Old Dog
Active Member
By the way 500NM in a weekend? What were you sailing??
Liquid Vortex trial starts
- Thread starter jimi
- Start date
By the way 500NM in a weekend? What were you sailing??
jimi
Well-Known Member
THe RNLI report says:
"As they approached Ramsgate port, the wind was storm force 10 with rain squalls, gusting to violent storm, force 11. Crew member Clark took over the steering, afforded the protection of his helmet visor. At 12pm, they entered the outer harbour, the tow was slipped and the skipper resumed helming. The skipper berthed the yacht at 12.20pm."
What you say does not seem to contradict the report?
Old Dog
Active Member
No as far as I can remembe that was what Charlie said happened. If I remember his account correctly he had been on the helm since he and the lifeboatman bent the wheel back in to shape which I think was about 0830 off Dover. They had motored up to Deal are where Hi-Line transfer of crew took place then motored and finaly assisted tow while still under own power for last couple of miles to channel in to Ramsgate were lifeboatman took over for run down the channel (will have to check chart howfar is that?) as it was straight in to driving rain and his helmet had a visor. The point was that one of the other RNLI Press Releases says their guy was on the helm for two hours. Another says the engine had failed.
My point is not to knock the RNLI crews. I am just not sure their press people are any better at reporting this than anyone else? Something I have seen says it was the wave which deployed one of the lifeboats, the RNLI info says it was being towed when they got there and wave hit after, were there two waves? I am sure Charlie said just one. I may try and find out for tomorrow as off to bed now. Good night.
jimi
Well-Known Member
Moody S38 , 80 hrs from Inverness to Ipswich .. it was quite a long weekend ;-)
viago
Well-Known Member
hi, ive enjoyed your posts very much.
you may have noticed that mentioning the rnli is a tricky game around here.
if you hang around long enough you will find that any criticism of any aspect of that organisation will result in a barrage of indignant condemnation.
i would have thought that the sole responsibility of an rnli press officer was to promote and protect the company. his/her article reflects the nature of the assistance, the bravery of the crew, gives a good picture of the conditions and is nicely written.
as you say, what it isnt is an incident report.
viago
Well-Known Member
PilotWolf
Well-Known Member
At least one well known RNLI coxswain's crew thought he had an elastic tape measure for the service return wave heights. I believe some crew even thought that they were on different taskings than those reported.
PW
PW
jimi
Well-Known Member
Covers Fri to Mon, thats a long weekend on my planet if not yours!
OTOH you seem to be basing your opinions on .. erm .. nothing , at least some of us are basing our arguments on a report from a reputable organisation. You may have reasons for decrying it but one thing's for sure, CS's crew if not CS were blinking glad to see 'em.
alant
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Tidewaiter2
Well-Known Member
As another has stated on these recent LV threads
This post has been a while in the writing, with one thing and another today, so may be overtaken by events/posts;
There are two, nay three or four sides to CS's decision to 'maintain momentum towards the objective' regardless.
1) His realisation afterwards that his public posts and actions* would be viewed by many as unwise.
Therefore the need for damage limitation in respect of his own reputation and future prospects. This need not be a deliberate action, but sub-concious.
* given that his previous career and training may have developed a 'press on despite...' mindset which may be needful in that life, but which hindered his decision making in a commercial, paying customer, 'duty of care', situation, where a 'safety first' mindset is desirable.
BTW which unit in hot and dusty IED land was he with-no Army List to hand this pm? Unit ethos can vary greatly according to role and duties.
2) HL's MD decisions in regard to permitting LV to sail with that forecast, and his subsequent public statements. His realisation(or not) of the need for damage limitation in respect of the Coys reputation, given it's recent previous.
However much you may admire/trust someone(vide his statement in court), if you hold the top call on a job, you exercise command & control and fail sure not sorry. Particularly where the Sea is concerned.
In dealing with the Press/Media as an 74,000 strong organisation's frequent today's public contact, I knew that you must consider every word/sound you utter, voice inflections, and even your body language- i had about 5 years of being the meat in that sandwich before i retired (not the ideal final job in terms of blood pressure, sanity, etc)
3) RNLI viewpoint; apply their criteria for 'lives saved' to shout and its conditions, plus one very gutsy crewman deployed aboard LV="good job, well done", publish outcome for all the right reasons.
Judging actual wave heights etc is never easy, unless, "Oops that ones higher than the flybridge,spreaders, so it's xx metres high then"
?
4) RYA, MCA, et al. Damage limitation for their training & accreditation, or enforcement schemes, given the Press/Media reaction to the incident and the public/social media comments of the individuals="We must be seen to be taking positive, firm action as the overarching bodies"
Given how verbatim witness statements taken directly afterwards differ on a simple rear end shunt or fall at work accident on land, and that no one is making actual notes during the incident, the participants perceptions and statements are going to differ even at a immediate post ops debrief.
Chuck in a bit of 20/20 hindsight from all concerned(including we Forumites!) and sub-concious editing of the worst bits as humans do to present themselves in a good light, and;
Bingo, the case is in Court, for good or ill, and probably another step towards a compulsory regulatory framework for British yachtsmen(and women).
Once, if you did something dicey at sea, and survived, it was 'valuable experience', and if you died/got rescued, it was ' silly s@d, he/she shouldn't have been there/ had bad luck' and end of.
Now you face being labelled a 'Captain Calamity' and trial by media of all sorts, including these Foruii.
That is unfortunately the world we now live and sail in, and you are foolish if you do not take the insatiable Media/internet hunger for information/sensation 24/7/365 into account in all you say and do, particularly in your personal commercial/public vis life.
Sad but True
This post has been a while in the writing, with one thing and another today, so may be overtaken by events/posts;
There are two, nay three or four sides to CS's decision to 'maintain momentum towards the objective' regardless.
1) His realisation afterwards that his public posts and actions* would be viewed by many as unwise.
Therefore the need for damage limitation in respect of his own reputation and future prospects. This need not be a deliberate action, but sub-concious.
* given that his previous career and training may have developed a 'press on despite...' mindset which may be needful in that life, but which hindered his decision making in a commercial, paying customer, 'duty of care', situation, where a 'safety first' mindset is desirable.
BTW which unit in hot and dusty IED land was he with-no Army List to hand this pm? Unit ethos can vary greatly according to role and duties.
2) HL's MD decisions in regard to permitting LV to sail with that forecast, and his subsequent public statements. His realisation(or not) of the need for damage limitation in respect of the Coys reputation, given it's recent previous.
However much you may admire/trust someone(vide his statement in court), if you hold the top call on a job, you exercise command & control and fail sure not sorry. Particularly where the Sea is concerned.
In dealing with the Press/Media as an 74,000 strong organisation's frequent today's public contact, I knew that you must consider every word/sound you utter, voice inflections, and even your body language- i had about 5 years of being the meat in that sandwich before i retired (not the ideal final job in terms of blood pressure, sanity, etc)
3) RNLI viewpoint; apply their criteria for 'lives saved' to shout and its conditions, plus one very gutsy crewman deployed aboard LV="good job, well done", publish outcome for all the right reasons.
Judging actual wave heights etc is never easy, unless, "Oops that ones higher than the flybridge,spreaders, so it's xx metres high then"
?4) RYA, MCA, et al. Damage limitation for their training & accreditation, or enforcement schemes, given the Press/Media reaction to the incident and the public/social media comments of the individuals="We must be seen to be taking positive, firm action as the overarching bodies"
Given how verbatim witness statements taken directly afterwards differ on a simple rear end shunt or fall at work accident on land, and that no one is making actual notes during the incident, the participants perceptions and statements are going to differ even at a immediate post ops debrief.
Chuck in a bit of 20/20 hindsight from all concerned(including we Forumites!) and sub-concious editing of the worst bits as humans do to present themselves in a good light, and;
Bingo, the case is in Court, for good or ill, and probably another step towards a compulsory regulatory framework for British yachtsmen(and women).
Once, if you did something dicey at sea, and survived, it was 'valuable experience', and if you died/got rescued, it was ' silly s@d, he/she shouldn't have been there/ had bad luck' and end of.
Now you face being labelled a 'Captain Calamity' and trial by media of all sorts, including these Foruii.
That is unfortunately the world we now live and sail in, and you are foolish if you do not take the insatiable Media/internet hunger for information/sensation 24/7/365 into account in all you say and do, particularly in your personal commercial/public vis life.
Sad but True
pugwash94
Well-Known Member
Tidewaiter2
Most sensible set of remarks I've seen so far!
My final fear is that the jury with no experience of the sea are not likely to be competent to assess what are essentially matters of judgement.
They are also doing it with 20/20 hindsight.
There was an interesting experiment some years ago when two groups of doctors and nurses were presented with the same description of a set of circumstances (with a little more background than I have given) with one exception:
"An elderly patient is brought to the ward late at night, the patient is in an agitated, anxious and confused state. Should you raise the sides of the bed."
The first group were presented with only that and, knowing that raising the sides of the bed frequently causes further anxiety and there is a danger that the patient will attempt to climb over the sides and fall further, decided that it would be fundamentally wrong to raise them.
The second group were given the same scenario but were told the patient had fallen out of bed and were asked if the staff should have raised the sides.
This group decided that the staff should have raised the sides of the bed and further - they were negligent in not doing so.
Most sensible set of remarks I've seen so far!
My final fear is that the jury with no experience of the sea are not likely to be competent to assess what are essentially matters of judgement.
They are also doing it with 20/20 hindsight.
There was an interesting experiment some years ago when two groups of doctors and nurses were presented with the same description of a set of circumstances (with a little more background than I have given) with one exception:
"An elderly patient is brought to the ward late at night, the patient is in an agitated, anxious and confused state. Should you raise the sides of the bed."
The first group were presented with only that and, knowing that raising the sides of the bed frequently causes further anxiety and there is a danger that the patient will attempt to climb over the sides and fall further, decided that it would be fundamentally wrong to raise them.
The second group were given the same scenario but were told the patient had fallen out of bed and were asked if the staff should have raised the sides.
This group decided that the staff should have raised the sides of the bed and further - they were negligent in not doing so.
jimi
Well-Known Member
I don't see how this case is a step towards compulsory regulation for all British yachtpersons, the fact is that this organisation was registered and the skipper was qualified so registration/qualification would not have affected this incident one iota.
I rather suspect the court case arose because the MAIB recommendations in the previous incident had not been implemented, simple as that.
I rather suspect the court case arose because the MAIB recommendations in the previous incident had not been implemented, simple as that.
Tidewaiter2
Well-Known Member
Never mind the Truth, get on with my personal agenda/career..
Fair and perceptive comment, Jimi.
However I suspect(without being paranoid about it, as some on Foruii) that it will/could be used as evidence in support of further regs/control long term by 'interested parties', having been suitably 'spun' to a Minister in condensed form;
'Look, Minister, even the professional yotties get into trouble.....imagine what all those weekend ones will do, given half a chance. What we need is a budget to ensure a boom is lowered across all marina entrances in F4 and above, with licence fees, fees for..., and my immediate advancement to Permanent Secty. i/c the lot'.
I have seen this kind of empire building done in an earlier life
Fair and perceptive comment, Jimi.
However I suspect(without being paranoid about it, as some on Foruii) that it will/could be used as evidence in support of further regs/control long term by 'interested parties', having been suitably 'spun' to a Minister in condensed form;
'Look, Minister, even the professional yotties get into trouble.....imagine what all those weekend ones will do, given half a chance. What we need is a budget to ensure a boom is lowered across all marina entrances in F4 and above, with licence fees, fees for..., and my immediate advancement to Permanent Secty. i/c the lot'.
I have seen this kind of empire building done in an earlier life
Old Dog
Active Member
But I assume fun? Back for a few minutes to see what response the chat last night had drawn? Will try to check in next week but out working so a bit hit and miss on comms.
Old Dog
Active Member
I do listen to MSI's most days of week. Storm warnings are valid from time of issue. The Inshore Waters Forecast however has a valid to/from. So one issued at 0500 UTC will be valid from 0600 UTC that day to the next but the MSI will be transmitted at say 0730 from Solent MRCC and 0710 from Dover MRCC.
Look up the Inshore Waters on the Met Office web site
Old Dog
Active Member
Very good, almost made me laugh. Can I also agree with you ref your comment on Tidewaiter2
Old Dog
Active Member
Fair and perceptive comment, Jimi.
However I suspect(without being paranoid about it, as some on Foruii) that it will/could be used as evidence in support of further regs/control long term by 'interested parties', having been suitably 'spun' to a Minister in condensed form;
'Look, Minister, even the professional yotties get into trouble.....imagine what all those weekend ones will do, given half a chance. What we need is a budget to ensure a boom is lowered across all marina entrances in F4 and above, with licence fees, fees for..., and my immediate advancement to Permanent Secty. i/c the lot'.
I have seen this kind of empire building done in an earlier life
I think you may be wrong, This is just the MCA using, I believe Sect 58 and 100 of Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Probably as a rather large hammer but also to send msg to rest of Industry (remember I work in it and some of what goes on would scare you) and at same time put pressure on RYA, remember they had checked out HL and given them RYA Training Center status
Tidewaiter2
Well-Known Member
Old Dog,
My Thanks to you and Pugwash for your comments.
I agree with you re the above as a probable warning shot, we are Solent based, and get out most months of the year, so see (and do our share, no doubt!) a fair bit of the good and the bad, schools, owners, charterers, here and in foreign ports adjacent to the Solent.
I've perhaps been looking too far ahead in terms of my thoughts re it's future Policy formation usage for the current Thread.
Fudging stats/examples occurred in the recent boat breath test/alcohol limits where 'evidence' included non sailor casualties jumping off bridges, etc. as well as real boating incidents due to inadequate data recording systems and perhaps a careful failure to mine that data, perhaps, to serve a desired end?
The Studland Bay furore also apparently showed some very selective/'creative' research/examples by certain parties engaged therein.
Until analysed and refuted in detail by those opposed to it, examples, particularly after some time has elapsed can be carefully chosen and spun to get a Policy bandwagon rolling, particularly if a Minister can be persuaded to take it up, and thereby possibly 'lose face' if it fails/has to rotate 180 degrees!
Just the sort of thing I've seen happen in my stay in the Land of the Policy Wonks.
Last edited:
Beadle
Well-Known Member
Yes
I do appreciate that
What I was leading to was at what point is one liable to be prosecuted.
I assume the boat was properly coded as a commercial charter vessel and the skipper suitably qualified.
I do not understand where the criminality comes in - yes some of the crew were slightly injured - I presume by accident and finally they were rescued by the RNLI - not clear to me whether that was at their request or not.
I fail to understand where it becomes a case for a court to deal with.
There is always some level of risk in sailing - and always will be, but I don't see at what point accepting that risk becomes criminal.
I've never heard of people who have to be rescued from swimming in the sea, or playing on rubber rings or airbeds or surfboards and having to be rescued ending in court.
alant
Well-Known Member
These are the RYA Rules - http://www.rya.org.uk/sitecollectio...g centres/Cruising/TRA Guidance Notes RGN.pdf