Hot Liquid: the response

Rigger Mortice said:
In any event, this problem does not appear to be the training of the skipper but the management regime which was in force.
Click to expand...

Really? The school organized a delivery with plenty of slack time in case of bad weather. In spite of that, the skipper decided to go in bad weather. Nobody on the boat seems to have felt that was a bad decision. In fact, they felt it was such a good decision they all decided to go on the trip.

Hard to see how the owner of the boat can be blamed for that.

Having said that, as other's have said, we're missing quite a lot of facts here.
 
ace_bridger said:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes & yes.

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

The RYA cannot survive if schools are not successful and they have a responsibility to work with their schools when times are good as well as when they are bad.

This decision makes the RYA look bad as they are saying, "this school is so bad it needs to be shut down" which says, "we don't really keep an eye on our schools and have no way of monitoring the quality of delivery of RYA courses".

Despite all 3 incidents not being RYA courses...yada yada yada
Click to expand...

Rubbish. The annual inspections do exactly what you say they dont.

Unannounced inspections are carried out too.

Any organisation as a certifying authority must police the standards, And the RYA do.
 
Rigger Mortice said:
The RYA does not provide training. It sets the syllabus and recognises the schools who deliver the training. It also makes it clear that the Principals of the schools are the ones who are responsible.
If the RYA were to do more such as provide continual professional training or monitor everything which the schools do then who is going to pay? At present there is an annual inspection.

In any event, this problem does not appear to be the training of the skipper but the management regime which was in force.

It is ridiculous to blame the RYA for the shortcomings of the school.
Click to expand...

I don't agree.
The schools do their best.
The fault lies with the syllabuses.
The syllabuses are not sufficently comprehensive. They leave lots of gaps, like undetected crevasses in ice fields.
Now and then someone falls through a crevasse is the result.
 
capnsensible said:
It was the first meeting of the Training Committee since the incident. At a previously promulgated date. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's sounds plausable. Can you point to a source for dates for the Training Committee Meetings so I can confirm it for myself.

Not that it changes my view much. If a firm hires a qualified contractor to do a job and they **** it up, it's the contrators fault. QED.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
Really? The school organized a delivery with plenty of slack time in case of bad weather. In spite of that, the skipper decided to go in bad weather. Nobody on the boat seems to have felt that was a bad decision. In fact, they felt it was such a good decision they all decided to go on the trip.

Hard to see how the owner of the boat can be blamed for that.

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

The Principal is responsible for safety. The wonga goes to him. Its very simple.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
That's sounds plausable. Can you point to a source for dates for the Training Committee Meetings so I can confirm it for myself.

Not that it changes my view much. If a firm hires a qualified contractor to do a job and they **** it up, it's the contrators fault. QED.
Click to expand...

it depends how the s/c was employed
if he was doing the job "on a price" is fully the s/c responsibility
if a day rate + taking the Co paying guests that "Employed"
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
That's sounds plausable. Can you point to a source for dates for the Training Committee Meetings so I can confirm it for myself.

Not that it changes my view much. If a firm hires a qualified contractor to do a job and they **** it up, it's the contrators fault. QED.
Click to expand...

0044 845 345 0400

Probably best to ask for Craig Burton. Let us all know how you get on.

You could order a copy of RGN1 whilst you are on the phone.
 
Irrespective of 'accreditation' (or whatever term bests fits), the directors/senior managers of any organisation have a legal duty of care towards employees, customers, partners and any other people who could be affected by their activities under Health & Safety legislation... there's a useful overview here for anyone interested: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg417.pdf

Just read the introduction of that document and then reflect on the HL case. The RYA bit could be a red herring in all of this, no doubt the truth will emerge. I've mentioned before, there are some decent skippers that I've had first hand excellent training from via HL, I hope they come through this OK.
 
capnsensible said:
The Principal is responsible for safety. The wonga goes to him. Its very simple.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Granted.
But the skipper needs his head examined.
It is not prudent seamanship to sail into worsening weather, wilfully by choice.
In this case the worsening weather developed into a storm.
The storm touched hurricane force.
What was taught to the skipper about weather forecasting and about prudent seamanship ?
What did the skipper learn or know about sailing in a hooley ?
Why set sail ? Wot for ?
What is wrong with waiting for the bad weather to blow itself out ?
I cannot understand a seaman not considering the obvious.
Pressure perhaps ? A pox upon the pressure. Life is priceless.
 
VO5 said:
No doubt. Granted.
But the skipper needs his head examined.
It is not prudent seamanship to sail into worsening weather, wilfully by choice.
In this case the worsening weather developed into a storm.
The storm touched hurricane force.
What was taught to the skipper about weather forecasting and about prudent seamanship ?
What did the skipper learn or know about sailing in a hooley ?
Why set sail ? Wot for ?
What is wrong with waiting for the bad weather to blow itself out ?
I cannot understand a seaman not considering the obvious.
Pressure perhaps ? A pox upon the pressure. Life is priceless.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
 
Boomshanka said:
Irrespective of 'accreditation' (or whatever term bests fits), the directors/senior managers of any organisation have a legal duty of care towards employees, customers, partners and any other people who could be affected by their activities
Click to expand...

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?
 
capnsensible said:
Totally agree.
Click to expand...

Well then, the RYA should start at the sharp end not the blunt end.
The skipper should have his qualifications first suspended because it is a great responsibility to take others to sea. Obviously he has an irresponsible attitude that is not proper for someone in command of a vessel, any vessel, whether crewed or not. It would be more prudent to have it squashed.
The RYA could then carry out an in depth investigation as to whether the management played any part in this reckless saga and then act accordingly, and not the other way round. And while we are at it, the RYA should wake up and beef up its syllabus.
I personally have had set to's with them over several topics, including preventer drills, fog navigation, storm management etc., and other topics in which accidents are waiting to happen. All of it falls on deaf ears. They take shelter in referring that they do as told by the MCA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top