Liquid Fallout

[fireball]

I know people don't plan on having "accidents", but quite often practices change following an accident and in some cases legislation follows.

Whilst I welcome "advice" from investigation, if the advice leads to compulsory changes in practice or legislation then it may have a significant adverse affect on the rest of us.

Assume for example - that it becomes compulsory to stay in port if there is a F10 in the forecast - not unreasonable you may think - but that could be seen as rather restrictive if you have a sheltered local delivery to do and a window opens up.

Perhaps all commercial skippers may be required to submit their passage plans to the principle of the school - actually, that's not such a bad idea and perhaps it's already a requirement - but if required not to deviate from the plan (except in an emergency) then it may prevent a skipper from taking advantage of some unforeseen situation (eg light wind day - plan is to do a bit of anchoring practice - unexpected breeze kicks in which would give good opportunity to sail a different passage - but not "authorised" by the principle).

The RYA may feel it has to "crack down" on the way schools are accredited or even how certificates are issued & examinations take place - changes usually result in additional expense and/or paperwork for the school - using up valuable resource that could be put to "better" use.

As far as I can see Laws and Rules generally set out what are often common sense decisions - but you can never legislate against stupidity and in trying to do so it often unfairly restricts those of us with a degree of common sense!

 

[macd]

I know people don't plan on having "accidents", but quite often practices change following an accident and in some cases legislation follows.

Whilst I welcome "advice" from investigation, if the advice leads to compulsory changes in practice or legislation then it may have a significant adverse affect on the rest of us.

As far as I can see Laws and Rules generally set out what are often common sense decisions - but you can never legislate against stupidity and in trying to do so it often unfairly restricts those of us with a degree of common sense!

Couldn't agree more. Quite a few of the responses to the original 'Helicopter Rescue off Dover' thread blindly blundered into the sort of thinking that clearly worries you (and me). The knee-jerk 'isn't it terrible, they should do something' response has no place in any formulation of policy, whether by the RYA, government or anyone else.

Usually 'Doing something' means one thing: more rules (Ok, and/or more taxes). Government rarely needs much excuse to impose either. Let's not give 'em the impression we agree.

The safety record of leisure boating in British waters has nothing to do with rules and requirements (blessedly few) and everything to do with a culture of seamanship. Sure, that doesn't guarantee that things won't go wrong, but neither would more regulations. Unless there's a systemic failure, and one or two highly publicised incidents are no evidence of that, the answer is simple: promote that culture.

 

[rib]

and how many cases like this do we actually get per year

 

[jimi]

Think we need some balance and should be careful not to over react. Ultimately no one died, the vessel did not sink. It seems to me more a cautionary tale of extreme discomfort through reckless skippering.

 

[SailorBill]

Think we need some balance and should be careful not to over react. Ultimately no one died, the vessel did not sink. It seems to me more a cautionary tale of extreme discomfort through reckless skippering.

+ 1

 

[webcraft]

Think we need some balance and should be careful not to over react. Ultimately no one died, the vessel did not sink. It seems to me more a cautionary tale of extreme discomfort through reckless skippering.

Yes, not really a big deal. Of course it could have been worse, but then I could have walked into the doorframe and split my head open when coming into my office instead of just stubbing my toe.

I imagine the bad publicity will have done them a lot of harm commercially and led to a review of their hiring and passage planning policies.

Stupid bl00dy name anyway - a good time to change it?

- W

 

[TiggerToo]

Think we need some balance and should be careful not to over react. Ultimately no one died, the vessel did not sink. It seems to me more a cautionary tale of extreme discomfort through reckless skippering.

quite

 

[fisherman]

Every time I have a conversation with the MCA about the latest requirements for fishing they say the same thing: "we are getting you lot sorted before we turn our attention to the leisure sector" or words to that effect.

It is because of the disastrous record of losses in fishing that action was taken. I have suggested before that you lot should start thinking about this before you have it thrust up you, which you won't like. At least we get free tuition and expense is tax relieved.

The usual response is "They won't be able to police it". Don't be too sure. How do 'they' police leisure flying?

You'll be OK until you have an unforeseen accident, not even your fault, but any lack of paperwork will drop you in it, and any loss, injury laid at your door. Could be a big bill.

 

[fireball]

and how many cases like this do we actually get per year

You don't need many cases for someone prominent to stand up and shout "this must never happen again" ... then the rules/laws start creeping further into restricting our sport.

I'm with everyone in saying that the boat shouldn't have been there - but not if a law gets put forward which says the boat MUST NOT be there.

Others have said that they've sailed in adverse conditions and survived with no problem - I've had my boat out in a F8 with stronger winds (not 10) forecast - but always a calculated decision, not taken lightly.

I've raced dinghies in winds that have other crews abandoning their boats - in conditions that some clubs won't even allow their members to rig ... that ability only comes with experience and a sense of adventure - and that is what is at risk - our ability to lawfully "adventure" and keep control of the risk we wish to put ourselves in.

Whilst in hindsight the HL skipper made a bad decision (understatement IMO!!), it could have equally gone quite well - given suitable crew and correct timing of a decision to abort. Whilst personally I wouldn't have stepped foot on the vessel intending to do that distance with that forecast, I don't want the decision to sail or not taken away from the skipper by some bureaucrat who cannot possibly consider all the elements for every single eventuality.

 

[Kukri]

Good thread and very pertinent comment from Fisherman.

Many many years ago Uffa Fox, he who took the Cowes Sea Scouts to Paris and back in an open pulling boat (he was fired as Scoutmaster for that one) who crossed the Channel twice in an International 14 and again in a sliding seat canoe, wrote, "I think that underwriters would be justified in refusing to pay on a boat which set out to sea with a gale forecast."

 

[Genoa]

+ 1

+ another

send all potential commercial skippers on a proper "customer service workshop" to get rid of some of the "I was in the forces" or "I've been at sea in a tanker" attitude that is rife. We want normal people with normal standards & communication skills most of the time.

(I think that is actually more important than an H&S course where peeps generally leave with either an over zealousness or a view that it was all b*****ks) - If skippers thought more about what the crew need to hear rather than simply what they want to say we'd all be better off.

 

[Judders]

We dont need laws or rules, we need people to stop doing dumb things.

Of course that is easier to say than to do. There will always be duumbasses in sailing, people from whom we can learn, and we'll always make our own mistakes, you could not sensibly legislate against it.

What makes people angry about the Liquid Vortex issues (three in twelve months) is that someone is profiting from risking stupid mistakes without being the same person taking on the risk of the rescue or the injury.

 

[Judders]

We want normal people with normal standards & communication skills most of the time.

The problem is that an awful lot of the better charter sippers have fled the industry in recent years to be replaced by lesser skippers. I have a few close friends who are or have been charter skippers and instructors and I am lucky enough to take part in several corportate sailing events in the course of my job. Whilst there are still some good guys out there, many good skippers are seeing the presures put on by charter compannies, clients, insurers, H&S and are thinking better of it, it's not like the money is a living wage anyway.

 

[fireball]

Every time I have a conversation with the MCA about the latest requirements for fishing they say the same thing: "we are getting you lot sorted before we turn our attention to the leisure sector" or words to that effect.

It is because of the disastrous record of losses in fishing that action was taken. I have suggested before that you lot should start thinking about this before you have it thrust up you, which you won't like.

Yes - that is my concern ... it only takes a few high profile events like this one to raise the awareness of the relative freedom in sailing - the attitude will come in that "if they can't look after themselves then we'll look after them" that is so prevalent in many areas of the UK under the Health and Safety banner ...

We've already got creeping H&S imposing itself - signs like "caution, slipway slippery" is a case in point ... slipways ARE slippery ... people using these facilities should assume that it is slippery, then when it isn't it's a surprise - they shouldn't need to be told ...

 

[Blueboatman]

So here we are folks. Slippy Liquids' teflon reputation tarnished in the chasing of profits, we get the legislation and ultimately, the bill for their THIRD rescue.

I think they should Go Forth and ( not) Multiply, ugh. Cretinous capitalism.

RYA. Let's see if you can sort this in house, eh?

 

[Talulah]

We've already got creeping H&S imposing itself - signs like "caution, slipway slippery" is a case in point ... slipways ARE slippery ... people using these facilities should assume that it is slippery, then when it isn't it's a surprise - they shouldn't need to be told ...

It gets worse. If a slipway has a sign for slippery slipway then other slipways will follow. Otherwise once the majority have a sign anyone who slips where there wasn't a sign will sue the owner.
It's like having railings around a dock basin. No railings and you fall in then tough. But once railings are the norm and someone falls in where there aren't railings then a law suit could follow.

 

[Bav34]

But once railings are the norm and someone falls in where there aren't railings then a law suit could follow.

I like the French approach in Cherbourg.

Between the marina and the town is a humungously deep drydock with a minimalist little chain at shin height.

However they do have a sign as well.

''Danger of Death''

 

[macd]

We've already got creeping H&S imposing itself - signs like "caution, slipway slippery" is a case in point ...

For the most part that sort of nonsense has nothing to do with H&S but everything to do with fear of liability (which doesn't render it any more palatable).

 

[npf1]

Yep, never underestimate the politicians ability to introduce p*** poor legislation as a result of a knee jerk media hyped reaction. Dunblane and hand guns spring to mind.

The legislation stopped nothing and may well have had the opposite result to that intended. Hand guns are sadly now commonplace in crime and, apparently, easily bought or rented for a less than £100.

 

[Pete R]

Every time I have a conversation with the MCA about the latest requirements for fishing they say the same thing: "we are getting you lot sorted before we turn our attention to the leisure sector" or words to that effect.

I suppose it all depends on who you speak to and when.

I recently had a good conversation with the MCA regarding coding of sailing vessels and the chap said that since the change of government they are now taking a more pragmatic approach to legislation with the aim of education rather than enforcement.

Have to wait and see I suppose.