Liquid Vortex trial starts

A sailing school boss and skipper have been acquitted of four of seven charges regarding a yacht rescue in the Channel.

The owner of Hot Liquid Sailing, Jason Manning, and Charles Sturrock, who was the skipper of Liquid Vortex, a Bénéteau First 40.7 owned by Hot Liquid, had faced three counts and four counts respectively of negligence under the Merchant Shipping Act.

A judge at Southampton Crown Court ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict for four of the charges against the pair relating to standard operating procedures. The judge said there was not sufficient evidence to take the charges further.

Manning, 36, of Eastleigh, and Sturrock, 50, of Shropshire, still face three charges relating to failing to identify risks to the yacht and crew. Manning and Sturrock deny all the charges.

Earlier in the case, which has run for almost two weeks, the court heard how some of Liquid Vortex's crew suffered from hypothermia and seasickness after Sturrock set sail with forecast high winds.


The five had each paid £225 to sail from Southampton to London and were expecting to arrive in time for the London Boat Show in January.


The boat was rescued off Dungeness by an RNLI lifeboat and some crew were airlifted to safety.

The trial continues.
 
A sailing school boss and skipper have been acquitted of four of seven charges regarding a yacht rescue in the Channel.

<snip>
A judge at Southampton Crown Court ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict for four of the charges against the pair relating to standard operating procedures. The judge said there was not sufficient evidence to take the charges further.
Blimey - we have to keep repeating old news don't we! ;)
 
an Anderson 22 is OK, but ...

Well it would be his first sensible move in a while; the keels stay on, dont'ya know ! :D

... a Wayfarer in cruising mode* might suit a SOLO CS's 'up and at 'em' style better-but Frank Dye, like Blondie Haslar("...drown like a gentleman"), never expected rescue, and Frank did not carry vhf or flares on many of his trips.

*(I see Ralph finally did the whole Baltic from November's PBO- wonder how his joints are?:D Mine made us seek a lid and decent cushions, and Waffies are so Bl@@dy heavy to haul up slipways!!!:o)
 
A sailing school boss and skipper have been acquitted of four of seven charges regarding a yacht rescue in the Channel.

The owner of Hot Liquid Sailing, Jason Manning, and Charles Sturrock, who was the skipper of Liquid Vortex, a Bénéteau First 40.7 owned by Hot Liquid, had faced three counts and four counts respectively of negligence under the Merchant Shipping Act.

A judge at Southampton Crown Court ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict for four of the charges against the pair relating to standard operating procedures. The judge said there was not sufficient evidence to take the charges further.

Manning, 36, of Eastleigh, and Sturrock, 50, of Shropshire, still face three charges relating to failing to identify risks to the yacht and crew. Manning and Sturrock deny all the charges.

Earlier in the case, which has run for almost two weeks, the court heard how some of Liquid Vortex's crew suffered from hypothermia and seasickness after Sturrock set sail with forecast high winds.


The five had each paid £225 to sail from Southampton to London and were expecting to arrive in time for the London Boat Show in January.


The boat was rescued off Dungeness by an RNLI lifeboat and some crew were airlifted to safety.

The trial continues.

its nice to now not know which of the four not known charges have been dropped and to also now not know which three not known charges have not been dropped.
 
And for those too lazy to google for the latest press report - Daily Echo

Sounds a bit like "It wisnae me".

and for those....
"relating to" and "regarding" does not constitute a charge. so still not known.
sounds like "you're on your own pal" to me. i would like to know what the track records of his "arguably not so good" skippers were like.
 
Weeeell.....

and for those....
"relating to" and "regarding" does not constitute a charge. so still not known.
sounds like "you're on your own pal" to me. i would like to know what the track records of his "arguably not so good" skippers were like.

... once CS slipped the lines, he was (Master under God, remember?), since nothing JM said over the phone/vhf would/could have deflected CS from his chosen path, if CS chose to ignore JM, sensible intermediate ports of refuge, and a forecast no sensible Skipper(with time in hand too) would have wanted to be out in. After all, conditions can change all too rapidly, esp in the Chops of the Channel and around headlands, and a forecast is just and only that.

After all..."F6 is a yachtsman's gale" as a piece of received wisdom, has been around for a long time- that's why the RTW Clipper fleet have such a work up period for their crew pool, to harden them up/sort out the wheat from the chaff in heavy weather sailing- they get a lot of that if their videos are to be believed.

The HL 'ANSG' Skippers were probably all tucked up in Gosport or Cowes, eating a curry:D
 
I think it's the confusion of others which is confusing you.

The forecast issued at 1100 said, possible F10 later. That means from 2300 the same evening through to the end of the validity of the forecast 24 hours from its issue. So he had a forecast which indicated the risk of encountering a possible F10 anywhere from 2300 on Monday to 1100 on Tuesday.[/QUOT

Only just catching up after several days away so if this is commented on else where sorry but you are wrong by one hour. An Inshore Waters Forecast issued at 1100 UTC will then be "valid from 1200 UTC to 1200 UTC" the next day. Only Storm Warnings are valid from time of issue. Also exact definition of "later" is after 12 hours.
 
Ah, the benefits of going on a day Skipper course. :D

PS
Just to remind everyone, the forecasts (imminent, soon, later) are from time of issue by the met office, not from the time of the broadcast you are listening to.

Sorry you are wrong, Storm Warnings are from time of issue, Inshore Waters Forecasts have a "Valid from/to", they are not from time of issue.
 
He passed Beachy Head at 1am with 48 miles to go, and had averaged a bit over 6kn over the ground thus far. At 6am he was still underway and 12 miles to get to Dover. Dover was always more like 0730 to 0800. At 0600 - 0700 he would not have got into Dover - it was too dangerous, and he wasn't there.

The critical part of the process were the decisions to continue based on the forecasts available.

Check out the tide ref SOG, if he had been doing over 6Kn SOG to Beachy Head with tide against him, it turned for about 8 - 9 hours at that point so maybe 8 - 9kn?? 0600 - 0700 at Dover may have been quite posible? Also check the timing of the PAN PAN at Dungeness 0500 so under 2 hours to Dover?
 
I have indeed , but however in this case the Lifeboat came out because there was a request for help, not that there was a request for help because a lifeboat came out and swamped them!!!


I'm glad this case was brought because its obvious these cowboys are a danger to their paying customers .. how many other sailing schools have as many incidents in such a short time? If no case had been brought it would be a clear signal that there was no teeth in the regulation and unfortunately iiresponsible idiots spoil it for everyone else. I learned that in my first year at primary school ...

Think you are wrong, from the info that has come out so far, including from MCA/RNLI the first call was a PAN PAN, not a request for help, thge MAYDAY was sent over an hour later just a couple of minutes after the life boat arived on station.
 
Have you considered the context of why the charges were brought? The sailing school had been involved in a number of rescues and at least two MAIB investigations in the last few years. Perhaps the management culture was as "sloppy" as the reporting and it is quite right for the firm to go under before somebody died? The skipper lost his qualification but he knew that it could be removed when he achieved it and he can still sail, nothing stops that. Is that such a big price to pay?

While in time all charges may be dropped, that is for the court to decide, I am quite sure the each and every sailing school is following the case with interest and will review the way they operate.

I think the skipper was quite correct to send a PAN PAN, I know I would given the situation. As for carrying a spare bulb, I can't see them being able to fit it given the conditions.

All sport is risky, I have lost good friends both in climbing accidents and at sea, the trick it to balance the risks to go or not go, but as I kept telling my mum - I am at more risk driving to the mountain before climbing it!


Skipper was only suspended fr 3 months and has been working all summer for 3 of the major schools in the Solent so some people still trust him!?
 
Top