Disgraceful attitude!

[Dave_Snelson]

I motored over to Pwllheli today for a run out and to pick up LPG. Having rounded the fairway, in the distance I saw some people standing on the deck of their boat waving for assistance (not waving frantically, but doing the correct slow up & down arm movements). I was about a quarter mile away and the entrance to Pwllheli was busy with yachts, motorboats, small fishing boats and jet skis.

As I drew closer, the waving become more frantic and they were obviously trying to catch my attention as all the others around them were ignoring them. It turned out that their engine had failed on its first trip out following a service from an un-named dealer (but the water was blue - and there's ya clue!).

To make matters much more complicated, they had drifted onto the training wall, and for those that don't know, the training wall is a long line of granite blocks that is meant to "train" the flow of water in and out of the marina, so as to make the whole channel self-scouring. This was now dangerous, and added to this the crew, a family, had a man in the water to try and stop the boat bashing into these man made rocks.

Now, any one of the boats available (especially the jet-skis) could and should have done what I did - and that was to render assistance. But no. They all just ignored this hapless family and went on their own ignorant little ways.

Anyway, I managed to pull them of the rocks and get them into the marina - but not before I had dinked my two port propellors on a large rock. BUGGER! They were new this season! I didn't realise the damage, as there was just a very small knock which I thought would result in a scuff. I didn't check the props until I had dropped these people of safely and motored on to the fuel quay - by that time they were gone.

So - there's my reward for helping some one out. I'm more annoyed at the attitude of the rest of the boaters who chose to ignore a potentially dangerous situation for their own self centered agandas.

Anyway - hello Jools_of_Top_Cat - I did see you and wasn't ignoring you, I was just a little busy at the time! Also, I was so pigged off at dinking my props, that I forgot to get your co-ordinates for Porthmadog - sorry!

Rant over.

<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>

 

[Talbot]

There is never any excuse for not going to someone elses assistance.

Well done

Sorry that it resulted in prop damage.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[powerskipper]

well done , and you should feel proud of yourself, its well earned./forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://powerskipper.mysite.freeserve.com/>http://powerskipper.mysite.freeserve.com/</A>
Julie

 

[petem]

Well done Dave. Hope someone does the decent thing and pays for your props to be fixed.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.FairlineOwnersClub.com>Fairline Owners Club</A>

 

[2_rollocks]

I'm surprised that no one else helped, that was disgraceful. I also hope that the crew you rescued were grateful, also surprising that they went whilst you were tied up, unless of course they'd already come round to thank you properly. A bottle or two would not have gone amiss.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

>>There is never any excuse for not going to someone elses assistance.<<

It's a legal requirement under maritime law!!!!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[[2068]]

Doesn't mean you have to attempt a tow, tho. Assistance can mean just standing by and relaying msgs to the Coastguard...

dv.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[hlb]

But anyone with an ounce of decency would!!

<hr width=100% size=1> Flags Solly MFBR</font color=red>
Haydn

 

[BrendanS]

Agreed, but from the post, no one had done anything to assist in any way

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[cliff]

>>>>There is never any excuse for not going to someone elses assistance.<<<<

>>It's a legal requirement under maritime law!!!!!! <<

Where does the law state this?

Infact which law are you referencing?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Hi Dave, yes I saw you, by the time I was leaving you already had him under tow. I am as shocked as you were from your description of no one helping. If I had not had to wait behind two yachts filling up their tanks at the fuel pontoon I would have been going past at the time you must have found him.

It is like Douglas Adams invisibility cloak 'Someone Else's problem', I think there is a mindset that believes the lifeboat should be here soon etc. But...... I think the coast guard may add to this problem a little, I have heard VHF conversations were the casualty is under tow from a yacht but they are going to send the lifeboat anyway....

Personally I would not be able to live with myself if I saw something and turned away, but maybe his actions were also misunderstood, you obviously recognised an internationally recognised call for help, others might have seen some guy waving to his mate.

Did he have a VHF, Flares (that would have got attention pretty quick) or lo an anchor! The pool behind the training wall is a very sheltered piece of water and it was a relatively calm day today he could surely of thrown the anchor. If you had not have arrived when you did his getting into the water might have been his stupidest mistake ever.

Out of curiosity, did he seem new to boating? I know not the question, but just curious.

On to the more pressing problem of damaged props. Did you get the name of his vessel, the harbour master will have full details of all owners, they cannot launch without permit, and that includes the park and launch boats from that company. I hate the subject when it arises, but you should be able to make a claim against his policy as his boat was in grave and imminent danger. You wont be trying to gain some capital value from his vessel just getting damage repaired during rescue covered. I would have thought his insurance would be very forthcoming.

You are not having a very good year either are you?

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974

>>>index snipped<<<<

Introduction and history
The SOLAS Convention in its successive forms is generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties concerning the safety of merchant ships. The first version was adopted in 1914, in response to the Titanic disaster, the second in 1929, the third in 1948 and the fourth in 1960.

The 1960 Convention - which was adopted on 17 June 1960 and entered into force on 26 May 1965 - was the first major task for IMO after the Organization's creation and it represented a considerable step forward in modernizing regulations and in keeping pace with technical developments in the shipping industry.

The intention was to keep the Convention up to date by periodic amendments but in practice the amendments procedure incorporated proved to be very slow. It became clear that it would be impossible to secure the entry into force of amendments within a reasonable period of time.

As a result, a completely new Convention was adopted in 1974 which included not only the amendments agreed up until that date but a new amendment procedure - the tacit acceptance procedure - designed to ensure that changes could be made within a specified (and acceptably short) period of time.

Instead of requiring that an amendment shall enter into force after being accepted by, for example, two thirds of the Parties, the tacit acceptance procedure provides that an amendment shall enter into force on a specified date unless, before that date, objections to the amendment are received from an agreed number of Parties.

As a result the 1974 Convention has been updated and amended on numerous occasions. The Convention in force today is sometimes referred to as SOLAS, 1974, as amended.

>>>some snipping<<<<


Chapter V - Safety of navigation

>>some snipping<<<

This Chapter also includes a general obligation for masters to proceed to the assistance of those in distress and for Contracting Governments to ensure that all ships shall be sufficiently and efficiently manned from a safety point of view.


Hope this helps

page found <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=257&doc_id=647#1>here</A>


<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Regulation 33 chapter 5 in fact

Sorry to harp on, but you asked a question, here is the longer answer >

Regulation 33 Distress messages: Obligations and procedures

1 The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance on receiving a signal from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so. If the ship receiving the distress alert is unable or, in the special circumstances of the case, considers it unreasonable or unnecessary to proceed to their assistance, the master must enter in the log-book the reason for failing to proceed to the assistance of the persons in distress, taking into account the recommendation of the Organization, to inform the appropriate search and rescue service accordingly.

2 The master of a ship in distress or the search and rescue service concerned, after consultation, so far as may be possible, with the masters of ships which answer the distress alert, has the right to requisition one or more of those ships as the master of the ship in distress or the search and rescue service considers best able to render assistance, and it shall be the duty of the master or masters of the ship or ships requisitioned to comply with the requisition by continuing to proceed with all speed to the assistance of persons in distress.

3 Masters of ships shall be released from the obligation imposed by paragraph 1 on learning that their ships have not been requisitioned and that one or more other ships have been requisitioned and are complying with the requisition. This decision shall, if possible be communicated to the other requisitioned ships and to the search and rescue service.

4 The master of a ship shall be released from the obligation imposed by paragraph 1 and, if his ship has been requisitioned, from the obligation imposed by paragraph 2 on being informed by the persons in distress or by the search and rescue service or by the master of another ship which has reached such persons that assistance is no longer necessary.

5 The provisions of this regulation do not prejudice the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Assistance and Salvage at Sea, signed at Brussels on 23 September 1910, particularly the obligation to render assistance imposed by article 11 of that Convention.*

* International Convention on Salvage 1989 done at London on 28 April 1989 entered into force on 14 July 1996

Regulation 33 Guidance Notes

1.1. Replaces and revises SOLAS V/74 Regulation 10

1.2. The reulation places an obligation on masters to respond to messages from any source that persons are in distress at sea. (Note that the former wording was
“Ships or aircraft in distress”)

1.3. Reference should be made to Volume 3 of the International Aeronautical and
Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) manual adopted in 2000 by IMO
Resolution A.894(21). This replaces the Merchant Ship Search and Rescue
(MERSAR) Manual and IMO Search and Rescue (IMOSAR) manual and should
be carried on board all ships.

1.4. This Regulation supersedes the Merchant Shipping (Distress Messages)
Regulations 1998.

1.5. Masters who, in special circumstances, decide not to respond to a distress must enter their reasons in the log-book and, if they have responded to the distress, inform the appropriate search and rescue authorities of their decision not to proceed.


<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-consult_archive7_solasv_latest.pdf>source</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Hi Jools - thanks for your support. In fairness to them, they did have an electic roller anchor but had deployed it too late - hence the man in the water. I have no idea about the flares, but if there were any, they wern't deployed. I think they were relatively new to boating and the chap was telling me that the boat was only 18 months old.

An important point to note is that the only person using VHF was me!. I don't think the family had VHF, and if they did, they didn't use it. But...no other vessels around made any attempt to radio in the CG or the marina authorities. So not only were this crew ignored - they were blatently and deliberately ignored. Nobody can tell me that out of all the vessels at the mouth of the harbour, not one was carrying a VHF set??!!

It was a Sea Ray sports cuddy of about 20ft in length, with no name. I didn't get the name of the owner, as I didn't think the damage was as bad at the time - like I say, it sounded like a very slight knock (I should know better). Anyway, I do know that it was taken away by the marine company that had supposedly fixed it in the first place, so I will be contacting them today. Whilst in posting, it should be stated that the family in question were a thoroughly decent lot and very grateful.

Other than that Jools, we had a good day out - no honestly!

<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Jools - you are a true star!!

When the insurance company bitches and moans about the claim and my actions - this is what I will quote!!

Wey hey!! - I feel happier now!

<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>

 

[boatone]

Dave......although nothing to stop you claiming against their insurers why not do it through your own? I would be extremely surprised if it is not covered by your policy and any insurance company that imposes any loss of no claims bonus under these circumstances would deserve to be named and shamed dontcha think ?

Also your insurers much better placed to give other side a hard time if they resist.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.boatsontheweb.com/> Website, Photo Gallery, Chat Room, Burgees</A>

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Indeed Tony - your suggestions are part of the master plan of gathering all the information and handing the whole job over to my insurers this morning!

I'll keep you all posted - and thanks for your help.

<hr width=100% size=1>Madoc Yacht Club
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk>http://www.madocyachtclub.co.uk</A>

 

[[2068]]

It all depends on the circumstances. In the situation you described, I probably would have "had a go", but I'm not going to attempt a tow if I'm probably going to run aground too, otherwise that would be two boats that needed rescuing.

This happened about 3/4 weeks ago. A small motor sailor lost power and was washed up on West Winner (shingle bank). The fishing boat from the berth behind me managed to get within 10 feet and offered a tow, which was refused, as it was "all under control". By the time I turned up 30 mins later, he had been swept round the point and the breakers started to pound him. We and another saily stood by and relayed a couple of msgs until the Lifeboat turned up. To attempt any kind of tow would have been madness - even the lifeboat couldn't get close enough and had to put two men in the water to get a line across.

dv.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Talbot]

The concept of jumping overboard to try to fend ones boat off rocks is seriously flawed! Fibreglass can be repaired, crushed bodies can only be buried!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

>>Where does the law state this?
Infact which law are you referencing?<<

Jools has posted the applicable laws. Any boat owner should have at least a passing knowledge of them

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni