Hot Liquid: the response

[Boomshanka]

Of course they do.

But if they hire qualified people I can't see how they can be accused of failing in that duty WRT to the sailing decisions that were made in this case.

HL needed a skipper so they hired one. Now they're taking the rap for his mistake. (If it was a mistake.)

Now, supposing HL had a boiler that needed to be overhauled. They'd get a gas safe guy in. If he blew the building up killing HL customers would that be HL's fault?

What's the difference?

You seem to think it wouldn't be HL's fault at all. So yep, they get a gas safe guy in to oversea the work, but they also advertise for and recruit five paying customers with varying knoweldge of gas work to work alongside the gas safe guy to do the job. HL take money off the customers to give them the experience and pay the gas safe guy to oversea the work. The customers would have signed up a contract with HL, not the gas safe guy.

I feel personally saddened by what's happened in this case, so I really don't have any appetite to get into a forum game of ping pong, so respectfully, I'm out!

 

[sailorman]

So why the hell do you think the blame lies not with the skipper who made the decision, not with the people who gave the skipper his qualifications that allowed him to make the decision, but with the poor sod who happened to employ him?

it is possible the skipper "was" an employee paid on a day rate basis

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

You seem to think it wouldn't be HL's fault at all.

In terms of the go-no go decision that's exactly what I think. There's zero blame. The skipper made that call and they had no need to have any input to it.

There might be all sorts of other stuff they are at fault for which may come out in the trial.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

it is possible the skipper "was" an employee paid on a day rate basis

Yup possible.

Also possible that HL were directly involved in the go/no-go decision.

It's even possible that HL knowingly hired a totally unqualified skipper.

We don't know. This is all conjecture.

Both the Skipper and HL will be getting a trial so detail may come out there if they plead not guilty.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

If somebody had died then the next of kin would be suing the school, not the skipper. The school would not be able to successfully argue that it was nothing to do with them and was down to the skipper and/or the RYA.

 

[capnsensible]

And he told you the date of the next meeting of the Training Committee and you remembered it?

It doesn't stack up.

I reckon, you're either lying or concealing something.

You are funny.

 

[capnsensible]

So why the hell do you think the blame lies not with the skipper who made the decision, not with the people who gave the skipper his qualifications that allowed him to make the decision, but with the poor sod who happened to employ him?

Because the company are responsible for the actions of their skippers.

Obviously.

 

[VO5]

So why the hell do you think the blame lies not with the skipper who made the decision, not with the people who gave the skipper his qualifications that allowed him to make the decision, but with the poor sod who happened to employ him?

+1.

And additionally, because the syllabuses have been so shrunk and watered down, they are considered to be the benchmark of yachting excellence ironically and too much trust is put on them in the absence of properly structured really comprehensive knowledge, and in the absence of really proper benchmarks, which in a nation like the United Kingdom with its rich maritime history is a disgrace.

 

[capnsensible]

And he told you the date of the next meeting of the Training Committee and you remembered it?

It doesn't stack up.

I reckon, you're either lying or concealing something.

Its not that hard to remember 'early february'.

Calling people liars is rather undignified, dont you think?

 

[Hoolie]

So why the hell do you think the blame lies not with the skipper who made the decision, not with the people who gave the skipper his qualifications that allowed him to make the decision, but with the poor sod who happened to employ him?

Because the skipper, no matter what his employment status, has to work within the policies and procedures of the employer. The skipper is not entitled to deliberately put himself, the boat and paying customers at risk at odds with the company safety and risk policies. If those policies were well defined and the skipper flouted them, then he carries the can. If no adequate policies were in place then the company is to blame. Evidence suggests the latter is the case.

 

[Koeketiene]

So you think that the RYA documentation negates the duty on them to support one of their schools?

An RYA recognised school - not an RYA school.

 

[VO5]

Because the skipper, no matter what his employment status, has to work within the policies and procedures of the employer. The skipper is not entitled to deliberately put himself, the boat and paying customers at risk at odds with the company safety and risk policies. If those policies were well defined and the skipper flouted them, then he carries the can. If no adequate policies were in place then the company is to blame. Evidence suggests the latter is the case.

What evidence ?

The skipper is at the sharp end of it all because he has the responsibility of command.

And it does noyt matter if it is a sloop, or a ketch or even a windjammer, the responsibility of command is the same.

Then because he has that responsibility, he is perfectly entitled not to sail if in his judgement the voyage presents dire risks which ought to be avoided..

The object of the excercise is to avoid perils, not to go out flirting with them.

If the employer insists, then he does not have the best interests of his skipper, his vessel, or the crew at heart, regardless of any consideration.

Then it follows that in those circumstances such an employer would not be worth working for at all.

You may think different, but that is my view as a consequence of long seafaring experience.

The sea can be a cruel mistress.

The longer you sail, the more you appreciate this fundamental truth.

 

[photodog]

What evidence ?

The skipper is at the sharp end of it all because he has the responsibility of command.

And it does noyt matter if it is a sloop, or a ketch or even a windjammer, the responsibility of command is the same.

Then because he has that responsibility, he is perfectly entitled not to sail if in his judgement the voyage presents dire risks which ought to be avoided..

The object of the excercise is to avoid perils, not to go out flirting with them.

If the employer insists, then he does not have the best interests of his skipper, his vessel, or the crew at heart, regardless of any consideration.

Then it follows that in those circumstances such an employer would not be worth working for at all.

You may think different, but that is my view as a consequence of long seafaring experience.

The sea can be a cruel mistress.

The longer you sail, the more you appreciate this fundamental truth.

http://www.rya.org.uk/newsevents/news/Pages/RYAhasremoveditsrecognitionofHotLiquidSouthampton.aspx


Have you read the pressa from the RYA?

 

[Koeketiene]

The object of the excercise is to avoid perils, not to go out flirting with them.

The skipper tweeted/twittered/twatted about the F10 forecast - seemed to be looking forward to it.
No mention of owner pressure whatsoever.

 

[DaveS]

They will refer to themsleves as an 'institute', not an institution...but I agree with your point.

Well "The Institution of Engineering and Technology" (my emphasis) is the name of the outfit that I pay my annual sub. to...

Gosh, another 50 posts since this slight digression!

 

[Twister_Ken]

My my. How very heated. Pretty obvious that we're stuck indoors because of the snow, and there's nothing good on TV

 

[madmitch]

If somebody had died then the next of kin would be suing the school, not the skipper. The school would not be able to successfully argue that it was nothing to do with them and was down to the skipper and/or the RYA.

Erm thats not quite true, the next of kin may sue the school but then the school or their insurance company might well countersue the freelance proffesional hired in (with a commercialy endorsed YMI) and who, as the holder of this gold standard ticket, they may reasonabley assume competent to process the relevant variables, weather f'cast, crew competence and then make an informed, safe decision. I would have thought, in view of the forecast, a 10min chat with the crew, what sailing have you done? what weather have you sailed in? its going to be bouncy, sea and wind on the quarter so we'll be cork screwing abit...any body have any concerns?
As for making the go no go decision, if I am in a cab, the driver licensed to be a cabby and i hear him ring up the cab owner and ask if its safe to set off on a journey because the traffic is busy or the weathers bad......I would be getting worried at the licensing authority.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Its not that hard to remember 'early february'.

Calling people liars is rather undignified, dont you think?

Well, given the lack of any credible evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking with my original viewpoint:

But the RYA's withdrawl of recognized status the day before the MCA started to prosecute HL and the Skipper makes me think this withdrawl of recognition is entirely due to that. It's too close to be coincidence.

 

[Pete R]

Having said that, as other's have said, we're missing quite a lot of facts here.

You don't want to let those little things called facts stop you

 

[Pete R]

Both the Skipper and HL will be getting a trial so detail may come out there if they plead not guilty.

My understanding is that there is an only an investigation at the moment. What offences have they been charged with that means they are going to trial?