Latest 'stable door bolting' from MAIB

[RobF]

Problem is, there are fair weather sailors who meet the passage and hours criteria but have never been out in truly testing conditions. The weekend I did my YM exam, it took place in the Solent with winds around F4-F5 so the examiner had no idea how I would cope with nasty conditions.

Same problem applies with amateur aviation. I failed a few "flat site" pilots having check flights at our hill site gliding club. Despite lots of hours experience some couldn't cope when wave rota was on the hill and not fit to fly solo.

I'm strongly agreeing with you on this point, but isn't this just a known weakness with any practical or theoretical exam?

Using your aviation example, I'm assuming aviation candidates need to be able to land their aircraft in a crosswind. I'm also assuming this this is hard to assess unless crosswind conditions are present on the day of their exams. Therefore, when examining a practical routine, the examiners have to consider the performance of a candidate doing a particular task and extrapolate from this their expected ability to perform similar tasks.

By way of personal example, for my YM I was assessed on my ability to berth on mooring buoys and marina berths. I wasn't assessed on pile moorings or drying moorings (e.g. against a wall). I assume my examiner thought my competence at buoys and marina berths meant it was likely that I was competent at other mooring tasks. On my YM theory exam, there was some kind of extrapolation of my knowledge on some ColRegs as I wasn't asked about every single reg. Interestingly I would have still passed the theory exam if I got a couple of the ColRegs questions wrong.

I'm not sure whether there is any way round having this kind of extrapolation for both practical and theoretical tests unless there were some kind of continual assessment regime for professional skippers so that they are assessed in a variety of conditions.

On a related note, I suspect that fair weather YMs are more likely to be of the 'slow track' variety. If you're fast-track, you go out whatever the weather to fit the miles into the allocated time. As a slow track YM, I generally don't go out if it's over F6 . After all, I sail for pleasure and don't really see much point in beating up myself and my boat by going out in adverse conditions. That said, I ought to caveat that I have been out in some pretty unpleasant conditions and your use of the word 'cope' is spot on.

 

[lw395]

In most of the world of YM employment, it's not a case of just getting a certificate.
Most active commercial YMs are emloyed on the basis of their CV, reputation, references.
Most are under a level of supervision from their employers.

When things go wrong, there usually seems to be a problem above and beyond the YM himself.

 

[lpdsn]

In most of the world of YM employment, it's not a case of just getting a certificate.
Most active commercial YMs are emloyed on the basis of their CV, reputation, references.
Most are under a level of supervision from their employers.

When things go wrong, there usually seems to be a problem above and beyond the YM himself.

That hits the nail on the head.

 

[Graham376]

I'm strongly agreeing with you on this point, but isn't this just a known weakness with any practical or theoretical exam?

Using your aviation example, I'm assuming aviation candidates need to be able to land their aircraft in a crosswind. I'm also assuming this this is hard to assess unless crosswind conditions are present on the day of their exams.

Slightly different training in that it takes place over many flights with varying conditions and instructors have to note exercises undertaken & completed in log books. Cross winds easy to arrange on grass or multi runway airfields and, when early solo, daily check flights and briefings are the norm.

 

[Uricanejack]

Not sure why we have drifted into the quality of YMs and different means of obtaining one. I doesn’t appear to be part of the findings.

The finding is the boat had the right no of the correct levels of certification on board. Which were required by the MCA.
The recommendations are they neaded at least one more.

The MCA acceptance of the clipper coxswain in lui of a YM.
Apears to be criticized which is a respeat of observation from earlier reports. This reflects less than well on both Clipper and The MCA.

Perhaps if there were two young keen fast tracked YMs . One of them might have known where they were.

Back into the drift.
Holding any certificate just means you met the minimum requirements on the day.

If choosing between 2 candidates one old crusty salt and 1 fast track
I would probably pick the fast track on the basis I know they have received training
.

 

[zoidberg]

There's a world of difference between 'displaying the required knowledge' and 'displaying the required competency'.
Some around here would do well to ponder what that means....

 

[Graham376]

If choosing between 2 candidates one old crusty salt and 1 fast track would probably pick the fast track on the basis I know they have received training
.

Sorry to disagree but, in every walk of life these days there are crusty old guys who've been there and done far more than the youngsters but sadly, they can't get the job due to lack of certificate/formal qualifications.

 

[BelleSerene]

Interesting conversation about the adequacy or otherwise of YM as a qualification for skippering or even taking a responsible crew role on a RTW race. I'm on the fence myself: the YM scheme is admirable in its focus on practical command and situational awareness rather than just technical learning, yet these are clearly the qualities that were lacking in the Clipper experiences.

But either way, surely responsibility lies with the skipper. Not to say others don't bear responsibility too. But as skipper, whether your crew is18 landlubber pastry chefs or 18 RTW single-hander veterans, you give people roles, you ask for information, you set procedures that if X or Y does or doesn't happen, somebody specific does something and tells you. You don't, for example, have no-one on watch navigating, both qualified navigators off watch, no personal awareness of your location, no procedure for monitoring depth when nearing land, and then go on deck yourself to sort out a sail change and still not delegate such tasks to someone.

Whatever the shortcomings in crew selection, and whatever the organisational failings that allowed it to happen, fundamentally it's a competence issue with the leadership on board, and that was clearly lacking.

 

[lpdsn]

But either way, surely responsibility lies with the skipper. Not to say others don't bear responsibility too. But as skipper, whether your crew is18 landlubber pastry chefs or 18 RTW single-hander veterans, you give people roles, you ask for information, you set procedures that if X or Y does or doesn't happen, somebody specific does something and tells you. You don't, for example, have no-one on watch navigating, both qualified navigators off watch, no personal awareness of your location, no procedure for monitoring depth when nearing land, and then go on deck yourself to sort out a sail change and still not delegate such tasks to someone.

Whatever the shortcomings in crew selection, and whatever the organisational failings that allowed it to happen, fundamentally it's a competence issue with the leadership on board, and that was clearly lacking.

But it's not just a matter of telling us that. You've got to tell us how you would've ensured that happened in the day or two (if I've understood the report correctly) that this skipper had with the crew for this leg. And you'd have to allow for most of that time being lost to social events and immigration formalities.

As a race naviguesser I've pushed in to the coast much closer than they did, sailed over green bits etc whilst racing. But the key thing is that I did that with proper preparation, which took a fair bit of time. What's more if I said gybe it was just done. And I emphasise that was amateur racing.

I guess I'm just going to accept that I'll have to agree to disagree with most other posters on this thread but I feel sorry for the bloke that was put into this position. He set off on an ocean race with a scratch crew and ended up racing along a coast with no time to do much more than glance at the chart as he went along. As the facts in the report highlight he was just the unluckiest of a bunch of skippers who let the situation get out of control.

 

[capnsensible]

And if he or she is very experienced, they'd be well advised to rent a boat and go off on their own! It'd be far safer.

Especially if they did the 25 day pre race training.....

https://www.clipperroundtheworld.com/crew/training

Might help those who think they all just turn up on the dock and go.

 

[westhinder]

But it's not just a matter of telling us that. You've got to tell us how you would've ensured that happened in the day or two (if I've understood the report correctly) that this skipper had with the crew for this leg. And you'd have to allow for most of that time being lost to social events and immigration formalities.

As a race naviguesser I've pushed in to the coast much closer than they did, sailed over green bits etc whilst racing. But the key thing is that I did that with proper preparation, which took a fair bit of time. What's more if I said gybe it was just done. And I emphasise that was amateur racing.

I guess I'm just going to accept that I'll have to agree to disagree with most other posters on this thread but I feel sorry for the bloke that was put into this position. He set off on an ocean race with a scratch crew and ended up racing along a coast with no time to do much more than glance at the chart as he went along. As the facts in the report highlight he was just the unluckiest of a bunch of skippers who let the situation get out of control.

I can agree with you, but if you accept this conclusion, the next question must be about the organisation that allows this kind of situation to happen, and lets the clients pay lost of money for the privilege. I asked this question before on here and was shot down by a number of people who would not allow anyone to doubt the Clipper business model and ethos. I think the question bears repeating.

 

[lpdsn]

Might help those who think they all just turn up on the dock and go.

Training doesn't seem to have been much use if the navigator was so far short of being up to speed that the skipper was doing it for him and the crew couldn't gybe the spinnaker without detailed direct supervision on the foredeck.

 

[lw395]

Training doesn't seem to have been much use if the navigator was so far short of being up to speed that the skipper was doing it for him and the crew couldn't gybe the spinnaker without detailed direct supervision on the foredeck.

Exactly.
Either these boats are to be sailed by the paid hands while the punters are little more than passengers meaning a lot more paid hands, or the training needs to get the punters up to a standard where the paid hands' workload is reduced to a viable level.

 

[capnsensible]

Training doesn't seem to have been much use if the navigator was so far short of being up to speed that the skipper was doing it for him and the crew couldn't gybe the spinnaker without detailed direct supervision on the foredeck.

Should've gybed earlier, eh?

 

[lw395]

It's interesting to note these boats gybing through about 90 degrees according to the tracks in the report.
They were sailing at 10 to 12 knots it seems. In 20 to 25 knots of breeze?
As they are 20m lwl, hull speed would be about 11 knots.

Looks like a lot of asymmetric posing about, when sailing a bit slower but a lot deeper would have been more useful?
I know they are heavy, but in 20 knots of breeze, would they not make better VMG that way?

 

[lpdsn]

Should've gybed earlier, eh?

A good well trained race crew would've gybed earlier in those circumstances. Would've had the naviguesser monitoring the position and calling the gybe and the crew doing it with the skipper just monitoring.

They probably wouldn't have called it much earlier but they wouldn't have wasted time with a broach and a foredeck instruction session. In addition the naviguesser would've been monitoring the position throughout and would've warned them of the shallows they were heading towards after the gybe. He wouldn't have been on the foredeck.

 

[lpdsn]

It's interesting to note these boats gybing through about 90 degrees according to the tracks in the report.
They were sailing at 10 to 12 knots it seems. In 20 to 25 knots of breeze?
As they are 20m lwl, hull speed would be about 11 knots.

Looks like a lot of asymmetric posing about, when sailing a bit slower but a lot deeper would have been more useful?
I know they are heavy, but in 20 knots of breeze, would they not make better VMG that way?

Probably helming cautious angles because of inexperienced helmsmen. Ironic isn't it?

White sails might've been a good idea given the crew, but a hard decision to make to decide to be last a few hours after the start. Not what the punters had paid for.

 

[Resolution]

Exactly.
Either these boats are to be sailed by the paid hands while the punters are little more than passengers meaning a lot more paid hands, or the training needs to get the punters up to a standard where the paid hands' workload is reduced to a viable level.

Spot on.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Link?

The very first post in this thread, darling.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Best you don't do the race. What was the result of your email to them pointing out their deficiencies?

Even if I wanted to play racer, I wouldn't do it with that bunch of chancers. You really ought to read the MAIB report. It might shake your hitherto immovable faith.