Clipper Ventures declares war on MCA & MAIB?

[Resolution]

Neeves
You often make valuable contributions to the forum but I think in this instance you are being "hard and blunt" about a subject where your "ignorance " and lack of knowledge of "the detail" renders your comments unwise.
Like you, I do not know all the detail of the arrangements for kit supplied in the race. But I have been on board one of the yachts this week and seen that all the crew were equipped with the latest Spinlock Vito deckvests (with the metal clip for the crutch strap) and brand new tethers. But the hooks did look to me to be similar to the previous ones, certainly not Kongs or any other mountain climbing type.
I was shown several other changes to lifelines, guard rail netting etc that have been introduced following comments in the MAIB reports. And met the pro assistant skipper, also introduced following the report.
I have also listened to members of the crew talk about the weeks of training they have been undergoing, and looked at the operating manuals with which they were issued. There is a massive emphasis on safety in operating the boat. There is also a tremendous excitement amongst these people who are about to participate in something way beyond the ordinary, a real personal test. And yes, the ones I spoke to were aware of the potential risks and the certain physical discomfort, this is all part of the package to which they have signed up.
Knock the Clipper organisation from your armchairs if you wish. But there are an awful lot of people out there taking part in something really quite extraordinary.
Peter

 

[Uricanejack]

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.

I have read the MAIB report. It is one of the more through reports I have read recently. No doubt this report is a in depth and detailed due to it being a 2nd fatality as a result of a MOB and a 3 fatality in two years. Throw in a grounding as well just because.
I thought it makes perfectly good sense, well reasoned conclusion drawn for good evidence, Good common sense findings,
And reasonable recommendations.
Compared to most reports about a fatal accident. The criticism is not bad. The report doesn’t make clipper look to bad.
Which make makes me wonder WTF clipper are complaining about. It is not doing thier image any good.

By far the best advice to Clipper would be thank the MAIB and get on with working on their recommendations which are not unreasonable.
Some such as revitalization of their safety management system and culture are not easy or quick.
The report acknowledges they have already implemented some significant changes.

The funny thing is is I have often seen you praise the MAIB and their professionalism.

Why do you find this report is deficient or worse even biased.

 

[JumbleDuck]

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.

I have read both reports. The recommendations do not seem particularly onerous, except the requirement to have a second fully qualified skipper aboard, and the Clipper response seems to me to spectacularly over the top and counter productive. Their yachts, of course, but their customers too and I would personally not be greatly impressed by a company seeking my business which had moved to another jurisdiction to avoid having to take actions required after a fatal accident.

 

[Tintin]

Well, maybe. Paying clients thinking of taking a berth with Clipper - or any other operator, for that matter - need to know what the risks are and need to rely on the organisers to reduce and mitigate them to an acceptable level. That means "acceptable to the client" and needs a lot of information and a lot of trust.

So ... how many injuries and deaths per race do Clipper tell their customers to expect?



My reading is that they take it seriously but are very reluctant to accept external review or spend money on external suggestions of how things could be improved.

Your "reading" is inaccurate. Clipper are very happy to spend on quality safe gear and quute rightly on external suggestions where those making the suggestions have some actual exlerience of sailing more than the solent on a sunny afternoon.

 

[JumbleDuck]

It merits note there would be no report if a man had not died.

Yes indeed. I can't help thinking that worries about the effect on the happiness of a living legend are a little tactless in the circumstances.

Every significant development in railway signalling and safety systems has, without exception, come about as a result of a fatal accident. Continuous automatic braking, for example, was required after the Armagh Disaster (80 dead). Nobody thinks Clipper wanted the deaths on their boats but when accidents like these occur the sensible thing is to look at the whole system and ask what might have been done better, without suggesting any failing in not have done these things before. That's why the AAIB, the MAIB and the RAIB work on a full disclosure, no-blame, can't-be-used in evidence basis.

Responding to the suggestions in a report by pulling out of the investigators' jurisdiction looks terrible. Simple as that.

 

[Neeves]

I too have been on a Clipper yacht, the one on which a man was lost, when it arrived in Sydney after the loss. Simon was lost on the SA to Perth (Oz) leg and the yachts then raced to Sydney. I spent half a day on the yacht in Sydney (above and below decks) and viewed the other yachts. I did not interview the crew - it would have been insensitive and most were notable by their absence.

I was appalled that they did not have a screen, better 2 screens, one at each helm. The nav station is under the helm and the navigator can instruct (and receive instruction) - but it does not replace direct access by the helmsman, who can press the MOB button as soon as a man hits the lifelines......

Tell me what they have now.

Give me a good reason why they did not have helm screens then.

I saw the netting they had then, full of holes and repairs. There was a lack of dedicated hard points at the bow for securement, tell me what they have now. I am pleased the environment has improved - I saw it as it was (and am not giving an exhaustive list).

I was not in an armchair - I went and had a look (courtesy of one of their sponsors). I'm not sure I would have been welcomed, at all, otherwise.

I am pleased they have taken points on board.

They are critical of the MAIB - but have adopted their recommendations.

Jonathan

Edit

I try not to become involved any thread in which I do not have direct knowledge, not necessarily full knowledge, but I have some direct hands on experience. In this case I was member of RORC, we owned and I skippered a yacht in their blue water races, we cross Bass Strait regularly, I had been on the Clipper yacht from which a man was lost, I had direct contact with the investigator testing the hooks used by Clipper and I viewed video of other yachts crossing (racing) the Southern Ocean, at a similar time, using 'better' hooks.

close edit

 

[Kukri]

I have read the MAIB report. It is one of the more through reports I have read recently. No doubt this report is a in depth and detailed due to it being a 2nd fatality as a result of a MOB and a 3 fatality in two years. Throw in a grounding as well just because.
I thought it makes perfectly good sense, well reasoned conclusion drawn for good evidence, Good common sense findings,
And reasonable recommendations.
Compared to most reports about a fatal accident. The criticism is not bad. The report doesn’t make clipper look to bad.
Which make makes me wonder WTF clipper are complaining about. It is not doing thier image any good.

By far the best advice to Clipper would be thank the MAIB and get on with working on their recommendations which are not unreasonable.
Some such as revitalization of their safety management system and culture are not easy or quick.
The report acknowledges they have already implemented some significant changes.

The funny thing is is I have often seen you praise the MAIB and their professionalism.

Why do you find this report is deficient or worse even biased.

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.

 

[Resolution]

I too have been on a Clipper yacht, the one on which a man was lost, when it arrived in Sydney after the loss. Simon was lost on the SA to Perth (Oz) leg and the yachts then raced to Sydney. I spent half a day on the yacht in Sydney (above and below decks) and viewed the other yachts. I did not interview the crew - it would have been insensitive and most were notable by their absence.

I was appalled that they did not have a screen, better 2 screens, one at each helm. The nav station is under the helm and the navigator can instruct (and receive instruction) - but it does not replace direct access by the helmsman, who can press the MOB button as soon as a man hits the lifelines......

Tell me what they have now.

Give me a good reason why they did not have helm screens then.

I saw the netting they had then, full of holes and repairs. There was a lack of dedicated hard points at the bow for securement, tell me what they have now. I am pleased the environment has improved - I saw it as it was (and am not giving an exhaustive list).

I was not in an armchair - I went and had a look (courtesy of one of their sponsors). I'm not sure I would have been welcomed, at all, otherwise.

I am pleased they have taken points on board.

They are critical of the MAIB - but have adopted their recommendations.

Jonathan

Edit

I try not to become involved any thread in which I do not have direct knowledge, not necessarily full knowledge, but I have some direct hands on experience. In this case I was member of RORC, we owned and I skippered a yacht in their blue water races, we cross Bass Strait regularly, I had been on the Clipper yacht from which a man was lost, I had direct contact with the investigator testing the hooks used by Clipper and I viewed video of other yachts crossing (racing) the Southern Ocean, at a similar time, using 'better' hooks.

close edit

Acknowledged.

 

[Neeves]

Minn,

I agree with your comment on screens, 'head down, bum up'. I think for a MOB situation they would be invaluable, you can punch the screen immediately (accurate position, or as accurate as you can get), you can manoeuvre the yacht as soon as the sails are handled correctly and you know exactly (or as exact as you can be) where to go next, you will have a heading and distance - as you get closer - you will know exactly how far away the MOB should be - no miscommunication. If you have to beat back for an MOB, even with engine assistance - and likely in the Southern Ocean - then you have a very good idea when you need to tack. Crossing the Southern Ocean - you could switch the thing off (except you might need it for a MOB) and simply power up whenever you want to do a position check.

Screens at the helm are invaluable for close quarter manoeuvring in tight locations and in poor visibility. We are lucky - our helm station is 'semi' enclosed and the screen at just below eye height - not quite so easy to arrange on a Clipper yacht

Of course screens can be damaged, especially on a yacht - but so can the one at the nav station. You have considerable redundancy if you have one at the nav station and one at each helm (and a couple of iPads). Our screens are 2 separate plotters, planned and installed to be independent of each other)

Our screen was at the Nav station, it is still there. We have another screen now at the helm (and an iPad 'repeater') - I would never (never say never) have a yacht without a screen at the helm (and we have not broken it yet (cross fingers). And as we sail short handed, just the 2 of us, I would always want the iPad, you can stir the porridge, look out the windows (yes - its a cat, we have windows) and watch the radar etc etc.


Peter, no problems

Jonathan

 

[Kukri]

Neeves - I did consider a screen at the helm but went for a different solution. Button to one side of the wheel, adjacent to the fuel cut off lever and engine room fire extinguisher release. Oh, yes, there is also an ipad... and an i70 for AIS at the helm.

Anyway, getting back to our muttons, I can't see that the MCA (the primary target of Clipper's criticisms) or the MAIB have, in fact, refuted the allegations made by Clipper.

The MCA did not cover themselves in glory in the case of the loss of the Cheeki Rafiki, and Clipper's allegations and their call for an enquiry in this case give me, at any rate, an impression of a bunch of jacks in office.

Much has been made of the impression made on the general public by the dispute, but this cuts both ways. If people who own and operate ships and indeed yachts lose confidence in the MCA and indeed in the MAIB, they will take their business somewhere else, which is exactly what Cunard did some years ago, what CMA CGM have just done, and what Clipper have just done.

Something is wrong.

There hasn't been anyone with a merchant shipping background in charge of the MCA for a long time; the post seems to alternate between retired Admirals and people who have run charities. The current CEO is one of the latter. The MAIB had a brilliant period under someone with a merchant shipping background, Steve Clinch, but has now reverted to former naval officers with Andrew Moll. He has been with the MAIB for a long time which is either a good thing or a bad thing...

 

[lw395]

All this 'screens at the helm' talk is shorthanded/singlehanded methodology, not necessarily relevant to a boat where you're trying to keep 11 people busy at a time. On a fully crewed racing boat, the helm's job is to look where he's going and steer and that's all. Someone else is often helping with the 'looking where we're going' aspect.

 

[scotty123]

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?

My SIL bought his boat.

 

[scotty123]

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.

Why, do you think CV standards will drop?

 

[JumbleDuck]

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.

Thank you for introducing me to the delightful word "controvert".

I can't see anything in the report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d079e0240f0b609cab64d40/2019-7-CV30.pdf) about another nearby vessel, but perhaps I am missing something. It seems that when officials told Simon Speirs family about his death they mistakenly thought that recovery of his body by another vessel might be possible; the CV claim that this was "a lie" seems a little over the top unless they have evidence to support a claim of deliberate misleading.

As far as maintenance goes, it may be that the repairs undertaken during stopover were not quite as comprehensive as CV claim, and it sounds as if the crew were unhappy with what was done

 

[JumbleDuck]

Anyway, getting back to our muttons, I can't see that the MCA (the primary target of Clipper's criticisms) or the MAIB have, in fact, refuted the allegations made by Clipper.

I would like to see rather more detailed allegations and rather less petulance from CV.

Is there anyone reading this thread whose faith in CV safety management has been increased by recent events?

 

[Kukri]

I would like to see rather more detailed allegations and rather less petulance from CV.

Is there anyone reading this thread whose faith in CV safety management has been increased by recent events?

Would it make any difference if there were?

Compared to other similar activities like trying to climb Everest, Clipper’s safety record doesn’t look so bad.

Standing back a bit, it seems clear that the goodwill and the trust that existed between Clipper and the MCA a few years ago has broken down and this must be due to poor management on both sides and a clash of personalities.

There is not going to be any way to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Given that the relationship between the two was once excellent, and that Clipper don’t seem to have had a change at the top, I apportion more fault (but not all of it) to the MCA.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Would it make any difference if there were?

I would have thought that leisure sailors looking for a big challenge would be a substantial segment of CV's market.

Compared to other similar activities like trying to climb Everest, Clipper’s safety record doesn’t look so bad.

I think it's the "three deaths in the last two races but none before" aspect which is potentially concerning. Statistical fluke or standards slipping?

Standing back a bit, it seems clear that the goodwill and the trust that existed between Clipper and the MCA a few years ago has broken down and this must be due to poor management on both sides and a clash of personalities.

There is not going to be any way to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Given that the relationship between the two was once excellent, and that Clipper don’t seem to have had a change at the top, I apportion more fault (but not all of it) to the MCA.

That's possible. Or maybe Clipper got lucky for a while and don't cope well with being told that. Whichever it is, I think that moving to avoid the jurisdiction of the MAIB and MCA immediately after their third fatal accident is reported on looks very bad. Rotten PR.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Rotten PR.

No, just rotten.

 

[capnsensible]

My SIL bought his boat.

Whose boat? I said I had been chatting to a bloke from the MCA Enforcement Unit. It was ages ago, I dont remember his name. So who was it who sold the boat??

 

[capnsensible]

I would like to see rather more detailed allegations and rather less petulance from CV.

Is there anyone reading this thread whose faith in CV safety management has been increased by recent events?

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?