Hot Liquid stripped of RYA recognition

[fireball]

If there was any need to make such a call then there was either something wrong with the principal's decision to employ such an instructor or the principal knew that he had employed a loose cannon.

If I were the principal I would trust my skipper to make the correct decision. When I have been instructing I have not had the principal phoning me up advising me whether to put to sea or not, neither would I expect this to happen.

The school has lost its approval because of a string of incidents. The blame for this can only be laid at the principal's door, but not because he failed to operate his boats by remote control.

- W

It's not a case of trusting the skipper to make the right call or not - if you couldn't trust him to make the right call then perhaps you shouldn't be employing him!

Once engaged, the skipper is acting on behalf of HL - so HL are directly responsible for his actions. Same as if I went and operated a Fork Lift at work without a certificate ... yes I'd've done wrong, but unless there is something that says I shouldn't operate it, the blame for any related accident will at least partly fall on the shoulders of the business.

 

[onesea]

erm - they do. Instructor qualifications have to be revalidated or upgraded every 5 years max.

- W

I had instructors qualifications all lapsed now, they should need revalidating.

Then the RYA should put a time limit on all their tickets.

No No No and No again, commercial yes not armature.
Sorry you cannot come on holiday your day skippers has expired! The cost of resitting it every 5 years forget it.

Te RYA/ Sailing Scools get enough of our money, I do not want to have to sit an exam every 5 years...

Day Skipper isn't really a 'qualification', and it certainly isn't a 'ticket'. it is a certificate saying you have attended and completed a course. If it had to be 'revalidated' then the RYA would undoubtedly be accused of milking the system.

DS does not automatically qualify or authorise you to do anything.

- W

This is the problem the RYA face, there qualification system was designed for amateurs sailing as a family or friends group. Gaining days on-board here and there, miles over time and experience. In a more genteel age.

It was never designed for commercial usage and Zero to hero courses, tick-box's get professional qualification....

They need to rethink the the sea-time and mileage requirements.

How can you be a skipper if you have not got atleast one years sailing in?
If you sit your course on one or 2 similar boats not sailing on a variety, do you get the experience?

Winter/Autumn /Spring sailing are very different to summer sailing until you have experienced it you would not know...

You can sit your theory's on distance learning, and really not see much of a boat to be its skipper.

 

[Talulah]

Just to get back to the original theme of HL and losing their recognition has there been any word on the Instructor?

 

[jimi]

Based on the recommendations and comments made re operational management in an earlier MAIB report, if it were me that were the manager, I'd be on the blower to the skipper at the slightest sniff of potential problems.

 

[Blue_mischief]

Is MAIB investigating?

Doesn't appear on their list of current investigations:

http://www.maib.gov.uk/latest_news/current_investigations.cfm

 

[alant]

I have been a Trainee with Jason Manning as Instuctor before he started HL Sailing. I cannot imagine that he was unaware of his Skippers intention to go. I also imagine that the boat was to be a floating exibit at LIBS to allow prospective punters to see the vessel that they may be thinking of booking a course on. Perhaps its just cynical 'ol me that thinks that getting a few paying punters on the boat on its trip to LIBS is a little sweetener to the balance sheet..........

The fact remains, that HL should have been aware of the forecast & considered any possible risks with the Skipper. You would have needed to be in a coma not to have been aware there was a F10/11 due.

Who actually decided/insisted they sail, will come out in any MAIB report.

The Skipper, rightly or wrongly, would also have been criticised if he had decided not to sail.

Catch 22 prevails.

 

[alant]

I can barely be bothered to reply after wading through pages of Mr Toads incessant anti-RYA diatribe, so I'll keep it brief.

If I were the Principal of a training centre and had a First 40.7 safely tucked up in a marina with a F10 forecast for the area, I'd be on the phone to the skipper making it absolutely clear to him that the he was forbidden to put out. I'd hope he'd have no intent to do so and that my call would be superfluous, but I'd remove all uncertainty nonetheless.

Not to make the call would seem pretty lax. To make it would seem entirely rational. Yet it appears this didn't happen, or if it did a gross error of judgement was made. Either way, something was clearly lacking.

Would you have also been happy to pay the Skipper, if he had cancelled?

I remember as a freelance instructor, being taken aside together with the permanent instructor (2 boats) by an irate principal down in Poole a few years ago & asked "why are you not sailing"? This was a comp crew weekend, with a F11 forecast. We had got some 'brisk' sailing on the Saturday & were rafted alongside in a small marina with a difficult entrance/exit. We had laid extra shore/mooring lines the previous evening, because of the increasingly strong conditions. On the Sunday morning, conditions in the lee-shore 'harbour', were violent & we took an extended breakfast hoping for it to blow through. We as experienced Skippers had discussed the options together & also briefed the crews. The principle's reply to our decision not to sail at that time, was a furious "you should show them what its like in those conditions", but the final decision was ours. Eventually, as the morning progressed and conditions became even worse, we called it a day, much to the relief of the inexperienced crew, who were extremely happy to depart back up country.

They advised the following weekend (yes they did return) that travelling conditions on land as they departed, were unbelievably difficult. They did not ask for a refund, so we skippers got paid.

 

[FishyInverness]

Doesn't appear on their list of current investigations:

http://www.maib.gov.uk/latest_news/current_investigations.cfm

Can someone qualify this? My Understanding was MAIB reports happen when there is injury/fatality, which there doesn't appear to have been in this case?

 

[MissFitz]

Re the Day Skipper - when I did my first winter offshore passage in rough weather I had had a DS certificate for a year or so & had happily skippered a boat on a Greek flotilla & then my own boat on short trips around the Solent for six months. I had absolutely no idea what a cross-Channel in icy conditions & a F6/7 would feel like, & I was sick as a parrot & mostly useless.

DS is not designed to produce hardy offshore sailors, & competent & conscientious skippers, & particularly sailing school owners, should be aware of this when making decisions on whether to go out in bad weather.

 

[Talulah]

Can someone qualify this? My Understanding was MAIB reports happen when there is injury/fatality, which there doesn't appear to have been in this case?

I think some of us (myself included) had assumed that investigations would be carried out but it may well be the case that the RYA are the only ones investigating. In which case this incident is pretty well closed. I'm sure additional guidance will be issued to Sailing Schools as a reminder of their responsibilities etc but that could be the end of it.

 

[volvopaul]

Im not surprised they ended up like this.

As A previous Shamrock quay berth holder a friends boat was hit by one of there boats in the marina, the staff saw it happen and contacted the owner(a friend) I was working on his boat the next day so took a look at the scrape down the starboard side and rang there office explaining the name of the boat, time etc the incident had happened.

Some toffy nosed biggest plumb in her mouth you could get woman came down to the boat blatently denying the incident had even taken place, yet the marina staff saw it all.

They accepted no responsibility at all for there poor yacht management, im not surprised they have ended up this way, im surprised no one has been seriously injured out at sea if thats there attitude. Best decision made by the RYA.

 

[marklucas]

Im not surprised they ended up like this.

As A previous Shamrock quay berth holder a friends boat was hit by one of there boats in the marina, the staff saw it happen and contacted the owner(a friend) I was working on his boat the next day so took a look at the scrape down the starboard side and rang there office explaining the name of the boat, time etc the incident had happened.

Some toffy nosed biggest plumb in her mouth you could get woman came down to the boat blatently denying the incident had even taken place, yet the marina staff saw it all.

They accepted no responsibility at all for there poor yacht management, im not surprised they have ended up this way, im surprised no one has been seriously injured out at sea if thats there attitude. Best decision made by the RYA.

Oh they have been injured - from the MAIB report:

On 28 May 2011, a 23 year old crew
member on board the commercially
operated sailing yacht Liquid Vortex
(Figure 1) was seriously injured
when the vessel gybed. The gybe
occurred when the yacht was running
downwind in the Myth of Malham
offshore race in the English Channel.
The crew member was at the helm
when she was knocked to the deck by
the mainsheet. She sustained head
and spinal injuries and was evacuated
by helicopter to Plymouth, England
where she was hospitalised for 2
months.

 

[emsworthy]

It's not a case of trusting the skipper to make the right call or not - if you couldn't trust him to make the right call then perhaps you shouldn't be employing him!

Once engaged, the skipper is acting on behalf of HL - so HL are directly responsible for his actions. Same as if I went and operated a Fork Lift at work without a certificate ... yes I'd've done wrong, but unless there is something that says I shouldn't operate it, the blame for any related accident will at least partly fall on the shoulders of the business.

FB there's no "partly" about it. Unless, as you say, your employer specifically prohibited you from carrying out this work under the Doctrine of Vicarious Liability they would be fully liable if you were found to be negligent. Even if it might be reasonable to assume you knew you were doing something wrong. Granted this tends not to apply in criminal law but certainly it does in civil tort claims. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vicarious+Liability There's even case law where a night club bouncer lost the plot and battered a punter half-to-death but the employer was found to be liable as he had not specifically told him he couldn't do it!

 

[awol]

Another side is the human predilection for accepting, sometimes irrationally, decisions made by those in authority. Going against a leader's, in this case the skipper's or possibly HL's management's, decision to sail into a forecast F10 is, despite what we would like to believe, simply not in our psyche. Blaming the DS and CS endorsed crew for going is to blame them for being human.

 

[Moonshining]

F There's even case law where a night club bouncer lost the plot and battered a punter half-to-death but the employer was found to be liable as he had not specifically told him he couldn't do it!

I think where this is pertinant to HL is that presumably the liability would be because the night club didn't have documented policies and standards in place for their staff.

Hot Liquid are going to deservedly get their butts kicked if they don't have some sort of written health and safety policy and documented evidence of compliance with that policy. That's not elf n safety gorn mad, it's just decent management.

The skipper might have overall responsibility for the vessel but if HL are taking fare-paying crew, then that skipper needs to be aware what the parameters for taking out those crew might be. If he then disregards those parameters, the responsibility lies with him, otherwise it's with HL.

 

[Pete R]

expect not to have their boat smashed up.

On another post you talk about the boat being wrecked. You sure you got your facts right?

View attachment 15948



The wheel might have got a bit bent, the guard rail damaged during the helicopter lifts and there may have been a slight problem with smells down below but that's about it.

 

[RobbieW]

You sure you got your facts right?

Facts?? WDNNS facts - I refer the honourable gentleman to the definition of Scuttlebutt

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

On another post you talk about the boat being wrecked. You sure you got your facts right?

Sorry PeteR you are right and I am wrong.

Smashed and wrecked were completely inappropriate terms to describe the vessel, which after all, eventually made it's way to safety under it's own steam.

I got a bit carried away.

Thanks for correcting me.

 

[Searush]

Sorry PeteR you are right and I am wrong.

Smashed and wrecked were completely inappropriate terms to describe the vessel, which after all, eventually made it's way to safety under it's own steam.

I got a bit carried away.

Thanks for correcting me.

I think I shall frame that post & keep it for posterity.

 

[Simondjuk]

Can someone qualify this? My Understanding was MAIB reports happen when there is injury/fatality, which there doesn't appear to have been in this case?

The MAIB can investigate an incident of as minor seriousness as they see fit. Their role is to establish facts and publish information and recommendations which may lead to improved safety. Their job is not to apportion blame.

An event which led to no injuries or loss of life can sometimes provide valuable lessons, so be worthy of investigation. In this case the facts are clear, the boat went to sea in inappropriate conditions. The recommendations might be summarised as, 'Don't go to sea in a little boat when a storm is forecast.' Old news which doesn't need to be verified by further investigation.

As I see it, there may be deeper lessons to be learned about risk management by an investigation, but that's about all.