Liquid Vortex trial starts

yet the skipper remained with his vessel, sailing her safely to ramsgate, single handed presumably, -unless the lifeboat man stayed aboard.

is this trial really in anyone's interest?

Lets just remind ourselves of the situation. here's statement by the MAIB at the time.

"Liquid Vortex and her crew set off from Shamrock Quay at 14:30 on Monday the 2nd of January bound for Ramsgate. The passage plan was to arrive at Ramsgate at approximately lunchtime on Tuesday the 3rd of January, weather conditions allowing, with possible safe havens of; Brighton, Eastbourne or Dover on route.

"Given the weather forecast prior to departure (West / Southwest Force 5/7 possibly Force 10 later), visiting one of these safe havens was becoming likely. The updated weather forecast at 19:30 remained the same.

"Liquid Vortex and her crew continued to sail along the South Coast during the day in winds of 20+ knots with gusts reaching Force 7 into the early hours of Tuesday morning. The sea state was increasing during the first few hours of Tuesday morning and whilst sailing past Dungeness the wind rapidly increased and sea state worsened. This caused four of the crew to suffer from sea sickness remaining below decks and no longer able to stand watch.

"Shortly after 04:00 Dover Coastguard announced an updated weather forecast that a Force 11 was imminent so an immediate decision was made by the skipper to head towards Dover for shelter. Soon after the wind started reaching Force 8 and the yacht was becoming more difficult to control so the decision was made to drop the headsail and motor towards Dover which at this point was less than 2 hours away.

"At 05:00 - 05:30, the skipper sent a Pan Pan message to Dover Coastguard as a safety precaution so that they were aware of his location and intentions. Dover Coastguard called the RNLI Lifeboat to escort the yacht into Dover.

"Shortly after the Lifeboat met Liquid Vortex she was hit by a large wave from astern. This caused the helmsman to fall against the wheel and subsequently bend the wheel which prevented further steering. The helmsman went below suffering an injured jaw and damaged ribs.

"Due to the lack of steering capability the Lifeboat secured a tow to Liquid Vortex with the intention of towing to Dover. Unfortunately, due to the yacht slewing with the given sea state and lack of helming capabilities, the tow line chaffed and snapped. A second tow line was rigged with the same outcome. The RNLI passed dedicated bridal lines to secure a third tow; unfortunately this tow failed by pulling a bow cleat from the yacht.

"The skipper along with a lifeboat crewman managed to straighten the wheel which allowed the skipper to helm and motor the yacht under her own power.

"A rescue helicopter was sent to evacuate the injured crewman. The decision was made whilst the helicopter was with yacht to also evacuate the three other crew who were feeling seasick. The four evacuated crew flew to the local hospital in Ramsgate and were subsequently released soon after. Fortunately the injured helmsman hadn't suffered any serious injury but had a bruised jaw and ribs.

"The RNLI Lifeboat then secured a final tow to assist Liquid Vortex into Ramsgate Harbour due to deteriorating weather now reaching Force 10/11 where she berthed under her own power."

This is the third time in a year that Hot Liquid Sailing have had to call on the authorities to rescue them (Liquid Fusion sank in January 2011 and they were found lacking in an MAIB investigation into an incident in May when a crew member had to be airlifted). "
 
is this trial really in anyone's interest?

If the trial were about the passage plan they were working with then, I'd personally say certainly not. The planned overnight blast in a following F5-F7 doesn't seem criminally dangerous to me and clearly didn't seem dangerous to anyone actually on the boat. I'm sure we've all done similar. But I can't find the actual offences they've been charged so maybe the bulk of this trial isn't about the passage plan at all.

If the charges relate to technical and easily demonstrable faults like lack of safety gear required by coding etc then it's probably worth making an example of them in my view. The firm have had a previous warning from the MAIB IIRC.
 
If the trial were about the passage plan they were working with then, I'd personally say certainly not. The planned overnight blast in a following F5-F7 doesn't seem criminally dangerous to me and clearly didn't seem dangerous to anyone actually on the boat. I'm sure we've all done similar. But I can't find the actual offences they've been charged so maybe the bulk of this trial isn't about the passage plan at all.

If the charges relate to technical and easily demonstrable faults like lack of safety gear required by coding etc then it's probably worth making an example of them in my view. The firm have had a previous warning from the MAIB IIRC.

Sturrock denies four charges relating to planning of the voyage, complying with standard operating procedures, failing to identify and assess risks to the vessel and crew and to sailing at night without proper equipment. Manning denies three charges relating to checking weather forecasts, standard operating procedures and failing to contact HM Coastguard. The trial continues.

I like their jackets :D

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=334842
 
An interesting situation. Unfortunately neither the story nor any of the post’s actually refer to the actual charges the two individuals have been charged with.

I notice there was a MAIB investigation. Until I read the reports findings and recommendations. I won’t have any knowledge on the actual events.

Initially I would tend to suggest no one is well served by a trial. No further answers. No further revelations No further recommendations are likely to be forthcoming. A criminal trial is about punishment. If punishment was a successful. In making a difference there would be no murderers in Texas.

There is a reason why NTSB TSB and MAIB investigations do not blame or point fingers and anything you say to the during an investigation cannot be used as evidence in any other proceeding. It is so persons involved in accidents will speak freely to the investigators. Lessons can be learned and changes made to practices and procedures...

My initial response may not be valid in this case. One of the purposes of not pointing a finger of blame is to promote learning. There is a hope individuals and companies will learn from their mistakes.

From time to time it will become evident, some people and companies have learning difficulties. Unlike dyslexia. Not learning from your mistakes can be fatal..

Making an error of judgement or being just plain stupid is not something you can be held criminally liable for. Intentionally not complying with a legal requirement you know to exist. Or intentionally ignoring a regulation is called negligence. Ignoring a recommendation is annoying but not criminal its just a recommendation not a requirement.

When you are supposed to be a qualified professional and you take money from some to provide a professional service. You are expected to have greater knowledge and understanding than the non professional and are can be held to a higher standard.

In this case the prosecution is alleging these two professionals went beyond the bounds of errors and stupidity and into the realm of negligence and as professionals should be held criminally responsible for their actions or lack of actions..

Wither any good will come of it is unlikely. It may make some other professionals a little bit more likely to comply with regulations and act upon recommendations.

I all else fails at least some lawyers will get some money in a civil suit at a later date.. .
 
I have difficulty with this bit, quote from the MAIB, if it indeed true.

''Soon after the wind started reaching Force 8 and the yacht was becoming more difficult to control so the decision was made to drop the headsail and motor''
The motor then overheated, I believe?
And this boat is/was coded for presumably, operating in F8
Downwind all they to do is blow along really until they find a lee.

Perhaps the trial really will be of use-in exposing flaws in real, rather than theoretical, coding requirements?
 
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10006976.Bravery_medal_for_rescuer_in_yacht_drama/

"Yesterday afternoon the court heard how Jason Manning, company director of Hot Liquid Sailing Ltd, had received a text from Sturrock after he had made the distress signal, but only three hours later after he woke.

Police interviews revealed that Manning did not make any contact with the coastguard for a further two hours until they contacted him. "

I would really like to see what the actual charges are. Not a summary headline.
 
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10006976.Bravery_medal_for_rescuer_in_yacht_drama/

Yesterday afternoon the court heard how Jason Manning, company director of Hot Liquid Sailing Ltd, had received a text from Sturrock after he had made the distress signal, but only three hours later after he woke.
That's fair enough - my phone is on silent during the night and an unexpected text mesg unlikely to wake me ... actually I don't really get a signal at home either so if it was a text then it's quite possible that I wouldn't receive it until I left home ...

Police interviews revealed that Manning did not make any contact with the coastguard for a further two hours until they contacted him.
If that is true and can be taken at face value then Manning would appear to have a total disregard for his crew & boats ... however, I hope that Manning didn't do nothing - but started getting other things in place to help clear up .. IMHO there would be little he could do about the immediate situation - but I'd hope he'd've checked the CG were sorting out the emergency.
 

That's charges relating too ... not the actual charges ...

The courts list the case & defendants, but not what the charges are ... which is a bit odd as I thought that was a factual point and they must have entered a plea ...
 
Its not just the reporters that are being sloppy.

Statement by the MAIB at the time.

"Liquid Vortex and her crew continued to sail along the South Coast during the day in winds of 20+ knots with gusts reaching Force 7 into the early hours of Tuesday morning. "

This actually implies that the wind was Force 5. In a Force 5 you should expect gusts of up to about 30 kt. The use of the expression Force 7 for the gust speed and 20+ knots for the general wind speed seems designed to make the situation seem worse than it was.
 
Last edited:
This actually implies that the wind was Force 5. In a Force 5 you should expect gusts of up to about 30 kt. The use of the expression Force 7 for the gust speed and 20+ knots for the general wind speed seems designed to make the situation seem worse than it was.


+1

Both the forecast and the actual winds would have allowed them to get to Dover before the storm hit them. If they hadn't lost the steering they'd have got there with time to spare enjoying a downwind sail in winds that most of us would be thrilled to have behind us.

But that story doesn't sell many newspapers.

News of the trial has dried up. I wonder if it's the defence’s turn and reasonable explanations aren't newsworthy compared to the hysterical rhetoric of the prosecution.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-ignored-warnings-sailed-Force-10-storm.html

"Sturrock, from Little Wenlock, Shropshire, denies four charges of failing to discharge his duties properly as a ship's master, contrary to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

It is alleged the 'manner of his acts or omissions caused or were likely to cause loss, destruction, death or injury'."



So I reckon it's the MSA Part 3 Section 58 (2):

(2)If a person to whom this section applies, while on board his ship or in its immediate vicinity—
(a)does any act which causes or is likely to cause—
(i)the loss or destruction of or serious damage to his ship or its machinery, navigational equipment or safety equipment, or
(ii)the loss or destruction of or serious damage to any other ship or any structure, or
(iii)the death of or serious injury to any person, or
(b)omits to do anything required—
(i)to preserve his ship or its machinery, navigational equipment or safety equipment from being lost, destroyed or seriously damaged, or
(ii)to preserve any person on board his ship from death or serious injury, or
(iii)to prevent his ship from causing the loss or destruction of or serious damage to any other ship or any structure, or the death of or serious injury to any person not on board his ship,
and either of the conditions specified in subsection (3) below is satisfied with respect to that act or omission, he shall (subject to subsections (6) and (7) below) be guilty of an offence.
 
Taking account of the bit about... "a person to which this section applies", it does seem a shame that the solo sailor who also got into trouble and had to be rescued does. ot come under the Act... Or does he?
 
Top