Latest 'stable door bolting' from MAIB

lw395 said:
Steering a high power yacht without an autopilot is a full time job. It would be foolish to rely on the helm being able to operate a plotter at the same time.
For racing the helm needs two bits of info fromthe electronics, those are speed and compass. Our boat, with a full crew racing, we have those on big displays at the mast where everyone can see them. Cruising shorthanded, we tend to switch one to depth.

I suspect the problem is partly not having an adequate passage plan to keep clear of the hazards, plus a general failure to track where the boat is. What surprises me most is that none of the 'crew' were sufficiently engaged with what was happening to be keeping an eye on progress on the plotter.
If it was me and SWMBO sailing down the coast, we'd have a series of waypoints to not go inside, and we'd have discussed what we needed to do to get where we were going.
That might involve not crossing a depth contour, or it might involve a waypoint and a limit bearing, e.g. 'that buoy, we don't want it bearing less than 250T'.
So generally what's needed is a plan and an adequately briefed person to do the basics at the chart table every half hour or so. More often if you're at close quarters, maybe less often when you're mid atlantic.

A depth alarm might be a useful tool but relying on it is just wrong. It might not be helpful, depending how the contours go. On ocean crossings they often go off due to fish or whales IME. An XTE alarm might be more useful.

Some people have criticised the RYA/YM as part of this thread, it seems to me that a big part of YM as I recall it was that the Skipper or Watch Leader does not spend too much of their time steering. Has that gone out the window now, do they just drive the little boat icon around the playstation?
Click to expand...

Mostly very sensible and good points.

I regret that people who appear to have an exe to grind against the RYA and the YM Scheme try to jump on some sort of bandwagon.

I also freely admit that when Bill Anderson checked me out as an Examiner 25 years ago, he said that it wasn't the ones that you fail that will give you sleepless nights, its the ones that 'just scrape through'. No test is perfect, yet the scheme as it stands is recognised worldwide and if some people get through on the day without deserving to, then I will refer you to the young people who pass their driving test on their 17th birthday. I don't believe that its easy and I don't think that there standard of pass is too low.

One always hopes that skippers will act professionally and CARRY ON LEARNING. None of us are perfect and there's a lot of stones being thrown in glass houses in some of the comments on this thread.

I suspect that the depth was available at the helm, but the instruments weren't programmed to show it. It certainly seems incompetent skippering to allow the helm to carry on sailing and changing course to follow the wind to give best boat speed without putting some other checks in place. However this particular example of incompetent skippering is not a very good excuse to condemn the whole YM scheme. I've got no axe to grind about Clipper, but no defence of them either. I do know a training skipper who works for them and he is a consummate professional and you'll struggle to find a better Sailing Instructor for big boats anywhere in the world.

I'll repeat what others have said; if you think you're good enough, put yourself forward and have a go.
 
john_morris_uk said:
Mostly very sensible and good points.

I regret that people who appear to have an exe to grind against the RYA and the YM Scheme try to jump on some sort of bandwagon.

I also freely admit that when Bill Anderson checked me out as an Examiner 25 years ago, he said that it wasn't the ones that you fail that will give you sleepless nights, its the ones that 'just scrape through'. No test is perfect, yet the scheme as it stands is recognised worldwide and if some people get through on the day without deserving to, then I will refer you to the young people who pass their driving test on their 17th birthday. I don't believe that its easy and I don't think that there standard of pass is too low.

One always hopes that skippers will act professionally and CARRY ON LEARNING. None of us are perfect and there's a lot of stones being thrown in glass houses in some of the comments on this thread.

I suspect that the depth was available at the helm, but the instruments weren't programmed to show it. It certainly seems incompetent skippering to allow the helm to carry on sailing and changing course to follow the wind to give best boat speed without putting some other checks in place. However this particular example of incompetent skippering is not a very good excuse to condemn the whole YM scheme. I've got no axe to grind about Clipper, but no defence of them either. I do know a training skipper who works for them and he is a consummate professional and you'll struggle to find a better Sailing Instructor for big boats anywhere in the world.

I'll repeat what others have said; if you think you're good enough, put yourself forward and have a go.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you include me in your strictures but I was not making any criticism of the RYA and the YM scheme. I was just pointing out that the MAIB's job is to bolt the stable door after the horse has left, and that the MCA (through statute) and the RYA (because they volunteered - and they were imho right to do so) have the task of cutting down the number of casualties that require the MAIB to investigate them.
 
I hear what JM-UK, Minn and others have contributed, and all of that makes some sense. It doesn't address the evident problem - it excuses it.

Cdr Bill Anderson, the progenitor of the Yacht Racing Association's 'National Training Scheme' ( built on the back of existing schemes run by the Services ), could scarcely have predicted his excellent concept - and realisation - would have wound up being the basis for a full-on Commercial Qualification, used internationally. It wasn't intended for that.

It has, however, become a huge money-spinner for the RYA and their close allies, the major Training Establishments. £Vested interests.....

The shortcomings of the Yachmaster Offshore ( Commercial ) training and assessment structure have been evident for a long time. And it takes not a whole lot to translate that into YM ( Ocean ) Commercial, then get oneself into some serious circumstances out of the range of VHF help. We're now seeing the consequences of the low entry standards applied AT THAT LEVEL. JM-UK has it about right above....

Of course, there will be candidates - 'Zero To Hero' types - who come to assessment with limited experience and knowhow, and some of these continue to learn and improve. Great! That's what one would wish. But equally - and we all have met them - there are those whose competence is at its highest when examined/assessed, and they don't learn much after that. They still hold their bits of paper, as Commercial Yachtmasters, and still get jobs, responsible for the lives of others, based on those flimsy bits of paper. Not good enough!

As for the MAIB, they do what they are tasked to do well enough. My argument is that what they actually do is a waste of public money. The reports they produce, expensively, are read by those who are already 'on message'. They don't have a beneficial effect on behaviour and practice. Those industry professionals - and there are one or two of them on here - already know the problems and the answers to the incidents our revered MAIB investigate. I could list them, and so could you. The others out there, who cause the self-same incidents time after time, don't want to know. They don't want to hear....

It's all very well those pious and well-meaning reports falling through one's letterbox every few months. I get them, and I used to disseminate selected bits to my RYA studes, but the vast majority of the boaty community - leisure AND commercial - don't know they exist. And wouldn't read them anyway.

Do we, the paying public, get value for money for 'our tax dollar' spent on the MAIB....? Could this be money better spent elsewhere?
 
zoidberg said:
I hear what JM-UK, Minn and others have contributed, and all of that makes some sense. It doesn't address the evident problem - it excuses it.

Cdr Bill Anderson, the progenitor of the Yacht Racing Association's 'National Training Scheme' ( built on the back of existing schemes run by the Services ), could scarcely have predicted his excellent concept - and realisation - would have wound up being the basis for a full-on Commercial Qualification, used internationally. It wasn't intended for that.

It has, however, become a huge money-spinner for the RYA and their close allies, the major Training Establishments. £Vested interests.....

The shortcomings of the Yachmaster Offshore ( Commercial ) training and assessment structure have been evident for a long time. And it takes not a whole lot to translate that into YM ( Ocean ) Commercial, then get oneself into some serious circumstances out of the range of VHF help. We're now seeing the consequences of the low entry standards applied AT THAT LEVEL. JM-UK has it about right above....

Of course, there will be candidates - 'Zero To Hero' types - who come to assessment with limited experience and knowhow, and some of these continue to learn and improve. Great! That's what one would wish. But equally - and we all have met them - there are those whose competence is at its highest when examined/assessed, and they don't learn much after that. They still hold their bits of paper, as Commercial Yachtmasters, and still get jobs, responsible for the lives of others, based on those flimsy bits of paper. Not good enough!

As for the MAIB, they do what they are tasked to do well enough. My argument is that what they actually do is a waste of public money. The reports they produce, expensively, are read by those who are already 'on message'. They don't have a beneficial effect on behaviour and practice. Those industry professionals - and there are one or two of them on here - already know the problems and the answers to the incidents our revered MAIB investigate. I could list them, and so could you. The others out there, who cause the self-same incidents time after time, don't want to know. They don't want to hear....

It's all very well those pious and well-meaning reports falling through one's letterbox every few months. I get them, and I used to disseminate selected bits to my RYA studes, but the vast majority of the boaty community - leisure AND commercial - don't know they exist. And wouldn't read them anyway.

Do we, the paying public, get value for money for 'our tax dollar' spent on the MAIB....? Could this be money better spent elsewhere?
Click to expand...

I agree with all you write up to the last paragraph: I think the MAIB is one of the few remaining jewels in the British nautical establishment.

They do come up with some gems and they do save lives as a result - one example is the self unscrewing over time of lifejacket inflation bottles.

I wish the MCA and the RYA operated to the standards that the MAIB do.

I agree with your observations on the Commercial Endorsement. A friend recently knocked off her Ocean Commercial. She is the Mate of a nice big Feadship. She was the only girl on her course, the only Asian, and the only one who could splice wire... But I would have reservations about her taking command of a big racing sailing boat, not because she isn't very good and extremely conscientious - she is - but because she always sees the trees and not the wood - she would be quite capable of losing situational awareness as happened in the Clipper case. In other words she is at the moment and excellent Mate but would be a poor Master.

Most of the young men on the courses with her were very good looking and can probably scrub teak and apply varnish.
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
I agree with all you write up to the last paragraph: I think the MAIB is one of the few remaining jewels in the British nautical establishment.

They do come up with some gems and they do save lives as a result - one example is the self unscrewing over time of lifejacket inflation bottles.

I wish the MCA and the RYA operated to the standards that the MAIB do.

I agree with your observations on the Commercial Endorsement. A friend recently knocked off her Ocean Commercial. She is the Mate of a nice big Feadship. She was the only girl on her course, the only Asian, and the only one who could splice wire... But I would have reservations about her taking command of a big racing sailing boat, not because she isn't very good and extremely conscientious - she is - but because she always sees the trees and not the wood - she would be quite capable of losing situational awareness as happened in the Clipper case. In other words she is at the moment and excellent Mate but would be a poor Master.

Most of the young men on the courses with her were very good looking and can probably scrub teak and apply varnish.
Click to expand...

I’m afraid that’s a rather facile argument.

I’ve got an unrestricted motor cycle licence but that doesn’t mean I’m going to jump on a high powered sports bike and ride it with skill. Similarly, I’d be the first to admit I’d be out of my depth (and comfort zone) on a big racing multihull, yet I’ve got a commercial ticket that says I can take paying guests out on one.

I’m not here to defend Clipper, but your argument fails because holding a commercially endorsed YM is not enough to be one a Clipoer skipper. They ask for YMI’s with big boat experience and their YMO. There’s a selection process and more training.

Knocking the YM scheme because one of their skippers screwed up is like criticising the CAA because one of their pilots crashes. Sailing and racing across oceans with not very experienced crews is inherently dangerous and challenging. Whether they assess and mitigate the risks appropriately is a seoerate matter.
 
zoidberg said:
November Sierra, Sherlock! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I suspect that most people don't understand this type of report. They are to forensically examine, record and document the events that lead to the accident and while they state the obvious that has to be formally recorded.

Reports like this are difficult to write, I do them in another field, and they can only report on the facts. You need to leave conjecture and supposition out of the document. As part of the day job I read AAIB, MAIB and RAIB (rail) and they are all very thorough and extremely well written.

Over the last few years the Clipper organisation has come under a significant amount scrutiny from the MIAB. While the MAIB have no legal power to make things happen, that is another branch of MCA and rightly so, they do influence things. Hopefully, Clipper will seriously consider the adventure they are offering, redesign the boats and changing the crewing.

Personally, I have a few acquaintances who have sailed with them and have had a fantastic experience but I would never consider doing such a trip with Clipper due to their safety record.
 
john_morris_uk said:
I suspect that the depth was available at the helm, but the instruments weren't programmed to show it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is correct, but it looked like there were only two repeaters next to the helm?

Likely in 'ocean race mode' they prioritised showing wind angle / speed rather than depth
 
Last edited:
A depth sounder display is very useful / nigh on essential in coastal waters, but only in conjunction with a ' Kawi ' plotter or chart even if one knows the area...

Which is why I think there ought to have been a pro navigator / 1st Mate aboard.
 
Last edited:
I read the full report last night during a bout of insomnia... fair to say that any lingering respect I may have had for clipper has completely evaporated now. That report just shows a crew that was simply not ready to go ocean racing. And seemingly most of the fleet weren’t either!

That said... I think those here who are talking about cockpit plotters and depth sounders by the helm are slightly missing the point. This is not your cruising boat where you tie off the sheets and the auto helm drives whilst you keep an eye on things and navigate. This is (supposed to be) an ocean racing boat, and the last thing you do on race boats is load up the helmsman with more tasks. Driving a big boat downwind under kite is a full time task, especially at night. The problem here was not that they did not have the info at the helm, the problem was that they did not have anyone out of the 18 people on board actually navigating. Clearly the skipper did not trust any of his crew to do the job, but he also did not trust them to sail the boat without him on deck.
Which is why this crew was quite clearly not ready to sail in an ocean race.
 
flaming said:
I read the full report last night during a bout of insomnia... fair to say that any lingering respect I may have had for clipper has completely evaporated now. That report just shows a crew that was simply not ready to go ocean racing. And seemingly most of the fleet weren’t either!

That said... I think those here who are talking about cockpit plotters and depth sounders by the helm are slightly missing the point. This is not your cruising boat where you tie off the sheets and the auto helm drives whilst you keep an eye on things and navigate. This is (supposed to be) an ocean racing boat, and the last thing you do on race boats is load up the helmsman with more tasks. Driving a big boat downwind under kite is a full time task, especially at night. The problem here was not that they did not have the info at the helm, the problem was that they did not have anyone out of the 18 people on board actually navigating. Clearly the skipper did not trust any of his crew to do the job, but he also did not trust them to sail the boat without him on deck.
Which is why this crew was quite clearly not ready to sail in an ocean race.
Click to expand...

:encouragement:
 
What training is required to be commercial over and above that required to be yachtmaster? As far as I can tell it is just the professional practises bit, an online course, sea survival and medical. There is no revalidation of practical skills and no requirement to demonstrate continued professional development. My experience of reviewing drilling training and competency systems is that the RYA are missing a trick in the commercial space. In the amateur space, Yactmaster Instructors, still have to revalidate with their professional colleagues every 5 years, I believe (happy to be corrected).

It still says a lot that in the industry where RYA certificates are used, incidents are rare.
 
Seajet said:
I expect the accountants liked it from their shiney chairs - they are the root of most problems when people actually try to do anything.
Click to expand...

Are there any other tired old clichés that you'd like to contribute to demonstrate the depth of your knowledge?
 
Last edited:
As a concept, I really like the idea of the Clipper races. Big boat racing for anyone (ok, so long as they can write a big cheque). They do seem to be having their fair share of incidents lately and there will always be speculation as to whether these were isolated incidents to be expected from this sort of racing or whether these incidents reflect a broader underlying issue.

I suspect part of the problem is that offshore yacht racing has a strong element of routine and this is what people train for. Sail changes, watches, manoeuvres are all trained routines and I suspect that there is no routine of displaying or monitoring the depth when racing offshore.

However, there does seem to be a trend of poor navigation on these boats. The groundings of the Clipper yachts (amateur crew) and Team Vestas (professional crew). The YM scheme is pretty clear about the requirement to record and monitor the vessel's position at an appropriately frequent basis and it appears that in these instances, the skipper / navigator felt there were other priorities. As a number of others have said, this is not a failure of the YM Scheme, it's a failure of the skippers in implementing the skills for which they were trained and assessed under the YM scheme.

In my opinion, 4 weeks doesn't seem a particularly long time to become a competent crew on a 70foot Ocean Racing Boat, but I guess they get more experienced during the voyage. However, I think it would be prudent to have a few crew members to have 2 weeks of training to get their navigation and ColRegs skills up to YM Theory Standard. The Skipper shouldn't be the only qualified and experienced sailor on board (I think the MCA have also recognised this). Interestingly, the British Steel / BT Challenge boats had YM qualified watch leaders.
 
flaming said:
Clearly the skipper did not trust any of his crew to do the job, but he also did not trust them to sail the boat without him on deck.
Which is why this crew was quite clearly not ready to sail in an ocean race.
Click to expand...

And why the skipper was negligent?
 
BelleSerene said:
And why the skipper was negligent?
Click to expand...

Not only negligent in failing to sail within the capabilities of the crew, but also it seems, incapabable of teaching 'yot navigation' to a very basic level to his crew.
It would seem that the crew were not to contributing to the basic running of the yacht to the kind of level I'd expect from RYA Competent Crew badge holders?
Were they all just to told to shut up and sit to windward until some heavy things need lifting?
 
flaming said:
The problem here was not that they did not have the info at the helm, the problem was that they did not have anyone out of the 18 people on board actually navigating.
Click to expand...

+1.

Navigating a racing yacht is a full time role if you want it done properly. And that means a lot more than just watching a chartplotter or sitting at a nav station, it means been given the time to plan the navigation properly.

Cruising passage planning just involves planning where you want to go. Race nav planning means planning where you can safely go if the situation warrants it. Exactly the sort of thing that happened here - can you go into that bay gybe and get out safely or are there rocks that will catch you on the way out. It takes a lot of time to do decent planning and naturally much of it is wasted if the wind and tide means you can get the best advantage by reaching along two miles away from any hazard.

I don't really blame the skipper for this one. He was trying to muddle through best he could with a situation he inherited. It was the failure to appoint a suitable person to navigate and give them the time to prepare properly. I'd expect them to be identifying navigators when recruiting.

It's surprising really as most fully-crewed boats over 30' will have a dedicated naviguessor/tactician whether doing inshore, coastal or offshore racing. Those that don't usually just resort to following the leaders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top