deposing the skipper

[Seajet]

There is a lot of pussy-footing going on here; if someone threatens the safety of

A, my crew

B, my boat,

I will do anything necessary to convince them to think otherwise, and put them ashore ASAP.

Interesting how this thread has gone from idiot skipper to idiot crew, apologies if that's my fault.

 

[Doineann]

Oddly it seems SOLAS does not define a master of a ship and the definitions one comes across are rather nonsensical for the purposes of a small sailing vessel, probably, I assume, because SOLAS and it effects on small vessels are still to new to have built up any case law

I am not a maritime lawyer, but my guess would be that as the power of a master seems to derive from his appointment as such by the owner, in the event that the owner of a small craft is on board he is the master, unless there is some other specific arrangement noted (for example if someone were having ‘own boat tuition’ I would expect the instructor would be the master).

Where does that leave you if a boat is, say, equally owned by two people both on board? It is clear from the decisions there can only be one ‘master’ I have no idea.

 

[Mike_Alpha]

Where does that leave you if a boat is, say, equally owned by two people both on board? It is clear from the decisions there can only be one ‘master’ I have no idea.

Trust us Germans to have a law even for this case: In Section 4 (4) of these regulations you are ordered to designate the skipper before starting your (dayly?) voyage.
And probably to put him into your logbook, which, strictly speaking, you don't have to have anyway...
Oh, bother!

 

[semisimple]

I am not a maritime lawyer, but my guess would be that as the power of a master seems to derive from his appointment as such by the owner, in the event that the owner of a small craft is on board he is the master, unless there is some other specific arrangement noted (for example if someone were having ‘own boat tuition’ I would expect the instructor would be the master).

Yes bit strange. Also some of the penalties for things to do with the craft itself refer to the master and the owner - whilst Regulation 34 - the bit we have to comply with only refers to master.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I think the law expects that there be a master of vessel.

Dear Sir,

Thank-you for your telephone enquiry of today, I can confirm that for
pleasure vessels outside of the scope of manning regulations there are
no manning requirements.

In such a circumstance I suggest following the advice below i
determining whom is responsible for passage plans. The following text is
an extract of IMO Resolution A.893(21), which is available on the MCA
website by following the link below...

https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/solas/index.html

In most deep-sea vessels the master delegates the initial
responsibility for preparing the plan for a voyage to the officer
responsible for navigational equipment and publications (hereafter
referred to as the navigating officer.) On smaller vessels, including
fishing vessels, the master or skipper may have the responsibility of
the navigating officer for voyage planning purposes. Prior to departure
the navigating officer will prepare the detailed voyage plan from berth
to berth in accordance with the Guidelines and to the master's
requirements. If the port of destination is not known or is subsequently
altered, the navigating officer must extend or amend the original plan
as appropriate.

Kind regards,
snip
UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency
105 Commercial Road, Southampton


http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.sailing/msg/1cd14d008ec8ccb7?hl=en

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Ubergeekian 0, BAtoo 10 thousand million.

Just look up the relevant legislation on shipping -- after all your boat is a ship in legal terms.

Plomong

Well don't be shy. Point YBWers at the legislation so we can all read it.

 

[sarabande]

Toad - thanks.

I've had a quick scan on that site, and ...

Regulation 1
1. Unless expressly provided otherwise, this chapter shall apply to all ships on all voyages, except: [irrelevant to pleasure craft] (My bold)

I used to think I was merely confused about the business of whose word is law on board, but I am beginning to think that there are far more regulations (in the widest sense) giving specific rights and duties to the 'master', than I had previously been aware.


Deeper into the Regs, I came across the classes of ships:-

Class XII Pleasure vessels of 13.7 metres in length or over

Are pleasure craft < 13.7m excluded from the Regs ?

Is there conflict with Regulation 1 ?

 

[Doineann]

On smaller vessels, including
fishing vessels, the master or skipper may have the responsibility of
the navigating officer for voyage planning purposes. Prior to departure
the navigating officer will prepare the detailed voyage plan from berth
to berth in accordance with the Guidelines and to the master's
requirements. If the port of destination is not known or is subsequently
altered, the navigating officer must extend or amend the original plan
as appropriate.


http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.sailing/msg/1cd14d008ec8ccb7?hl=en

But who is responsible if nobody has made a ‘berth to berth’ plan? How many of us identify who is making up the log?

I note that Schedule 3 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety of Navigation) Regulations 2002 which seem to bring in SOLAS refers to ‘owner’ not ‘master’

here

And "owner" includes ‘any person or organisation, including the manager or bareboat charterer, who has assumed responsibility for the operation of the ship from the owner;’
Still doesn’t answer what happens if more than one owner on board.

 

[semisimple]

Dear Sir,

In most deep-sea vessels the master delegates the initial
responsibility for preparing the plan for a voyage to the officer
responsible for navigational equipment and publications (hereafter
referred to as the navigating officer.) On smaller vessels, including
fishing vessels, the master or skipper may have the responsibility of
the navigating officer for voyage planning purposes. Prior to departure
the navigating officer will prepare the detailed voyage plan from berth
to berth in accordance with the Guidelines and to the master's
requirements. If the port of destination is not known or is subsequently
altered, the navigating officer must extend or amend the original plan
as appropriate.

Hmm, thanks toad. Still a bit vague but hey ho - it doesn't really matter. It all looks far too confusing (I assumed that if the law refers to a 'master' in regulations that govern all vessels than it expects there to be a designated master.)

edit: this excerpt from your link makes it clear actually:

IF an accident were to occur under circumstances where no-one would admit to
being the "in charge at the time", a court would most likely hold the most
qualified person or owner (if he was on board) responsible for not having
taken control. Anyone with a commercially endorsed qualification would be
at the top of the list.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

edit: this excerpt from your link makes it clear actually:

IF an accident were to occur under circumstances where no-one would admit to
being the "in charge at the time", a court would most likely hold the most
qualified person or owner (if he was on board) responsible for not having
taken control. Anyone with a commercially endorsed qualification would be
at the top of the list.

I've no idea if that's what the law says or not - I think it was just opinion. Personally I can't see how it can be the case. How was "the most
qualified person" supposed to take control? The most qualified person on board has no right to command whatsoever. How does he even know he's the most qualified person on board? It's like holding the best driver on a Bus the blame after a crash on the basis that he should have taken over.

I'm guessing here but I think a court would use a bit of common sense in allocating blame. If I sail a boat along a beach killing swimming children I don't expect the owner who is asleep below to be taking the blame for me. Everybody takes blame according to the "reasonableness" of his actions. I can't see how it could be otherwise. Certainly I've heard of plenty of shipping disasters were blame did not go to the Skipper alone but to the people who actually made the mistakes. I'm pretty sure there have been shipping accident where the skipper has been blameless and more junior people have taken all the blame. I'd expect the same would be true of a yachting accident. Of course, all of this paragraph is pure guesswork and conjecture.

 

[Lady Campanula]

Trust us Germans to have a law even for this case: In Section 4 (4) of these regulations you are ordered to designate the skipper before starting your (dayly?) voyage.
And probably to put him into your logbook, which, strictly speaking, you don't have to have anyway...
Oh, bother!

On the front page of 'these regulations'....

"It should be noted that this document does not have any legal standing."

So that's all right, then.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

But who is responsible if nobody has made a ‘berth to berth’ plan? How many of us identify who is making up the log?

I seem to recall reading on YBW that the passage plan doesn't have to be on paper. I didn't check so no idea if that's true or not but it was from one of YBW's more rational posters & had the ring of truth to me.

As for who's responsible. I'd bet good money that to date nobody has ever been held responsible for failing to make a passage plan on a UK leisure boat.

 

[Woodlouse]

I seem to recall reading on YBW that the passage plan doesn't have to be on paper. I didn't check so no idea if that's true or not but it was from one of YBW's more rational posters & had the ring of truth to me.

As for who's responsible. I'd bet good money that to date nobody has ever been held responsible for failing to make a passage plan on a UK leisure boat.

A passage plan doesn't have to be written. At the same time I believe it is against the law to leave harbour without a passage plan. The fact it doesn't have to be a written plan makes this law very easy to abide by because if you don't have any sort of plan in your head then you probably aren't going anywhere.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

The fact it doesn't have to be a written plan makes this law very easy to abide by because if you don't have any sort of plan in your head then you probably aren't going anywhere.

+1.

 

[Mike_Alpha]

On the front page of 'these regulations'....



So that's all right, then.

It is the English translation that is not binding; would you like to have a look on the binding German version?

Michael

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

It is the English translation that is not binding; would you like to have a look on the binding German version?

Michael

Yes please.

 

[Mike_Alpha]

Yes please.

Here you are, then.

Michael

 

[savageseadog]

There is the fairly recent case of the Argo when the crew tied up the skipper

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20040808/ai_n12589908/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/aug/07/gilestremlett

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Berserk-Scots-skipper-tied-up.2552123.jp

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-12411445-mystery-of-captain-abandoned-on-yacht.do


Maybe the answer lies in the fact that the skipper was a Scotsman.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Here you are, then.

Michael

Many thanks.

 

[john_morris_uk]

There are a lot of disingenuous replies and thoughts going on here, and assuming that there is not a whole load of trolling going on:

Firstly 'manning requirements' refers to whether a master and crew need formal qualifications along with the number of people required to 'man the vessel'. If you run a commercial vessel there are 'manning requirements' - the fact that this doesn't apply to most of us when we are driving leisure craft DOESN'T mean that a court would accept your plea that no-one was 'in charge'.

Similarly, if you on a boat where someone is actually recognised as being 'the skipper' and the boat is involved in an accident when the skipper is asleep on his bunk and 'off watch' this doesn't mean that the skipper bears no responsibility. He or she should have left appropriate instructions as to what to do in the event of etc. Even at the most basic level, when sailing with friends you I suggest that any reasonable skipper might say, "I am going for a lie down, call me if any ship comes closer than x miles away, or if the depth goes less than... or if you are worried about anything... etc etc". The skipper is responsible for the safe passage of the vessel whether they are on watch, off watch, asleep or not.

In the end I am not persuaded that a court would accept that no-one is in charge. I suppose that in a small craft you might all be corporately held responsible, but I suspect that you are on thin ice. I know lots of people like to say that 'we manage the boat by agreement' its all democratic on our boat, but I am not sure that a court would easily be persuaded. The boat might be run in a very laid back and democratic fashion, but the buck stops somewhere when it all goes wrong.