Clipper Ventures declares war on MCA & MAIB?

[Resolution]

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?
.

Certainly warrants some concern and analysis by race organisers. I have heard the suggestion that the switch to the bigger, faster, Tony Castro yachts could be a contributing factor.
I am slightly alarmed at the advanced ages of many of the crew - lots in their sixties, some into their seventies. Question if the physical demands are sometimes too much? Certainly higher probability of a fatal heart attack. But then hey, what a way to go!
Peter

 

[JumbleDuck]

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?

I honestly don't know whether it is part of the MCA remit to review the safety systems of commercial companies. is it?

 

[scotty123]

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??

The guy from the MCA Enforcement Unit.
Keep up at the back.
Very well maintained it was too, as one would expect.

 

[capnsensible]

I honestly don't know whether it is part of the MCA remit to review the safety systems of commercial companies. is it?

It might be worth reading CV response then.

 

[capnsensible]

The guy from the MCA Enforcement Unit.
Keep up at the back.
Very well maintained it was too, as one would expect.

There is more than one. You are talking in riddles. Dunno why.

 

[capnsensible]

With regards to report section 2019/113, Clipper Ventures has been asked to take account of any safety management guidance and direction provided by the MCA - The Maritime Coastguard Agency has been unable to find the resources so far to provide Clipper Ventures with guidance and direction and we have been waiting for them to contact us to look into maritime safety issues for 18 months. However, in view of this delay, we have had our systems assessed by two outside auditors.

 

[Kukri]

With reference to post 142:

See post 146 but if a commercial vessel subject to the International Safety Management Code (“the ISM Code”) is registered in the UK the operator’s Safety Management System (“SMS”) is audited annually by the MCA and each ship’s SMS is audited by the MCA or by a Recognised Organisation (ie a Class Society - our ships are audited by Lloyd’s Register as the MCA don’t have the resources).

I think that if I were told to seek guidance from the MCA, and, after a year and a half, no guidance was forthcoming because the MCA had nobody on their staff competent to offer any, I might feel ever so slightly miffed.

 

[Tintin]

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?

But the allegations are really quite simple- have you read it? The most noted being the bare faced lie about a ship being close which caused huge upset to the family.

I think you just enjoy seeing fault with what is actually a well run organisation, and even though you have no exoerience of them yourself, you pour scorn on those that have had direct exoerience, as opposed to "in know a bloke who knows a bloke who..."

 

[Tintin]

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



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?



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.

Death 1, my friend Andy - clipper teach to not step thru or go into the area he chose to. Skippers tear strips off people for it. The area is even nicknamed "Milton Keynes". Andy went there and sadly paid the ultimate price for his momentary mistake.

Death 2 - round the worlder who ignore the sop to be clipped on even when in the pit, and do it as you come up the companionway. Again clipper are rigorous on this. Sarah paid the ultinate price too for that mistake.

Death 3 - a reputable and well known supplier of critical safety equipment sold clipper a product that had an inbuilt failure that was not known about until this death.

Am struggling to see why some on here seem hell bent on slagging off a good company and conveniently ignoring the human factor and a manufacturing issue, which are all outwith Clipper or the skippers control. You cannot watch everyone all the time, 24/7.

 

[JumbleDuck]

It might be worth reading CV response then.

All that says is "We have had our safety system independently reviewed, as the MCA has not been able to allocate the resources to do so", as you wrote. I'd still like to know if this is work which the MCA would normally do.

Incidentally, the MAIB report into the previous two CV deaths (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58ee0b5040f0b606e7000166/MAIBInvReport07_2017.pdf) makes no mention of the MCA reviewing a new safety system. The whole thing looks like a bit of a red herring.

 

[JumbleDuck]

But the allegations are really quite simple- have you read it? The most noted being the bare faced lie about a ship being close which caused huge upset to the family.

What bare-faced lie? If the statement was made if may just have been a short-liced confusion. It's only CV who seem to want to make a uge deal out of it, without any supporting evidence.

I think you just enjoy seeing fault with what is actually a well run organisation, and even though you have no exoerience of them yourself, you pour scorn on those that have had direct exoerience, as opposed to "in know a bloke who knows a bloke who..."

Those who have had direct experience would presumably include Simon Speirs, who wrote critically of their maintenance procedures? Or the other crewman on the same boat who complained as well? Or the skippers whose views were reported here? Otherwise the direct experience here seems to be one poster who went round a CV boat and was impressed and one who went round a CV boat and wasn't.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Death 1, my friend Andy - clipper teach to not step thru or go into the area he chose to. Skippers tear strips off people for it. The area is even nicknamed "Milton Keynes". Andy went there and sadly paid the ultimate price for his momentary mistake.

Death 2 - round the worlder who ignore the sop to be clipped on even when in the pit, and do it as you come up the companionway. Again clipper are rigorous on this. Sarah paid the ultinate price too for that mistake.

They may have thought that they were teaching good practice, but if two people died from not following the advice it can't have been that well taught. I used to see this in glider accident reports - clubs complaining that "We taught him not to do that" whereas if that had actually taught him not to do that he would have done it. There is a world of difference between telling people and teaching people.

Death 3 - a reputable and well known supplier of critical safety equipment sold clipper a product that had an inbuilt failure that was not known about until this death.

Am struggling to see why some on here seem hell bent on slagging off a good company ...

I think it is their rejection of reports into their recent history which causes more criticism than anything else.

 

[Kukri]

All that says is "We have had our safety system independently reviewed, as the MCA has not been able to allocate the resources to do so", as you wrote. I'd still like to know if this is work which the MCA would normally do.

Incidentally, the MAIB report into the previous two CV deaths (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58ee0b5040f0b606e7000166/MAIBInvReport07_2017.pdf) makes no mention of the MCA reviewing a new safety system. The whole thing looks like a bit of a red herring.

You posed the question in your post no. 142 and I rather thought that I had answered it in my post no. 146.

Yes, this is something that the MCA routinely do.

I quote:


Preamble:

In view of this and previous MOB accidents, Clipper Ventures plc has been recommended to further review and, as appropriate, modify its risk assessments and standard operating procedures with particular regard to foredeck operations, reducing sail in rough weather and methods for recovery of both tethered and untethered MOBs. This must take
account of any safety management guidance and direction provided by the Maritime
and Coastguard Agency in response to MAIB Recommendation 2018/116 following the grounding and loss of CV24. Clipper Ventures plc has also been recommended to review and amend Clipper 70 yacht maintenance and repair processes to prevent potential additional workload falling on crew, contributing to fatigue and affecting their performance.

Recommendations:

Clipper Ventures is recommended to:
2019/113
2019/114
Taking account of any safety management guidance and direction provided by the MCA in response to MAIB Recommendation 2018/116, review and, as appropriate, modify its risk assessments and standard operating procedures, with particular regard to foredeck operations, for reducing sail in rough weather and the methods for recovery of both tethered and untethered MOBs.
Review and amend Clipper 70 yacht maintenance and repair processes to minimise additional workload on crew during the Race, such that:
● Prior to the start of the Race, yachts are free from significant material defects and equipment has been suitably maintained or replaced.
● During stopovers, to the greatest extent practicable, all outstanding repair work and maintenance is completed before a yacht starts the next leg.

.

 

[Kukri]

Certainly warrants some concern and analysis by race organisers. I have heard the suggestion that the switch to the bigger, faster, Tony Castro yachts could be a contributing factor.
I am slightly alarmed at the advanced ages of many of the crew - lots in their sixties, some into their seventies. Question if the physical demands are sometimes too much? Certainly higher probability of a fatal heart attack. But then hey, what a way to go!
Peter

I am also struck by the rash of accidents after the bigger faster boats were adopted.

 

[capnsensible]

Or the skippers whose views were reported here? Otherwise the direct experience here seems to be one poster who went round a CV boat and was impressed and one who went round a CV boat and wasn't.

That igmores the poster who has sailed with them.

 

[capnsensible]

They may have thought that they were teaching good practice, but if two people died from not following the advice it can't have been that well taught. I used to see this in glider accident reports - clubs complaining that "We taught him not to do that" whereas if that had actually taught him not to do that he would have done it. There is a world of difference between telling people and teaching people.

Very poor argument. In that case the world would be accident free. People do daft things.

 

[capnsensible]

What bare-faced lie? If the statement was made if may just have been a short-liced confusion. It's only CV who seem to want to make a uge deal out of it, without any supporting evidence.
.

Thats just making an excuse. It may not have been. Who exactly is making the 'huge deal' anyway?

 

[capnsensible]

Those who have had direct experience would presumably include Simon Speirs, who wrote critically of their maintenance procedures? Or the other crewman on the same boat who complained as well? .

But was it accurate? One side only. What was Clipper response?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Yes, this is something that the MCA routinely do.

Taking account of any safety management guidance and direction provided by the MCA in response to MAIB Recommendation 2018/116, review and, as appropriate, modify its risk assessments and standard operating procedures, with particular regard to foredeck operations, for reducing sail in rough weather and the methods for recovery of both tethered and untethered MOBs.

Thanks. Failure to provide advice does seem very poor, though I presume that CV were not supposed to base their review simply on MCA comments.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Very poor argument. In that case the world would be accident free. People do daft things.

The world would still not be accident free, because some circumstances - like failure of a tether from a reputable manufacturer when loaded in a foreseeable way - can't be expected. However, in the examples you gave the "daft things" involved known hazards, and "We told them not to" may not be an adequate response.

Thats just making an excuse. It may not have been. Who exactly is making the 'huge deal' anyway?

Clipper Ventures, in the article they wrote for that magazine and since, and their uncritical supporters.

But was it accurate? One side only. What was Clipper response?

They don't say. Odd, that. But then again, their lawyers have probably told them not to comment on criticism from a crew member who died and whose relatives may yet sue.