Is it just me....

Voluntary?

Quote: The bottom line therefore is that firstly you are required to report incidents whether you want to or not...unquote
This is what raised the original hackles...

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.troppo.co.uk> Follow the Tightwad Sailor</A>
 
Read my \"Voluntary\" properly ....

IF you read it properly - you will undestand that I actually realised that and qualified the statement .....
And if still you don't get it - you have the choivce to complete or not - regardless of whether you are REQUIRED to or not .... he cannot see all incidents etc. and if you do not report - how will he know ????


Sorry you didn't read that bit ..... speed read do we ??


<hr width=100% size=1>Cheers Nigel http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gps-navigator/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/searider/
 
Re: Read my \"Voluntary\" properly ....

Tch tch
Shouldn't really be advocating breaking the law on here. I'd never do that.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.troppo.co.uk> Follow the Tightwad Sailor</A>
 
Yup.........

That SORN does work.A work chum of mine (yotty sort always moaning about Europe/security cameras/taxes etc).Always let his road tax run out for a few months before renewing it again.Not any more.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Small boat channel

Actually, it's just bloody silly to have a 30 or 40 small boats playing dodgems in the SBC at any one time, when the main shipping channel is empty, which it very often is.

So having, for the small boat sailor, reduced the width of the harbour entrance by 90%, 'they' then need to police it. But they can't. So they are telling us to police it for them. Testicles.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>
 
Testicles ...

would these belong to anyone in parteecular ... ? Doing Orra Rant Is Stuff (and nonsense) ... ??

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Voluntary?

I am not sure why many are getting upset. It has been for many years that mariners in many countries, including those of the UK I believe, are required by law to report incidents. Mariners are not alone with that requirement as exactly the same applies in aviation.

In my view it is a good thing and is to do with self policing and learning from events and has nothing to do with any nanny social engineering state wanting to wag fingers. I do not know the statistics in UK, but in NZ less than 5% of reports result in a prosecution (and those that do are all mainly accidents resulting in harm from negligence, not incidents unless the culprit is a "slow learner") - the general approach is one of encouraging reporting and is not one of left hooking those that do report or who are reported.

Taking a case similar to the ferry one. I was in an commercial aircraft stacked up to land in an overseas airport (was doing an aviation assignment there as it happened), there was quite alot of cloud and I was looking out the window and another aircaft flashed past very, very close to our wingtip. One of the guys in the row in front of me exclaimed in a shocked voice, loud enough for me to hear, "Oh my God! That was a loss of separation" which immediately typed him as from aviation himself and also meant that I had not imagined it.

I suspect that most of us would hope that such an incident got reported as it was required to be by law - I wonder why many think it should be different in the case of boats.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>I am the cat but I am only 6.
 
"the prats in this thread " .. just noticed this ... very surprised at this tone .. tut tut

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Blimey Tim.....did you know what you were starting here?
Any more provocative threads from you and I'm leaving for the Pacific in case WW3 breaks out!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Mmm - I am a bit surprised that some people seem to think I'm not entitled to express disagreement. I don't object to people objecting to my opinion but do object to being told not to object.






<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A>
 
This is all getting a bit silly. Why dont you look at the QHM website and see the sort of thing he has on his plate at the moment. Like the Trafalgar celebration/Fleet review/ Festival of the Sea et al. as well as normal business. Us yotties are doing it for fun in our time off. The guys on the big boats are doing it for a living.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

This is all getting a bit silly.

<hr></blockquote>

No. What is silly is seeking to compel behaviour that is intrinsically 'non-compellable'.

I note that the accident reporting regulations still (as of now) cited on the MAIB website <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_maritimesafety/documents/page/dft_masafety_504277.pdf>MGN115</A> do not seek to compel reporting of "hazardous incidents" either by commercial vessels (merely "strongly recommended") or by pleasure vessels. Further, the regulations do not require the reporting of "accidents" involving pleasure vessels.

I assume that the MAIB website has not been updated to reflect the coming into force of <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992567.htm>
The Merchant Shipping (Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Reporting Requirements) Regulations 2004</A> which make compulsory the reporting of "accidents" and "incidents" (the word hazardous has been dropped and the definition of "incident" is rather broader than the old "hazardous incident").

So - it is clear that things have moved on quite substantially in the space of five years.

Of course I do not have "a services background" so unquestioning obedience does not come naturally. I prefer to think for myself.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer</A>
 
>Trafalgar celebration/Fleet review/ Festival of the Sea et al. as well as normal business. Us yotties are doing it for fun in our time off<

Errr - I rather thought that Traf and FoS were spozed to be fun as well.

As for the fleet review, why don't they do it somewhere less fraught, like Portland or even Scapa Flow? After all they are driving around big ships for which we pick up the bills, so they can bugger off and leave us in peace.

BTW, I do have a smidgen of a military background, and know very well that no civvy is more dismissive of top brass planning, regulations and inabilityto organise a p-u in a brewery than everybody more than one rank below their brass-capped height.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>
 
Could not agree more. I object to people objecting to me objecting that they are objectionable. There is simply no object in being so objectionable when objecting to my objecting to the object of the original objection.
Good wind up though.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I Object!

Is it the subject or object you object to? Subjective objection to objective subjects is not the same as objective objection to subjective objects where the object of the objection may be subjective or objective. There is no object in subjective objection where the subject lacks objective and the objectors lacked subject. This just results in a non productive objection to a nonsubjective object and should be avoided at all costs. Do I make myself clear?
And who is the dude who's rude when phoo-phood and at whom you cock your lewd snood in such mood jude?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Objection M\'lud

The dude who wiz rude
I confess and conclude
Wiz indeed not you
But Doris for sure
obviously knows prats and dickheads when in front of the mirror is stood!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top