MAIB Report from the Cannes (Vision/Minx) accident last year

The issue of the lack of commercial endorsement is not at the heart of what went wrong here (as much as the skipper should have had it). Nor is the use of a recreational amount of cannabis.

The error arose from the skipper seemingly wanting to impress his boss (the "charter" appears that it could be something of a tax-convenient arrangement).

The report clearly identifies that he didn't put safety first. I'm not sure that had he have done the PPR course before the incident he would have acted any differently.
 
When I win the lottery, remind me not to buy a large boat with surface drives and no rudders.

There seem to be some handling characteristics in that setup that are very undesirable.

e.g. If I move the helm Port, I would expect the boat to turn to Port.
 
Here it is. Statement of the obvious, but ...

"motor yacht skippers have a duty of care to the guests, the vessel, their crew and other water users. In the motor yacht industry, owners and charterers are on vacation; they will want to relax, be pampered and party, but they might also want to be entertained, perhaps even thrilled, by the experience of being at sea for their leisure. In this environment, motor yacht skippers and crew must stay in control of the yacht and not allow themselves to get caught up in the party atmosphere. However challenging it may be, the presence of powerful owners or demanding charterers must not have any infuence on safe operations and the professional conduct of the crew. Vision’s skipper had swallow-dived into the sea during the party and then driven the yacht at over six times the local speed limit when attempting to provide an opportunity for the guests to wave to their friends on departure from the anchorage. These were actions that illustrate that Vision’s skipper had not placed the safety of the yacht and its occupants as his absolute top priority. However, the skipper’s behaviour, in attempting the pass, was heavily infuenced by the charterer’s wish to provide a good opportunity for his guests to wave goodbye to their friends. "
 
fred247 said:
Plus the boat not responding to the helm as it should , contributed
Click to expand...

It did act "as it should", but it did not act as you might have expected it to. The skipper supposedly had experience in handling the vessel and should have known that this vessel would not act in the same manner as a rudder steered boat.

Let's face it - a slaloming 33kt fly-by in close proximity to another yacht (at anchor, where people were not expecting the close pass to happen) was an accident waiting to happen. Sadly, on this occasion, it did.
 
RJJ said:
Here it is. Statement of the obvious, but ...

" the presence of powerful owners "
Click to expand...
The powerful owner who could be an oligarch surrounded by his ex-commando bodyguards, might be a tad difficult to ignore
 
I think the lesson here is qualification does not a skipper make. The skipper is wholey to blame for the incident imo given the evidence so far. However exacerbating this is he should probably not have been hired in the first place or a candidate to be hired. The problem didnt start with with a boat handling issue. A number of transgressions led to it.
 
Solent Sailor said:
The issue of the lack of commercial endorsement is not at the heart of what went wrong here (as much as the skipper should have had it). Nor is the use of a recreational amount of cannabis.

The error arose from the skipper seemingly wanting to impress his boss (the "charter" appears that it could be something of a tax-convenient arrangement).

The report clearly identifies that he didn't put safety first. I'm not sure that had he have done the PPR course before the incident he would have acted any differently.
Click to expand...

certainly not at the heart of it. While not suitably qualified just because the boat had charter certification, making it 'commercial', he had a YM which makes him knowledgeable and experienced enough to know his responsibilities. I just wondered if the technicality could make the owner somewhat responsible in court? (I assume there will be a court case from this)

Also interesting to see he was able to get his commercial licence after the accident...

"ACTIONS TAKEN Vision’s skipper completed the RYA PPR training course on 21 September 2019 and subsequently received a commercial endorsement, on 1 October 2019, for his RYA Yachtmaster certifcate."

I would have thought any tickets would be suspended pending the investigation?
 
trevbouy said:
And then later in the same year the Vision skipper goes on to get his commercial endorsement and continues to skipper ! Unbelieveable!
Click to expand...
I read that too. He's now a certified idiot. It wasn't as though he was some 26 year old lad but a 42 French national who perhaps should have known better. One can only assume the RYA have no power of sanctions. Goes to show the Super yacht world is somewhat unregulated.
 
Perhaps part of the problem is that it wasn’t a much larger vessel. Their appears to have been a level of intimacy between the skipper and the owners family. He became more ‘guest’ than ‘crew’. A larger vessel would have kept more of a working relationship
 
FlowerPower said:
When I win the lottery, remind me not to buy a large boat with surface drives and no rudders.

There seem to be some handling characteristics in that setup that are very undesirable.

e.g. If I move the helm Port, I would expect the boat to turn to Port.
Click to expand...
I have seen similar handling characteristics on flybridge shaftdrives (Rudderstall) when put into hard turns at speed.
I don't know if the AiS tracklines are accurate but Vision was is very shallow water at one point.
 
chrishscorp said:
What a sad uneccesary waste of a life, condolences to his family and friends.
Click to expand...
The crewman who died appeared to be inexperienced. Perhaps he was so engrossed in his task that he remained unaware of the developing situation until too late. A more experienced person may have been more aware of their surroundings
 
Bouba said:
Perhaps part of the problem is that it wasn’t a much larger vessel. Their appears to have been a level of intimacy between the skipper and the owners family. He became more ‘guest’ than ‘crew’. A larger vessel would have kept more of a working relationship
Click to expand...

You may well have hit the nail on the head there. The story at the time that this accident happened was that it wasnt the skipper who was driving the boat at all but the owner, or to be more precise, the owner's husband and it was he who insisted on the high speed fly by. Or possibly, the skipper took over from the owner at the last moment in an attempt to avoid the collision. Thats just a rumour and I have no proof of that. If thats what happened, then yes I guess the owner and skipper have come to some arrangement about who takes the rap

Another factor which I dont recall seeing in the MAIB report (maybe I'm wrong) was that the other boat, Minx, was hauling up its anchor at the time of the accident and would have been moving forward as a result. Misjudgement of that by whoever was helming Vision might have contributed to the accident

Either way, a completely unnecessary, reckless and tragic manoeuvre in what would have been a crowded anchorage at the time
 
trevbouy said:
Oooo that's a bit harsh. In the report it says there was nothing he could do.
Click to expand...
I’m not apportioning blame. But the report does say that he was new to the job. Whenever someone is new to any job, the level of concentration is so high that you lose peripheral vision. The same thing happened in the Battle of Britain, inexperienced pilots concentrate so hard on flying that they don’t see the enemy plane coming for them. All I’m saying is that an old hand would man the anchor without a second thought and could (you never know) realize that a 90 ton boat with a giant rooster tail is hurling towards then at over thirty knots. Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top