Clipper Ventures declares war on MCA & MAIB?
- Thread starter dunedin
- Start date
westhinder
Well-known member
The link Giblets provided seems to suggest otherwise. Could you explain a bit more?
thinwater
Well-known member
With safety equipment? WTF! You are damn right we can!
My other hobby is rock and ice climbing, and I fully expect Black Diamond, Petzel, DMM and Kong to obsess. And they do! This gear has to work, all the time. Spinlocks problem is that they put gear on boats and test for wear ability. They test strictly according to the standard. But unlike climbing companies, they have failed to test for real world accident conditions. This resulted in inflatables that could not survive waves and surf. They lack the correct attitude for making safety gear, and have proven it repeatedly.
bikedaft
Well-known member
also it is their legal duty. and it's their legal exposure if they get sued.
DFL1010
Active member
I think perhaps you are mistaking Minn's point. The business referred to in the quoted part was Clipper Ventures, not Spinlock.
Kukri
Well-known member
Thank you. I was indeed saying that Clipper Ventures were acting reasonably in assuming that tethers supplied by Spinlock, a company with a solid reputation and whose products are not at the «*budget*» end of the price range, ought to be reliable.
Kukri
Well-known member
Not without writing a book, which would have to be several hundred pages long and which would be out of date before I had finished. The link that Giblets gave is to one of literarally dozens if not hundreds of firms promoting sundry deals.
There are men and women - and I know at least a couple of dozen of them - who live very well indeed by advising the wealthy on how to pay less tax. Most superyachts fly the British flag, and I can assure you that their owners have their tax positions well under control.
To put this another way, if Sir R K-J wanted to pay less tax on his operation, he would not need to re-flag in order to do so.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
Strip him of his Knighthood. The cad.
lw395
Well-known member
Should have done that when he got nicked for drink driving. The Twat.
No 434 in a series, 'how to recognise a risk-taker from quite a long way away....'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-37915589
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Indeed, so I assume that the re-flagging is to avoid further criticism from the MAIB. That could be an interesting idea to sell to prospective customers.
capnsensible
Well-known member
As I understand it, the flag doesnt matter if there is an accident that involves a UK national. I was told that some years ago by a chap from the MCA Enforcement Unit, who I imagine you will agree, knew his potatos.
Happy to receive if anyone knows better?
Uricanejack
Well-known member
Very simple, MCA has no jurisdiction in Malta or with Maltese’s vessels.
The vessels will be under Maltese regulation and authority.
The MAIB is only advisory so makes no difference other than the next incident on this years race will not be investigated by either the MAIB or the MCA.
Unless their assistance is requested by Malta.
Unfortunately without significant change to how clipper operate rather than the color of flag. I would say the likelihood of a next incident is relatively high.
Uricanejack
Well-known member
They do have some authority or jurisdiction over vessels in UK waters or arriving or departing from UK. The nationality of persons on board has little impact on jurisdiction.
Flag state has jurisdiction in international waters. If flag state gives a hoot.
Neeves
Well-known member
There are obviously multiple issues developing from the incident, this thread being just one.
Much of it leaves a very nasty smell.
On the positive side if you read the various articles in Practical Sailor, and I think PS were the only magazine to investigate, all the answers are there. The articles define the tests, underline the inadequacies of the kit and offer alternatives - of which there are more than one. These alternatives have been available for a number of years and are commonly used on other yachts, many of them higher profile (for the right reasons) than Clipper.
I agree with Uricanejack
'Unfortunately without significant change to how clipper operate rather than the color of flag. I would say the likelihood of a next incident is relatively high.'
and JumbleDuck
'Indeed, so I assume that the re-flagging is to avoid further criticism from the MAIB. That could be an interesting idea to sell to prospective customers.'
I can think of no sound reason to re-flag the fleet, especially if it is a revered 'British' brand managed by a British national icon (with the buck stopping at his desk).
As I said - I my ignorance I detect a nasty smell.
There is another issue - raised obliquely a few posts ago. The alternative and better hooks are not commonly or easily available in UK chandlers - that's another can of worms.
Jonathan
Much of it leaves a very nasty smell.
On the positive side if you read the various articles in Practical Sailor, and I think PS were the only magazine to investigate, all the answers are there. The articles define the tests, underline the inadequacies of the kit and offer alternatives - of which there are more than one. These alternatives have been available for a number of years and are commonly used on other yachts, many of them higher profile (for the right reasons) than Clipper.
I agree with Uricanejack
'Unfortunately without significant change to how clipper operate rather than the color of flag. I would say the likelihood of a next incident is relatively high.'
and JumbleDuck
'Indeed, so I assume that the re-flagging is to avoid further criticism from the MAIB. That could be an interesting idea to sell to prospective customers.'
I can think of no sound reason to re-flag the fleet, especially if it is a revered 'British' brand managed by a British national icon (with the buck stopping at his desk).
As I said - I my ignorance I detect a nasty smell.
There is another issue - raised obliquely a few posts ago. The alternative and better hooks are not commonly or easily available in UK chandlers - that's another can of worms.
Jonathan
Last edited:
Uricanejack
Well-known member
Hmm.
I don’t see any real practical advantage in changing flag. If anything it looks bad from a PR point of view. I would have thought it would be much easier just to go along with the recommendations and MCA requirements.
Apparently clipper may be facing potential civil suits. Getting your assets out of the courts jurisdiction might make sense.
Particularly if those assets are mobile.
I don’t see any real practical advantage in changing flag. If anything it looks bad from a PR point of view. I would have thought it would be much easier just to go along with the recommendations and MCA requirements.
Apparently clipper may be facing potential civil suits. Getting your assets out of the courts jurisdiction might make sense.
Particularly if those assets are mobile.
Neeves
Well-known member
Those assets might be flagged in Malta but will be in the UK for a considerable period, before and after THE event and in-between times for PR (now that must be a joke?) events, call them fund raising.
I do not know the detail but I might suspect Spinlock was a sponsor or an approved supplier. The hooks were then supplied as part of the commercial package - that had little or nothing to do with technical excellence.
I have to assume they are insured and if there were any cases then that's one reason for insurance? If my ignorant assumptions are correct then JumbleDuck's comment looks more prominent - the smell just gets worse.
Jonathan
I do not know the detail but I might suspect Spinlock was a sponsor or an approved supplier. The hooks were then supplied as part of the commercial package - that had little or nothing to do with technical excellence.
I have to assume they are insured and if there were any cases then that's one reason for insurance? If my ignorant assumptions are correct then JumbleDuck's comment looks more prominent - the smell just gets worse.
Jonathan
Last edited:
Kukri
Well-known member
Bollocks. Learn some law.
Kukri
Well-known member
This thread has taken a very nasty turn.
Nobody seems to have read either the MAIB report that Clipper are complaining about or the complaint itself.
Instead it’s all “let’s pile on Sir Robin Knox-Johnson”.
I for one am not going to take part in this. I think Clipper’s position is entirely justified and it is the MAIB and the MCA who have some explaining to do.
Nobody seems to have read either the MAIB report that Clipper are complaining about or the complaint itself.
Instead it’s all “let’s pile on Sir Robin Knox-Johnson”.
I for one am not going to take part in this. I think Clipper’s position is entirely justified and it is the MAIB and the MCA who have some explaining to do.
Kukri
Well-known member
Why not put two and two together and make ten whilst you are about it?
Neeves
Well-known member
Minn,
I think you are taking this a bit personally.
I have read the report and I accept that the MAIB have, or may have erred.
It merits note there would be no report if a man had not died. Most of us, or at least me, are not particularly interested in some wrangle over some 'misinformation' in the report - that information and any errors did not cause a man to die. I am happy that Clipper obtain whatever satisfaction they feel is necessary - sadly that will not bring a man back to life.
My comments are simple - there were better clips available this seems to have been lost in a wrangle over 'misinformation'. If RKJ is the Chief Executive of Clipper then, in my book, the buck stops with him. I appreciate there is, or was, a Technical Director who (when I last communicated with him) is a sailor of high credibility. But I assume he reported to RJK and was appointed by RKJ.
If you are able to confirm that RKJ has no responsibility for the loss of life I am happy, more than happy, to accept that information.
Sorry if I am hard or blunt.
Yes - the thread was focussed at the wrangle between Clipper and the MAIB - but threads drift. Positively someone who read at least some of this thread queried where better hooks were available - if he follows up - he will obtain chapter and verse and can then make his own decisions - that to me suggests the drift has been valuable.
Minn, it would be sad if you dropped out of this thread - you have expertise that some here, particularly me, lack - and I value your input.
Jonathan
I think you are taking this a bit personally.
I have read the report and I accept that the MAIB have, or may have erred.
It merits note there would be no report if a man had not died. Most of us, or at least me, are not particularly interested in some wrangle over some 'misinformation' in the report - that information and any errors did not cause a man to die. I am happy that Clipper obtain whatever satisfaction they feel is necessary - sadly that will not bring a man back to life.
My comments are simple - there were better clips available this seems to have been lost in a wrangle over 'misinformation'. If RKJ is the Chief Executive of Clipper then, in my book, the buck stops with him. I appreciate there is, or was, a Technical Director who (when I last communicated with him) is a sailor of high credibility. But I assume he reported to RJK and was appointed by RKJ.
If you are able to confirm that RKJ has no responsibility for the loss of life I am happy, more than happy, to accept that information.
Sorry if I am hard or blunt.
Yes - the thread was focussed at the wrangle between Clipper and the MAIB - but threads drift. Positively someone who read at least some of this thread queried where better hooks were available - if he follows up - he will obtain chapter and verse and can then make his own decisions - that to me suggests the drift has been valuable.
Minn, it would be sad if you dropped out of this thread - you have expertise that some here, particularly me, lack - and I value your input.
Jonathan
Last edited:
