on the FV sunk in Falmouth Bay. I now know where it was hired: the company has generously offered a refund of the six month's remaining hire fee..........I can't name them, i suppose, but PM me if you want to know.
It's probably much more to do with the fact that life rafts are built down to a price, and the brand, or some component from a third party supplier, than anything to do with the hirer.
That said, if you post a truthful account of what you understand to be accurate information, there's nothing to worry about.
Not exactly over generous of them, considering three people might have drowned. I guess that that MAIB will want to know all sorts of details, including documentation, such as when was it last serviced, by whom and was there an hru involved and if so was it recently inspected.
You are quite right not to broadcast names here, and be careful even with PMs. You know what sea lawyers are, I am sure.
You can't tell without being able to recover the liferaft and inspect it. Could be a manufacturer problem or it could have been a problem with servicing.
It is worrying that it sank though - difficult to imagine how that happened
[ QUOTE ]
Its the make of life raft thats important here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Without knowing too much about the circumstances, is it safe to assume that the liferaft was at fault? What about the release mechanism, was there one? If the raft was hired it may have been stowed.
I'm not sure that's right - not that I'm a lawyer. A journalist wrote a book about police corruption and recounted the true tale that a crook said that he bribed a named police officer and that he later said that he made up the allegation. The journalist recorded that the cop was not convicted of anything but later forced to resign over other matters. The journalist is currently losing an action for libel (he's appealing) apparently because the tale implies that the cop was crooked when there is no evidence that there was. So the journalist told a true tale but apparently it libelled the subject!
You can name the brand of liferaft provided you are absolutely sure of the brand and the exact model. What you can't do is name it in such a way as to imply that the liferaft or its manufacturer was at fault.
At the moment it is by no means certain that the liferaft itself was faulty. It might have been poorly serviced, poorly stored before or after delivery, poorly installed on the boat, poorly deployed or it might have been damaged during or after the deployment.
But presumably, they hired the liferaft from *somebody* (who will be known), and they will know the manufacturer, type, age, and service record of the relevant raft.
I would guess that all of that will come out in the investigation, if not in the MAIB report...
The only thing that might not become apparent, if said raft is irrecoverably lost, is it's *actual* condition (apart from the fact it didn't work).