Clipper Ventures declares war on MCA & MAIB?

[Seajet]

Surely an A 22 doesn't have handrails, the loss of speed at warp drive wouldn't allow it.

No the deflector shield prevents any drag - there's a reason I'm half Aberdonian, ' more power Scotty ! '

Back to lesser boats, guardrails and grab handles evolved for a reason.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Pedant's note: GDPR stands for General data Protection Regulations. Your use of "regs" is superfluous repetition and I fine you a virtual pint.

If we were going to get really pedantic we could say that the Data Protection Act 2018 contains the regulations which implement the General Data Protection Regulations, so "GDPR regs" as shorthand for the DPA is tenuously arguable.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Speirs was overboard for 12 minutes before the hook finally released. They kept trying to pass him a clip. A rock climber would NEVER faff around doing that. You would throw a prusik around the webbing heading to the harness and haul on that.

Is that perhaps because of an assumption that the main load on the yacht tether can be relieved by stopping the boat whereas climbers can't switch off gravity?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Surely the buck stops with Spinlock, their gear failed.

They might argue that their gear was used contrary to their instructions. Still, it can't have been that bad, because according to the report "Following the accident, Clipper Ventures: ... Replaced all tethers with those of a different manufacturer during the stopover in Fremantle. (Subsequently, the Spinlock tethers were reissued.)" Perhaps they modified the jackstays to reduce the possibility of snagging?

 

[Resolution]

But they don't field train tethered MOB recovery, just chalk talk it. And Clipper is by no means the only one guilty of that. I doubt anyone drills it, even though quite a few have dies that way.
.

To update you, I am told this year's intake have been training for both tethered and un-tethered MOBs.

(And how many of us can say we have done the same?)

 

[Resolution]

They might argue that their gear was used contrary to their instructions. Still, it can't have been that bad, because according to the report "Following the accident, Clipper Ventures: ... Replaced all tethers with those of a different manufacturer during the stopover in Fremantle. (Subsequently, the Spinlock tethers were reissued.)" Perhaps they modified the jackstays to reduce the possibility of snagging?

The front end of the jackstay attaches to a foredeck cleat. This now has a line wrapped round it to , hopefully, prevent a repeat of the snagged tether hook.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

The front end of the jackstay attaches to a foredeck cleat. This now has a line wrapped round it to , hopefully, prevent a repeat of the snagged tether hook.

Hopefully your description does not describe the whole solution.

 

[Neeves]

Surely the buck stops with Spinlock, their gear failed.

As Thinwater mentions, Post 176, the standards are inappropriate. Spinlock make to those inappropriate standards, which are still in force. Arguably Spinlock should have noted there was a better standard and made to that but equally when choosing such devices someone who is 'skilled in the art' (and working for a company where safety is paramount) should also have known there were better standards and bought to those better standards. As Thinwater mentions equipment to the better standards has been available (from Europe and available in America) for 10 years (though like hens teeth in the UK and Australia). However if you are buying a couple of hundred hooks I don't think their lack of availability on shelves in the UK is an issue. They are, or were, standard equipment on Volvo yachts.

I may be speaking out of turn but Ocean Safety, Southhampton, have a major role in advising (and supplying) safety kit and if they were part of the mix (they are certainly a sponsor or a supplier to CV) it is odd they did not input - as I might have thought they would have been 'skilled in the art'.

I'm not pointing any fingers with regard to where the buck stops, it does not seem very beneficial nor is it very fair - as the persons or organs at whom I might point a finger are not here to defend themselves. It is also very easy to be critical (and I am guilty despite trying not to be) but darned difficult to offer positive recommendations. Even more difficult to offer reasoned and knowledgeable recommendations.

These threads should build not destroy.

Hopefully at least one message has been taken on board - use a Kong Tango - and maybe Thinwater will contribute, again, there are others.

I do think UK media has failed the UK yachtsmen by not having a lead article on the topic, they did for bendy shanks (which are hardly life threatening) - why not tethers? And if they are not writing up tethers - what are they doing that is so much more important? This then leads to us - why are the members here not badgering PBO, or YM - and what else are we missing. Hooks came to the fore (at Practical Sailor) because a man died - it would be much more useful if we all looked at commonly used kit and pulled out anything that looked outside the norm for investigation - maybe even start a thread - and air those misgivings.

I'll stick to ground tackle, you will be pleased to hear (or not) there are people here with much higher skills than me on tethers etc - and I would like to learn.

I'm the skipper, I'm responsible.

Rant over,

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

The front end of the jackstay attaches to a foredeck cleat. This now has a line wrapped round it to , hopefully, prevent a repeat of the snagged tether hook.

I wonder why they do not use dedicated padeyes.

Jonathan

 

[thinwater]

I wonder why they do not use dedicated padeyes.

Jonathan

Curiously, I have never anchored a jackstay to a cleat, not in 25 years of using them. It is never the optimum location, in my opinion. Too close to the bow, too close to the stern, potential for cross loading and jamming. I always saw this as obvious on the face of it. I've used bolt hangers and pad eyes for that long. Basic engineering sense.

 

[Neeves]

Curiously, I have never anchored a jackstay to a cleat, not in 25 years of using them. It is never the optimum location, in my opinion. Too close to the bow, too close to the stern, potential for cross loading and jamming. I always saw this as obvious on the face of it. I've used bolt hangers and pad eyes for that long. Basic engineering sense.

My thoughts also.

If you go onto a Clipper yacht the bow is hugely cluttered and it will be more so when you are trying to chain headsails - in fact you would need a decent team to change headsails on a Clipper.

If you use the the cleat and then wrap the cleat to ensure that no side loading can develop then you need to free the cleat up at the end of each leg - and re-wrap it at the start of the next leg. Everyone has plenty on their mind at the start of a new leg - without thinking of wrapping a cleat.

A dedicated padeye seems so simple.

Jonathan

 

[Resolution]

My thoughts also.

If you go onto a Clipper yacht the bow is hugely cluttered and it will be more so when you are trying to chain headsails - in fact you would need a decent team to change headsails on a Clipper.

If you use the the cleat and then wrap the cleat to ensure that no side loading can develop then you need to free the cleat up at the end of each leg - and re-wrap it at the start of the next leg. Everyone has plenty on their mind at the start of a new leg - without thinking of wrapping a cleat.

A dedicated padeye seems so simple.

Jonathan

Can't argue with that. It certainly is crowded up there, and a lot of the work in hanking on is right up front. But Clipper have obviously thought about what to change so there may be some constraint of which we are unaware.

 

[Neeves]

Can't argue with that. It certainly is crowded up there, and a lot of the work in hanking on is right up front. But Clipper have obviously thought about what to change so there may be some constraint of which we are unaware.

Peter,

The forepeak was simply full of sails and I did not venture in there. I don't know what was up there on the inside. Thinking of it - a real bugger to get the foresail on deck.

On deck there waa little room at the sharp end and releasing the hanks was a one person herculean task (and cold and wet in the Southern Ocean)


You seem to know more about these yachts than most.

Most, all, of the yachts had pushpits, bowsprits/prodders and pulpits whipped with cordage such that you could not see any of the stainless tubing.

Why?

I thought of cold and grip, but everyone would have worn gloves (which would been sodden if you were on the bow), cold (better gloves?)??

Any ideas

I did not ask at the time.

Other priorities

I don't go on racing yachts that size nor with that many crew - I was impressed with the 'wet locker' - all the foul weather gear, harnesses, helmet (one for each watch), LJs all labelled with crew names at the bottom of the companionway/hatch stairs - you could not go on deck without it being 'in your face'.

We do something similar - slightly easier with a crew of 2 (on a beamy cat). They have 17 (?) crew and some come and go.

Jonathan

 

[scotty123]

As Thinwater mentions, Post 176, the standards are inappropriate. Spinlock make to those inappropriate standards, which are still in force. Arguably Spinlock should have noted there was a better standard and made to that but equally when choosing such devices someone who is 'skilled in the art' (and working for a company where safety is paramount) should also have known there were better standards and bought to those better standards. As Thinwater mentions equipment to the better standards has been available (from Europe and available in America) for 10 years (though like hens teeth in the UK and Australia). However if you are buying a couple of hundred hooks I don't think their lack of availability on shelves in the UK is an issue. They are, or were, standard equipment on Volvo yachts.

I may be speaking out of turn but Ocean Safety, Southhampton, have a major role in advising (and supplying) safety kit and if they were part of the mix (they are certainly a sponsor or a supplier to CV) it is odd they did not input - as I might have thought they would have been 'skilled in the art'.

I'm not pointing any fingers with regard to where the buck stops, it does not seem very beneficial nor is it very fair - as the persons or organs at whom I might point a finger are not here to defend themselves. It is also very easy to be critical (and I am guilty despite trying not to be) but darned difficult to offer positive recommendations. Even more difficult to offer reasoned and knowledgeable recommendations.

These threads should build not destroy.

Hopefully at least one message has been taken on board - use a Kong Tango - and maybe Thinwater will contribute, again, there are others.

I do think UK media has failed the UK yachtsmen by not having a lead article on the topic, they did for bendy shanks (which are hardly life threatening) - why not tethers? And if they are not writing up tethers - what are they doing that is so much more important? This then leads to us - why are the members here not badgering PBO, or YM - and what else are we missing. Hooks came to the fore (at Practical Sailor) because a man died - it would be much more useful if we all looked at commonly used kit and pulled out anything that looked outside the norm for investigation - maybe even start a thread - and air those misgivings.

I'll stick to ground tackle, you will be pleased to hear (or not) there are people here with much higher skills than me on tethers etc - and I would like to learn.

I'm the skipper, I'm responsible.

Rant over,

Jonathan

Making to a 'standard', is no excuse.
Roll Royce & Bently, could make cars 'to a standard', but they exceed it, because their customers expect the best.

 

[Uricanejack]

I have not had a ship for which I am responsible undergo an MAIB investigation for six years. (touches wood...) When we were the subject of MAIB investigations, six and eight years ago, I found them to be highly competent and open minded.

Any investigation report looks convincing if you don't know other sides of the story. If you do, things may appear in a different light.

In this case, Clipper have said that there were specific inaccuracies in the published report. These do not concern the accident itself but include the statement that there was a ship in the vicinity to which the corpse could have been transferred and the statement that some repairs which could have been carried out had not been made and that this increased the workload of the crew. Clipper specifically controvert these, as I understand it. I do not know if Clipper had taken these up with the MAIB when given sight of the draft report. I can tell that Clipper are now very angry indeed. So would I be, in their shoes.

I do not agree with your contention that a boat which does not have an electronic screen in front of the helmsperson at the wheel (what if it's a tiller?) is in any way unsafe. I will explain why:

1. The screen tends to attract the attention of, and thus distract, the person looking at it. In ships we have been critical of officers of the watch with their heads in the radar instead of looking out for decades now, and a ship has a dedicated look out at night in addition to the OOW.

2. The screen is easily damaged.

3. There is a risk that the light level on the screen can be turned up to the point where night vision is affected.

I never mentioned the electronic screens, I don’t disagree with you. I am some what Old fashioned.

I saw no mention in the MAIB report about ships in the vicinity and transferring the body. The only reference was the medic pronounced death with the aid of 3 other medical professionals while in contact with a Doctor on shore. They determined the cause of death as drowning. Cold shock was also mention as a possibility.

I would also suggest attempting to transfer a body from a yacht to a cargo vessel in the Souther Ocean would be very high risk and perhaps not a good plan.
Transferring an injured person is still high risk but a different story.

If someone involved with the MAIB said something out of turn or broke confidentiality, it’s a valid complaint about the individual.which should be dealt with. It’s not in the report as far as I can see.
I never heard of it other than this thread.
I don’t read uk tabloids regularly. So I might missed it being reported elsewhere.


I did wonder about the relevance of mentioning of the water ingress, until fatigue was mentioned. I don’t see this as an inaccuracy. I can see why clipper might not like it. Still it’s a logical conclusion. Fatigue was a contributing factor.
The wibbly wobbly wheel, played a role.
I find it inconceivable the MAIB would make these deficiencies up. I can see some disagreement about the time lines regarding repairs. The deficiencies should have been reported. However understanding this is not commonplace.

I saw nothing in the report which appears to be inaccurate.
Even if there is an inaccurate piece of information. There are ways to bring it up, firstly when the report is still a draft.
Even after it can still be brought up. But, clipper would need to show it is inaccurate rather than just make a statement.

Clipper are angry or at least someone high up in Clipper is angry. The report is critical. All I saw in the report is positive criticism.
The report is only about why did these incidents happen.
The root causes were further back up the line than a failed clip. Which is virtually always the case.
As I read it Clipper are in denial. Yes they are fixing some things but ignoring some important pieces of information.

You mentioned it’s been 6 years since your company has been involved with the MAIB. This is good, it’s not a coincidence it’s because your company has learned from what went wrong before and has done something about it.

For a report into a incident involving a fatality. It’s not to bad, compared to others.

 

[Uricanejack]

Why, do you think CV standards will drop?

With a well run company the flag makes no difference. Some flags are less stringent than others. Malta I don’t know.
I am not expecting CV standards to drop.
Unfortunately if CV are not willing to listen to the MAIB and change the way they operate. There standards are not going to improve enough. The risk of a significant incident will still be there.

Changing flag to avoid the MAIB is pointless, the MAIB recommendations are advice not requirements.

 

[Uricanejack]

What do you think about the fact CV had to have their safety system independently reviewed because the MCA couldnt spare the resources? Seems odd?

Not odd quite common.
Back in my day it would have been D.O.T. It’s always been quite common for the regulating authority to delegate their authority to a classification society. Partly manpower, partly cost, mostly convenient. Lloyd’s is a well known. There are others
Most flag states do this and use major classification societies.
So delegation to the RYA for yacht stuff. Is already in place for examination and certificates.
Delegation for surveys and audits, not uncommon.

The report does suggest there were some issues with the survey and audits ie they could have been better.
The oversight by the MCA could also have been better.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I did wonder about the relevance of mentioning of the water ingress, until fatigue was mentioned.

It's a bit like being pulled over by the cops for having a brake light out. While you're there, they'll have a look at the tyres, the headlamps, check that you're wearing a seatbelt and so on. If you come to the attention of the MAIB because of a death, they won't just investigate that, they'll investigate everything to do with the safe and legal operation of the boat, and if they find, for example, that two members of the crew of a boat have written to complain about inadequate repair work they won't discount that simply because it wasn't immediately relevant to the accident.

Even more so if they have recently had to investigate two other fatalities and a total loss after grounding.

 

[lw395]

Curiously, I have never anchored a jackstay to a cleat, not in 25 years of using them. It is never the optimum location, in my opinion. Too close to the bow, too close to the stern, potential for cross loading and jamming. I always saw this as obvious on the face of it. I've used bolt hangers and pad eyes for that long. Basic engineering sense.

But the cleat will still be there, in the vicinity of the jackstay.
A jackstay running past a separate cleat is a likely snagging point, a jackstay stopping short of the cleat might be too short. The cleats are big strong things ideal for taking a jackstay load.
It is common to wrap or otherwise cover cleats on racing boats to avoid them catching e.g. spinnaker lines. Many people do this every time they leave the Hamble, whoever suggested a well trained crew couldn't manage it for an ocean crossing is just being silly.

 

[Neeves]

whoever suggested a well trained crew couldn't manage it for an ocean crossing is just being silly.

Thanks for that!

The jackstay would not need to run past the cleat. In fact there would be no need to 'run past' the cleat - unless its a virtual cleat, as there is no room The 'potential' padeye would need to be well aft for a standard tether not to allow a crew member to reach the prodder. It is quite possible to engineer sufficient reinforcing without the need to use the horn cleat.

Who-ever makes criticism of specific issues without having been on a Clipper is....just being silly.

Easy to remember to to wrap - but why the need to remember among the myriad of other things when it would be totally unnecessary if you use a padeye.

But I bow to your greater expertise and experience......?

Jonathan