Liquid Vortex trial starts

Pye_End said:
If you watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvdPL7a_uNU do you get the impression that the customers wanted to be out in that sort of weather? This was not a summer gale with an experienced crew, but a well forecast storm and a crew that did not know what they were letting themselves in for. The passage plan was very flawed.

If you believe that the skipper had made the correct decision, then why did he put out a pan pan? Answer - because he eventually realised what most on these threads have said - it was a foolhardy decision to continue past Eastbourne.
Click to expand...

The crew knew what they were letting themselves in for - a sail in a storm and heavy weather experience. They might not have understood how unpleasant that could potentially be.

A bit like a friend of a friend who went on an Everest expedition - he made it, but did not enjoy it and vowed never to let him self do anything as silly as that again.

The video footage looks very tame by the way.

I have set sail in a F9 which corresponded exactly to the forecast. It had been F9 the day before; and was going to only gradually die down the day after. I knew exactly what I was letting myself into. I had a good scout from the top of the headland to understand exactly the sea state I would be encountering. We had a very confortable sail - the deck stayed dried and MIL prepared a curry from all the ingredients (chopping the onions, chicken etc) and using the oven and stove.

So his crew got sea sick. As most of you know, someone who is really seasick just wants to die and/or get off the boat asap. I have had crew who have been sea sick. They curl up in the rear cabin where they cannot fall out of the bunk and stay there in perfect safety.

So was this guy irresponsible to set sail in those conditions?
Probably not. The boat was well up to the forecast conditions and more.
He probably had the necessary experience and capability to skipper in those conditions.

Was he irresponsible to rely on a crew he did not know?
May be - although on paper they had sufficient qualifications between them.

Did he misrepresent the weather they might encounter to his crew or what the trip would be like in any way?
No.

Did the crew get seasick, want to die and want to get out of there?
They sure did.

Was this your average med charter in warm sunshine and balmy winds?
Not quite.

The crew seem to have completely misunderstood what a storm in the English channel in winter is likely to be like. They got what was promised, and a whole lot more than they wanted.
 
michaelchapman said:
The crew knew what they were letting themselves in for - a sail in a storm and heavy weather experience. They might not have understood how unpleasant that could potentially be.

A bit like a friend of a friend who went on an Everest expedition - he made it, but did not enjoy it and vowed never to let him self do anything as silly as that again.

The video footage looks very tame by the way.

I have set sail in a F9 which corresponded exactly to the forecast. It had been F9 the day before; and was going to only gradually die down the day after. I knew exactly what I was letting myself into. I had a good scout from the top of the headland to understand exactly the sea state I would be encountering. We had a very confortable sail - the deck stayed dried and MIL prepared a curry from all the ingredients (chopping the onions, chicken etc) and using the oven and stove.

So his crew got sea sick. As most of you know, someone who is really seasick just wants to die and/or get off the boat asap. I have had crew who have been sea sick. They curl up in the rear cabin where they cannot fall out of the bunk and stay there in perfect safety.

So was this guy irresponsible to set sail in those conditions?
Probably not. The boat was well up to the forecast conditions and more.
He probably had the necessary experience and capability to skipper in those conditions.

Was he irresponsible to rely on a crew he did not know?
May be - although on paper they had sufficient qualifications between them.

Did he misrepresent the weather they might encounter to his crew or what the trip would be like in any way?
No.

Did the crew get seasick, want to die and want to get out of there?
They sure did.

Was this your average med charter in warm sunshine and balmy winds?
Not quite.

The crew seem to have completely misunderstood what a storm in the English channel in winter is likely to be like. They got what was promised, and a whole lot more than they wanted.
Click to expand...

+1

(Apart from the minor quibble that at least one of the crew really enjoyed it and is quoted in YM saying so.)
 
Last edited:
A1Sailor said:
More at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFO-PWAGU5U&feature=endscreen&NR=1
The bit at ~0:25 looks particularly scary :eek: Nice it all ended happily.
Click to expand...

Apart from the guy in the dock & the company wound up. But yes, no-one died.

What are the potential outcomes of the trial if found guilty? I can see removal of certification - but that is presumably within the remit of RYA rather than the court anyway. But it worries me a little that CS might possibly get a prison sentence for being over confident.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
If he kidnapped them, then he should be charged with that. I stongly suspect they DID want to go, and only changed their minds later.
Click to expand...

I am sure you are right - they probably trusted before the skipper before they went to keep them safe. Doesn't mean they wanted to be out in those conditions though. Ultimately the decision to sail with a F10 forecast does not rest with the crew but with the skipper.

Thee courts may prefer to question as to whether the crew and skipper were realistically able to take on a F10. It seems pretty clear they were not. If some of the previous information is to be believed it could have been more like F8, maybe F9, when the pan pan was put out, which makes the decision to be out with a F10 forecast look even more foolhardy.
 
Pye_End said:
Ultimately the decision to sail with a F10 forecast does not rest with the crew but with the skipper.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The paying customer decides. The customer can step off the boat if they don't fancy the trip. Even once at sea they could easily have overpowered the skipper and in the end they called the CG without consulting him. The skipper had no legal authority of any kind. The skipper could not make anyone go anywhere.


Pye_End said:
which makes the decision to be out with a F10 forecast look even more foolhardy.
Click to expand...

...in the same way that free climbing is foolhardy. Free climbing isn't illegal and nor should sailing in an F10 be. And that assumes they planned to be out in a F10 and it seems clear to me they didn't plan that at all.
 
michaelchapman said:
I have set sail in a F9 which corresponded exactly to the forecast.
Click to expand...

This was a F10 forecast.

I am sure that the skipper will do his best to convince the court that his judgement was sound to continue past his last port of refuge with a F10 forecast and 3 of his crew seasick, still 50 miles to go on a passage of over 100miles. It will be interesting reading.
 
michaelchapman said:
The crew knew what they were letting themselves in for - a sail in a storm and heavy weather experience. They might not have understood how unpleasant that could potentially be.

A bit like a friend of a friend who went on an Everest expedition - he made it, but did not enjoy it and vowed never to let him self do anything as silly as that again.

The video footage looks very tame by the way.

I have set sail in a F9 which corresponded exactly to the forecast. It had been F9 the day before; and was going to only gradually die down the day after. I knew exactly what I was letting myself into. I had a good scout from the top of the headland to understand exactly the sea state I would be encountering. We had a very confortable sail - the deck stayed dried and MIL prepared a curry from all the ingredients (chopping the onions, chicken etc) and using the oven and stove.

So his crew got sea sick. As most of you know, someone who is really seasick just wants to die and/or get off the boat asap. I have had crew who have been sea sick. They curl up in the rear cabin where they cannot fall out of the bunk and stay there in perfect safety.

So was this guy irresponsible to set sail in those conditions?
Probably not. The boat was well up to the forecast conditions and more.
He probably had the necessary experience and capability to skipper in those conditions.

Was he irresponsible to rely on a crew he did not know?
May be - although on paper they had sufficient qualifications between them.

Did he misrepresent the weather they might encounter to his crew or what the trip would be like in any way?
No.

Did the crew get seasick, want to die and want to get out of there?
They sure did.

Was this your average med charter in warm sunshine and balmy winds?
Not quite.

The crew seem to have completely misunderstood what a storm in the English channel in winter is likely to be like. They got what was promised, and a whole lot more than they wanted.
Click to expand...

Michael, I wholly agree with your post.

However, there is one factor missing and it is this :

The vessel set out unprepared for heavy weather.
It did not carry an emergency tiller in the event of steering failure.
And it did not carry a drogue, essential if heaving to in heavy seas under bare poles or under a handkerchief jib.
If the vessel had been properly equipped as above, the outcome would have been very different.
The root cause is lack of having the right kit on board at the time.
I cannot understand someone setting out expecting a hooley in the neck of a funnel without ensuring the vessel is properly kitted out, is my view.
 
Searush said:
Apart from the guy in the dock & the company wound up. But yes, no-one died.

What are the potential outcomes of the trial if found guilty? I can see removal of certification - but that is presumably within the remit of RYA rather than the court anyway. But it worries me a little that CS might possibly get a prison sentence for being over confident.
Click to expand...

+1
 
VO5 said:
Michael, I wholly agree with your post.

However, there is one factor missing and it is this :

The vessel set out unprepared for heavy weather.
It did not carry an emergency tiller in the event of steering failure.
And it did not carry a drogue, essential if heaving to in heavy seas under bare poles or under a handkerchief jib.
If the vessel had been properly equipped as above, the outcome would have been very different.
The root cause is lack of having the right kit on board at the time.
I cannot understand someone setting out expecting a hooley in the neck of a funnel without ensuring the vessel is properly kitted out, is my view.
Click to expand...

The wheel was folded around the binnacle, how would an emergency tiller help? You would have to disconnect all the wheel cables for it to work & that might not be easy in those conditions. They straightened the wheel once there was an RNLI man aboard to assist (the crew had all given up due to seasickness & injury).

Not totally sure of the value of a drogue either in such a location where sea room is severely limited and the seas are so short & steep due to the shallow water & the funnelling effect of the Fench & English coasts. Even in open oceans with longer seas & loads of sea room many experienced circumnavigators say the drogues are of limited value & sometimes make matters worse (damage to rudder, seas breaking aboard etc).

You may think you know the answers, I would not be so certain.
 
Probably shouldn't admit this, but I did my comp crew and day skipper with these chaps (Jason in fact), when they just started up. They certainly didn't have a gung ho attitude back then.
 
The Solent sailing school market is pretty tough. To survive you need to offer something the others don't.

I wonder whether Hot Liquid were going for being the sailing school that would give students edgy experiences when everyone else was sitting in harbour.

I've met a few of their 2011 customers who were happy with them but did talk of a somewhat laddish culture.
 
Merry Girl said:
The Solent sailing school market is pretty tough. To survive you need to offer something the others don't.

I wonder whether Hot Liquid were going for being the sailing school that would give students edgy experiences when everyone else was sitting in harbour.

I've met a few of their 2011 customers who were happy with them but did talk of a somewhat laddish culture.
Click to expand...

It's not actually a bad idea and no doubt attracted the laddish types!
 
alant said:
Did that include the girls onboard?
Click to expand...

My experience is that Solent sailing schools want customers who make regular repeat bookings and they need a unique approach to get these.

HL's approach, according to what I was told, was relatively informal compared to other sailing schools. I was speculating that this might have been their way of attracting repeat customers.

Laddish was perhaps a poor choice of words, although yes, women can be laddish too.

I am not criticising the crew/customers involved in the Liquid Vortex incident: I found the RNLI video quite moving.
 
I have been watching this thread with some interest. It is, of course, all way outside my experience.

However, I would be grateful if someone could clear up an aparrant inconsistency for me - much has been made in recent posts of the skipper's decision to set out into a f10, whereas previously it was being described as "forecast f10", then in the earliest posts the forecast was described along the lines of "f7, worsening later to f10". Where "later" was some 6 hours after the intended arrival at destination. Could someone please explain which was the correct forecast, and how accurate it turned ut to be?

You see, to my mind there's a world of difference between setting out, and planning to complete, a voyage in f7 - and, as recent posts seem to suggest, setting off into f01 - so which was it?
 
mikefleetwood said:
I have been watching this thread with some interest. It is, of course, all way outside my experience.

However, I would be grateful if someone could clear up an aparrant inconsistency for me - much has been made in recent posts of the skipper's decision to set out into a f10, whereas previously it was being described as "forecast f10", then in the earliest posts the forecast was described along the lines of "f7, worsening later to f10". Where "later" was some 6 hours after the intended arrival at destination. Could someone please explain which was the correct forecast, and how accurate it turned ut to be?

You see, to my mind there's a world of difference between setting out, and planning to complete, a voyage in f7 - and, as recent posts seem to suggest, setting off into f01 - so which was it?
Click to expand...

You've never had a voyage take longer than expected, then, or the wind stronger, or changing sooner, than forecast?

If you're going to take the paying public, you need to be able to demonstrate you have considered and made a reasonable professional assessement of the risks involved, such as those mentioned above, and how you are going to manage them if they occur. He may yet be able to convince the court that he had done so, but having failed (as far as I can tell) to take advantage of the harbours of refuge available to him before he passed a 'point of no return', committing himself and crew into increasingly confined and busy waters with no safe harbour available to him for a long distance/time, with impending weather that may well equate to 'survival' conditions given the tidal waters, traffic and lack of sea room, I expect he will have an uphill struggle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top