Latest 'stable door bolting' from MAIB

zoidberg

zoidberg

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Nov 2016
Messages
6,982
Visit site
MAIB: ‘Insufficent planning’ resulted in Clipper yacht Greenings grounding….

…..at the time of the grounding of CV24, the skipper, the only professional sailor aboard, was responsible for navigation…..no one foresaw the grounding risk. The MAIB also highlighted the lack of an experienced navigator aboard….

….In addition to the grounding and loss of CV4 and CV24, the MAIB holds records of 17 other groundings of Clipper yachts in the 5 years prior to this accident, and one since”
http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news
Click to expand...

November Sierra, Sherlock! :rolleyes:

Apparently, "the full 40,000-nautical-mile circumnavigation, taking 11 months, costs approximately £49,500 including four weeks training, Henri Lloyd foul weather gear, berth and food….. Training-only options are also available from £1,000"

The question needs to be asked - who would fork out C£50,000 for that level of competence delivery? I could teach you how to avoid running into the bottom end of Africa, in less than a week and for far less than £1000, never mind £50K. So could most of the readers on here. You could buy a boat, take along some friends, and do a similar trip yourself, for that money - and still have change.
 
Wow. Watch leader with no sailing experience before Clipper effectively left to helm and navigate a fast racing boat, at night, in unfamiliar waters without being able to see a chart plotter or depth gauge. He steered to maximise boat speed and and prevent a gybe, as you would offshore, and as the wind shifted drove the boat straight up the beach. Skipper did not notice because he was releasing preventer, attending main sheet and preparing for a planned gybe.

Why on earth would a million pound (guess) boat not have a chart plotter and depth gauge visible from the helm? Why would a boat with 18 people onboard not have a dedicated navigator in coastal waters? Why was the skipper doing tasks any competent crew could do? Second Clipper boat did the same thing at the same time and grounded within 80 metres
of the beach but got away with it.

Not their finest hour.
 
Last edited:
And why would a pro skipper agree to doing that without a pro navigator and a pro 1st Mate - one cannot be on watch - responsible for all those punters' lives - 24/7.

I would suggest it is because even very good sailing instructors get paid buttons, I've always said sailing jobs are the same as the way stable girls are treated; ' you love working with boats / horses, why should we pay you a sensible wage ? '

However desperate I was though ( if I was YM Ocean / Master Mariner which I'm not ), for the tiny money, more likely kudos or experience myself, I'd never take on that skipper position, sheer madness.
 
I look forward to a response from those who have previously told us that Clipper training and crewing policies are unimpeachably wonderful. See any previous thread on this for their names ...

Edit. I love this bit: "Clipper Founder and Chairman, Sir Robin Knox-Johnston ... also called for an urgently needed review ‘of regulation and the speed of reporting key learnings’, adding that the lessons for the industry at large were ‘significant’ and it was ‘unreasonable’ to expect individual companies, like Clipper, to ‘path-find on safety without the support and encouragement from the relevant authorities.’"

Is "making sure you know what depth of water you're in which near the shore at night" really pathfinding on safety?
 
Last edited:
Fully crewed yachts in the most complicated waters have been fine without chartotters forever but have had whirly then digital depth visible since the 50s so no excuse there.
 
I have to declare an interest, here. I am a very old friend of the departing head of the MAIB, Steve Clinch, and I think he has done a very good job indeed with the Branch. Apart from that, I have been on the receiving end of two MAIB investigations - one of them a grounding of a large ship and the other a major collision between merchant ships with multiple fatalities - and I found them to be meticulous, courteous, helpful and frankly absolutely right in their conclusions.

Having got that off my chest, I feel that "stable door bolting from the MAIB" is not very fair. Bolting the stable door after the horse has scarpered is precisely what the MAIB are there to do. Bolting the door beforehand is the business of the RYA and the MCA.
 
Minn said:
Having got that off my chest, I feel that "stable door bolting from the MAIB" is not very fair. Bolting the stable door after the horse has scarpered is precisely what the MAIB are there to do. Bolting the door beforehand is the business of the RYA and the MCA.
Click to expand...

And of round-the-world yachtsmen and enterpreneurs to whom, one would hope, "It's a good idea to know how deep the water your in is, anywhere that it might matter" shouldn't come as a complete surprise.
 
Minn said:

Having got that off my chest, I feel that "stable door bolting from the MAIB" is not very fair. Bolting the stable door after the horse has scarpered is precisely what the MAIB are there to do. Bolting the door beforehand is the business of the RYA and the MCA.
Click to expand...

The above runs perilously close to 'special pleading'.
As I understand it, the RYA has no statutory authority - or responsibility - whatsoever. The MAIB is a formal structure within the Department for Transport. They seem to be effective in reporting what happened and why, in line with their limited remit. As for using the very considerable powers of its Investigators - similar to those held and exercised by team leaders of the Air Accident Investigation Branch - they seem to have been historically tardy, confining themselves to the production of reports, summaries and books of 'lessons to be learned', and posting them to the handful of ship managers who have asked to see them. i.e. 'preaching to the converted'.

The same accidents, fatal and otherwise, happen over and over again to the same groups of people. It is evident that the lessons are NOT being learned. There are those who hold the view that taxpayers' money ought to be spent, instead, on regulatory practices that actually make the wanted changes in safety, instead of rehearsing pious regrets.

"….In addition to the grounding and loss of CV4 and CV24, the MAIB holds records of 17 other groundings of Clipper yachts in the 5 years prior to this accident, and one since”
Click to expand...

Then there are the deaths and injuries..... How many of them have there been?

'Snot my job to be fair, but to invite awareness and discussion here by invoking just a little controversy. Others can, and will, make their own judgements. I'd ask why, for example, the Health and Safety Executive has not got itself involved. Might it perhaps be because the company's founder and principal officer is a feted establishment figure and enjoys significant patronage from on high.... and is therefore 'too prominent to be criticised'....?
 
Minn said:
I have to declare an interest, here. I am a very old friend of the departing head of the MAIB, Steve Clinch, and I think he has done a very good job indeed with the Branch. Apart from that, I have been on the receiving end of two MAIB investigations - one of them a grounding of a large ship and the other a major collision between merchant ships with multiple fatalities - and I found them to be meticulous, courteous, helpful and frankly absolutely right in their conclusions.

Having got that off my chest, I feel that "stable door bolting from the MAIB" is not very fair. Bolting the stable door after the horse has scarpered is precisely what the MAIB are there to do. Bolting the door beforehand is the business of the RYA and the MCA.
Click to expand...

Bang on. +1

Should also note. MAIB make recommendations to improve future safety. The MAIB do not make regulations. Or enforce them.
There is no requirement an MAIB recommendation must be implemented. The choice for implementation is left to the company or organisation. Regulation the MCA.
 
zoidberg said:
The above runs perilously close to 'special pleading'.
As I understand it, the RYA has no statutory authority - or responsibility - whatsoever. The MAIB is a formal structure within the Department for Transport. They seem to be effective in reporting what happened and why, in line with their limited remit. As for using the very considerable powers of its Investigators - similar to those held and exercised by team leaders of the Air Accident Investigation Branch - they seem to have been historically tardy, confining themselves to the production of reports, summaries and books of 'lessons to be learned', and posting them to the handful of ship managers who have asked to see them. i.e. 'preaching to the converted'.

The same accidents, fatal and otherwise, happen over and over again to the same groups of people. It is evident that the lessons are NOT being learned. There are those who hold the view that taxpayers' money ought to be spent, instead, on regulatory practices that actually make the wanted changes in safety, instead of rehearsing pious regrets.



Then there are the deaths and injuries..... How many of them have there been?

'Snot my job to be fair, but to invite awareness and discussion here by invoking just a little controversy. Others can, and will, make their own judgements. I'd ask why, for example, the Health and Safety Executive has not got itself involved. Might it perhaps be because the company's founder and principal officer is a feted establishment figure and enjoys significant patronage from on high.... and is therefore 'too prominent to be criticised'....?
Click to expand...

I don't know much about RKJ. Establishment or not. I doubt very much if the MAIB care. Or if it would make a difference to their investigation.
The Media on the other hand? Who trusts the Media anyway. Todays Hero can be tomorrows Goat. So long as the story sells.

I am familiar with the MAIB, The NTSB and TSB. I think you misunderstand their mandate and role. All MAIB reports are public documents. The last couple of decades worth available free online. Older ones might not be so easy to find.
They MAIB work on the same principles as the AAIB. Just the media and public pay significantly more attention to Aircraft accidents and reports. MAIB report on rusty old freighter. Nobody gives a Rats Ass. Get some oil on a shit hawk or kill a passenger. All of a sudden the main stream media report it.

The MAIB cant be blamed for the medias lack of interest.

I am not sure just how HSE mandate works with Transportation in the UK MAIB & AAIB may take priority and jurisdiction. I would expect they do for higher level incidents.

I would agree, MAIB, NTSB or TSB. As Yogi Berra said. "De Ja Vu all over again."

He also said "To many coincident's. A'int No Coincident."

To my mind. The fact a company had an accident. Is not damming. The important question is how does the company respond?
 
Minn said:
I feel that "stable door bolting from the MAIB" is not very fair. Bolting the stable door after the horse has scarpered is precisely what the MAIB are there to do. Bolting the door beforehand is the business of the RYA and the MCA.
Click to expand...

:encouragement:
 
Minn said:
Having got that off my chest, I feel that "stable door bolting from the MAIB" is not very fair. Bolting the stable door after the horse has scarpered is precisely what the MAIB are there to do. Bolting the door beforehand is the business of the RYA and the MCA.
Click to expand...

It's definitely not fair at all. Although I have criticised some aspects of some MAIB findings on this forum, the role of any accident investigation organisation is to investigate after the accident.

Richard
 
RupertW said:
Fully crewed yachts in the most complicated waters have been fine without chartotters forever but have had whirly then digital depth visible since the 50s so no excuse there.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but given the realativly cheap and reliable nature of modern chart plotters why would one not be available? Could have saved the boat in this case.
 
On a boat with 20 or so crew, it is not generally the helmsman's job to watch the chartplotter.
On a boat with 1 crew and 20 or so passengers, it may be necessary for the helmsman to also be the navigator.
 
RichardS said:
Surely it did have one .... it's just the visibility from the helm position that is under discussion?

Richard
Click to expand...

I think it is crazy not to have a plotter at the helm. If you were skipper, and helming the boat at night and close to land, would you want to rely on someone down below watching the plotter and warning you if you were closing on any danger? Even if the crewman watching the plotter stayed awake he might think you knew what you were doing and fail to warn you in time. As for not having a depth display at the helm, words fail me.
 
Norman_E said:
I think it is crazy not to have a plotter at the helm. If you were skipper, and helming the boat at night and close to land, would you want to rely on someone down below watching the plotter and warning you if you were closing on any danger? Even if the crewman watching the plotter stayed awake he might think you knew what you were doing and fail to warn you in time. As for not having a depth display at the helm, words fail me.
Click to expand...

I think this is not unusual for fully crewed racing racing boats.
The helmsman's job is to steer, not to navigate, do pilotage, tactics, weather or strategy.
I'm not sure the helm can actually race a boat like that fully if your concentration is anywhere but the sails and the wheel.
A singlehanded racer is an enetirely different game, engage autopilot, look at the big picture.

The problem is having a 'crew' entirely selected for their ability to write 5 figure cheques.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top