lw395
Well-Known Member
In any case, he was wrong wasn't he!
Liquid Vortex trial starts
- Thread starter jimi
- Start date
In any case, he was wrong wasn't he!
PeterR
Well-Known Member
Eastbourne can be tricky in a SW gale but there wasn't a gale blowing when they had the option to enter.
The backwash off the breakwater makes Dover horrendous in gale let alone storm conditions. Its much safer to do what they eventually did, carry on round through the Downs and into Ramsgate.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
I can't imagine there could be any dispute about the actual wind speeds, surely these numbers will be available to the court. These values from 4am might be a guide for us:
http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/mari...NG=en&HH=04&TT=03&MM=01&JJ=2012&S=0&WIND=g231
Some stuff I found looking for the above:
http://nasailor.com/2012/01/11/four-britains-rescued-boat-hammered-by-60-knot-gusts/
+1. It's useless.
Last edited:
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
There is a bit more here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9obm6HxDSw - somebody recorded some VHF. Sounds as though it was gusting 48kn (Dover) steady speeds of 40kn when the lifeboat was launched. There are wind speeds on his computer screen but do not know if this is average and actual or forecast and gusts.
Sounds as though Dover did not think that entry to there was going to be safe even at this point. If there had not been an accident forcing loss of steering, it sounds as though Dover would not have been possible even with their original schedule.
There are some comments on the video footage that says that it was taken whilst off Ramsgate rather than between Dover and Dungeness as an explanation as to why the seas looked so tame! I can't make out any features either way.
Sounds as though Dover did not think that entry to there was going to be safe even at this point. If there had not been an accident forcing loss of steering, it sounds as though Dover would not have been possible even with their original schedule.
There are some comments on the video footage that says that it was taken whilst off Ramsgate rather than between Dover and Dungeness as an explanation as to why the seas looked so tame! I can't make out any features either way.
viago
Well-Known Member
i would not fancy folkestone much but far rather that than dover.
the dover lifeboat left the water completely attempting to enter the western entrance in a 4!
i was on ferries which missed the eastern entrance in heavy seas on two occasions.
i dont think dover was ever realistically on the cards from the time they passed eastbourne.
not sure that's enough to criminalise the guy though.
PeterR
Well-Known Member
Very interesting. These tend to support my premise that the skipper was understating the actual windspeed in his report to YM. He said that the wind did not reach a steady Force 8 until a mile off Dover at about 0600. The bouyage data shows Force 8 to both the east and west of his position at 0400hrs and Force 9 to the east and west of his position by 0600hrs. Whilst I am not sure how reliable those figures are (at 0200 both buoys were reading zero and at 0300 one was reading 145 knots) However, if they are true it would explain the need to reduce sail area and why a large breaking wave was encountered.
I do have some sympathy with his statement that if the lifeboat had not been launched the crew could have straightened the steering wheel themselves and motored into Ramsgate but I suspect his sick and injured crew were very grateful for the SAR lift.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
The CG told them to take the sail in over VHF. So I assume that's why they did that. (I've sailed miles and miles downwind in smaller boats in a F8 with No3 Foresail and a scrap of main in an 8 so I'd think that with No3 alone they'd have been fine running before it all at top speed on No3 alone.)
Maybe CS played down the conditions - he had every reason to do so and he'd only need to knock off a few knots. None the less it was printed in YM and I'd imagine they'd have checked that kind of thing before printing it.
Me too. I also think that it's somewhat unjust to throw the MSA at him. He had responsibility but no authority. If he'd been allowed to 'order' his crew of paying customers not to call the CG he might have got himself out of it and we might never have heard of it. As it happened there seems to have been irreversable actions taken by people who might have been qualified skippers but perhaps don't have as much heavy weather experience as CS.
One more thought. the guy who smashed the Hot Liquid boat up on a sandbank didn't get prosecuted, but someone who didn't wreck the boat, and as far as I can see wouldn't have wrecked the boat does. How does that work? Is actually destroying a boat really worse than risking destroying a boat?
I appreciate that we don't actually know for sure what these charges relate to and the passage plan might be irrelevant to the whole thing.
deuc02
Well-Known Member
Does no one think that Beneteau might have questions to answer regards the "sea worthiness" of their wheels. Just a thought.
For the record i cant see where either the skipper or the company acted without due diligence with regards to the forecast.
My own thoughts are that this court case is the MCA chest puffing.
Shoot me down!
For the record i cant see where either the skipper or the company acted without due diligence with regards to the forecast.
My own thoughts are that this court case is the MCA chest puffing.
Shoot me down!
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
I'll try.
He set off with paying customers knowing that he had a good chance of being out in a F10, with few, if any, good plan B options. His best options he let go by. The customers were generally terrified - either an indication of the conditions or their level of experience, which he should have taken into account.
He presumably realised at Dungeness that he may have bitten off more than he could chew when he put out a pan pan.
The decision to prosecute is consistent with H&S legislation. Why should a boat be any different from a factory?
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Because in a factory people are under pressure to do what their boss asks them to keep their jobs, even if it's dangerous. They need protection.
In this case the paying customers could have decided to do that leg by train with no questions asked. If they wanted some heavy weather experience (and judging by the fact that they all went it seems they did), who are we to say they shouldn't? The paying customers were in the position of power, not the firm. So they need different protection to factory workers.
No different to someone choosing to doing a guided climb of Everest. They know the risks, it's their decision.
And that assumes the plan was to sail in a F10 and from all the evidence I've seen that was absolutely not the plan.
Last edited:
deuc02
Well-Known Member
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
Ok - customers in a shop might be a closer analogy. Same result.
I did say F10 not F11. F10 was forecast for their time frame when they left, and as far as I can tell whilst they were still passing boltholes.
Blue5
Well-Known Member
That about sums it up, by taking fare paying passengers you take on a certain responsibility for which this guy showed blatant disregard.
He is obviously a hero to some on here.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Ahhh, so anyone who think that an action *isn't* criminal must think it *is* heroic, eh?
A nasty case of:
http://www.glasswings.com.au/comics/ozyandmillie.au/2000/om20000723.html
maxi77
Well-Known Member
Indeed.
As a result of a few incidents in th past we have coding and other regulations covering the use of vessels built for leisure use being used commercially. Equally we have legislation covering the 'professionals' involved in running these vessels. The proper place for examination of whether they conducted themselves properly or not is in this country a court of law, rather than some civil serpents in a cabal behind closed doors, hence the present court case.
For what it is worth my opinion based on what I have seen so far is that the accused were foolhardy and foolhardy with paying punters and that should be properly examined.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Typo corrected.
Well have it your way. Lets say some people decided they wanted to sail in a F10. (Something I would strongly dispute, but we don't know what was really in their minds.) What business is it of yours or a court if they wanted to do that? Good luck to them. This wasn't a merchant ship or an Andrew ship, they all wanted to do it and could have taken the train to rejoin the cruise.
Would you criminalize free climbing?
Blue5
Well-Known Member
I for one am pleased a prosecution has been brought, no doubt you think lives need to be lost before anybody needs to answer.
Pye_End
Well-Known Member
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.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
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.
Personally I'd have stopped at Newhaven. I'm not sure it should be a criminal offence to fail to do so.
I hadn't realized until today that the RNLI had said they saved the lives of the people on Liquid Vortex.
A1Sailor
...
More at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFO-PWAGU5U&feature=endscreen&NR=1
The bit at ~0:25 looks particularly scary
Nice it all ended happily.
The bit at ~0:25 looks particularly scary
Nice it all ended happily.