatever the unidentified source of water ingress was. As skipper the possibilty for losing the keel wouldnt have necessarily been a factor for my consideration of a potential forced abandonment scenario, the rapid ingress of water from whatever source would have been. I don’t think that’s”with benefit of hindsight” at all, i thought it was the process all skippers followed.

The skipper did ready the liferaft as far as he was able, as was shown in the USCG photos. To have readied it any further would've risked losing it in the mid-Atlantic F6. You'll have seen yourself how big the wheel on a 40.7 is so can easily imagine the difficulty on manhandling a heavy liferaft past it into the cockpit. Remember also that valaise liferafts are liable to damage so crew clambering over them to move about the boat is not a good idea.

There's no indication I've seen that there was a rapid ingress of water prior to the keel loss. All of us are taught to step up into the liferaft, and that is generally good advice. They hadn't reached that stage. The keel loss meant there was no time to react when they did.

 

[Mark-1]

The skipper did ready the liferaft as far as he was able, as was shown in the USCG photos. To have readied it any further would've risked losing it in the mid-Atlantic F6.

Yup, matches my recollection. It was as ready as it could practically be.

There's no indication I've seen that there was a rapid ingress of water prior to the keel loss. All of us are taught to step up into the liferaft, and that is generally good advice. They hadn't reached that stage. The keel loss meant there was no time to react when they did.

Again, agree. AFAIR there was never a quantifiable measure of the water ingress given. What we do know is that in the opinion of 4 people on board it was enough to be a concern, but not enough for a Mayday.

Sadly for the crew the period between 'worrying ingress' and 'evidence of structural failure' was the time it took the boat to flip over.

I've seen no evidence that the crew had any reason to suspect the keel, quite the opposite. It *feels* to me that when they checked the keel bolts and found no sign of ingress or flexing there they may have quite reasonably heaved a sigh of relief: "At least it's not the keel."

 

[alant]

It was very widely reported, it was mention in the MAIB report and discussed in excruciating detail on this forum and elsewhere.

So a better question might be how do you *not* know it?

Even I, don't know everything, I'm from Wales, not Yorkshire.

 

[Mark-1]

Even I, don't know everything, I'm from Wales, not Yorkshire.

 

[jimi]

Yup, matches my recollection. It was as ready as it could practically be.



Again, agree. AFAIR there was never a quantifiable measure of the water ingress given. What we do know is that in the opinion of 4 people on board it was enough to be a concern, but not enough for a Mayday.

Sadly for the crew the period between 'worrying ingress' and 'evidence of structural failure' was the time it took the boat to flip over.

I've seen no evidence that the crew had any reason to suspect the keel, quite the opposite. It *feels* to me that when they checked the keel bolts and found no sign of ingress or flexing there they may have quite reasonably heaved a sigh of relief: "At least it's not the keel."

Worth looking at the MAIB report p7-11 in particular. I see no mention of them checking keelbolts although I can see an email (not received) requesting them to do so. My gut feel was that there was inexperience there, it took them a long time to identify the water as sea water, their initial thought was that it was a split water tank. I also wonder if, due to inexperience, they were overly reticent in declaring a mayday. I've never been a fan of liferafts in lockers or downstairs, I keep mine on a cradle on the pushpit.

 

[RichardS]

Even I, don't know everything, I'm from Wales, not Yorkshire.

I thank you, kind Sir.

Richard

 

[RobbieW]

& today the sentences for the earlier charge, for which Doug Innes and Stormforce were found guilty, have been handed down. Suspended jail for Doug Innes and a 50k fine for the, now liquidated, company.

http://www.ybw.com/news-from-yachting-boating-world/cheeki-rafiki-trial-66020

 

[lpdsn]

... and a 50k fine for the, now liquidated, company.

http://www.ybw.com/news-from-yachting-boating-world/cheeki-rafiki-trial-66020

Is the company liquidated? I'm sure there are forumites who can look it up. I know they ceased trading pretty quickly, but that would've still left a company with assets, debtors and creditors. To actually wind up a company requires a notice in the London Gazette and that can lead to objections preventing or delaying the wind-up. I'd assume if there was an outstanding sentence hearing some official body would've objected.

 

[Uricanejack]

I suppose it's all over now.
The fine against a company which no longer exists. Even, if Mr Innes was the sole owner of the company. It wouldn't be passed on. To the owners. The fine would die with the company.
Would the fine be paid by insurance? or be just another creditor in the collapse of the company. I would hope former employee's would get paid before the court.

Not really sure what a suspended sentence actual means in practice. Under what kind of circumstance would the suspended sentence be activated. Charged with a similar offence within the two years? or charged with any offence? even completely unrelated offence?

The cause's of the keel failure are at best an educated guess. Mr Innes and his company were engaged in practices common to the sailing school and charter industry in the UK. Unfortunately for these young men and their two older clients or quaisi clients. It went terribly wrong.

The loop holes which allowed these practices still exist. According to this thread other sailing schools now have the boats sail home legally in a "race".

Which leaves me wondering what the point of the exercise was.

Why not just change the law and require all boats sailing on commercial voyages to meet the required code? Race or No Race?

Surely the lesson learned from this tragedy. A boat which does not even have sufficient reserve buoyance to survive a single compartment flooding. Is not fit for this purpose as a commercial vessel.

Doug Innes will have to live with this for the rest of his life. Tough enough without a jail sentence. Family or friends of the victims of this tragedy will probably quite understandably not agree with my view. Doug Innes was also a victim.

 

[t21]

My light acquanitance with all this is that a mate told me that there was a "bloody big bang" when it grounded in the Caribbean. All very sad anyway.

 

[bitbaltic]

My sympathies are with the partners and families of those who passed away, whose victim statements are harrowing to read.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-44077513

As i’m sure they do, one can only hope some good will come of all this.

 

[lw395]

Is the company liquidated? I'm sure there are forumites who can look it up. I know they ceased trading pretty quickly, but that would've still left a company with assets, debtors and creditors. To actually wind up a company requires a notice in the London Gazette and that can lead to objections preventing or delaying the wind-up. I'd assume if there was an outstanding sentence hearing some official body would've objected.

It seems to be in the voluntary liquidation process.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05295395/officers

If you click on the 'people' tab, that leads you to other directorships.

 

[Tranona]

I suppose it's all over now.
The fine against a company which no longer exists. Even, if Mr Innes was the sole owner of the company. It wouldn't be passed on. To the owners. The fine would die with the company.
Would the fine be paid by insurance? or be just another creditor in the collapse of the company. I would hope former employee's would get paid before the court.

Not really sure what a suspended sentence actual means in practice. Under what kind of circumstance would the suspended sentence be activated. Charged with a similar offence within the two years? or charged with any offence? even completely unrelated offence?

The cause's of the keel failure are at best an educated guess. Mr Innes and his company were engaged in practices common to the sailing school and charter industry in the UK. Unfortunately for these young men and their two older clients or quaisi clients. It went terribly wrong.

The loop holes which allowed these practices still exist. According to this thread other sailing schools now have the boats sail home legally in a "race".

Which leaves me wondering what the point of the exercise was.

Why not just change the law and require all boats sailing on commercial voyages to meet the required code? Race or No Race?

Surely the lesson learned from this tragedy. A boat which does not even have sufficient reserve buoyance to survive a single compartment flooding. Is not fit for this purpose as a commercial vessel.

Doug Innes will have to live with this for the rest of his life. Tough enough without a jail sentence. Family or friends of the victims of this tragedy will probably quite understandably not agree with my view. Doug Innes was also a victim.

You cannot insure against being found guilty and fined for an offence.

A Suspended sentence means that it could be activated in the event of another similar offence within the period of the sentence. Whatever happens he still has a criminal record. Saves the state paying to keep a low risk person in prison.

The recommendation was that the MCA clarified the rules on coding.

Just to clarify, whatever caused the accident, the boat did have sufficient buoyancy to still be afloat several days afterwards. Given that the boat capsized and threw the crew in the water it is difficult to see how even a watertight bulkhead as required for higher category boats would have changed the outcome.

 

[Wandering Star]

Given that the boat capsized and threw the crew in the water it is difficult to see how even a watertight bulkhead as required for higher category boats would have changed the outcome.

Not sure that’s correct? Where has ot been stated the crew were thrown into the water? I thought the consensus was the majority of the crew were trapped inside the hull when the boat inverted but (probably) managed to force their own exit from the hull but perished as they had no means of survival once they were n the ocean apart from the EPIRB. I didn’t think the crew had been thrown into the water is the only point I’m making.

 

[Tranona]

Not sure that’s correct? Where has ot been stated the crew were thrown into the water? I thought the consensus was the majority of the crew were trapped inside the hull when the boat inverted but (probably) managed to force their own exit from the hull but perished as they had no means of survival once they were n the ocean apart from the EPIRB. I didn’t think the crew had been thrown into the water is the only point I’m making.

You may well be right, and and perhaps I should have been clearer in that they were in the water not the boat. As Tony Bullimore (and others) have shown it is possible to survive in an upturned hull. However it happened, the crew were in the water and as you say no means of survival. A watertight bulkhead would not have changed that. It only helps if the boat stays afloat in a way that provides a means of survival for the crew.

 

[Uricanejack]

You cannot insure against being found guilty and fined for an offence.

A Suspended sentence means that it could be activated in the event of another similar offence within the period of the sentence. Whatever happens he still has a criminal record. Saves the state paying to keep a low risk person in prison.

The recommendation was that the MCA clarified the rules on coding.

Just to clarify, whatever caused the accident, the boat did have sufficient buoyancy to still be afloat several days afterwards. Given that the boat capsized and threw the crew in the water it is difficult to see how even a watertight bulkhead as required for higher category boats would have changed the outcome.

Depends how you define "afloat". Yes the boat remained. Upturned just floating, awash 0ver 90% flooded. No chance of survival in upturned hull.
The MCA may have added some clarification to coding. Even so it appears a similar boat could quite legally enter the same ARC race. As a commercial voyage. With paid crew and paying customers. Sail the Caribbean season as a charter vessel.

The clarification. To "legally" complete the return trip as a commercial voyage. A "race" back from the Caribbean to the UK is required.

In which case surely precisely the same risks of failure exist.

 

[alant]

Depends how you define "afloat". Yes the boat remained. Upturned just floating, awash 0ver 90% flooded. No chance of survival in upturned hull.
The MCA may have added some clarification to coding. Even so it appears a similar boat could quite legally enter the same ARC race. As a commercial voyage. With paid crew and paying customers. Sail the Caribbean season as a charter vessel.

The clarification. To "legally" complete the return trip as a commercial voyage. A "race" back from the Caribbean to the UK is required.

In which case surely precisely the same risks of failure exist.

Or "returning from a race" IIRC.