MAIB Roasted

[ QUOTE ]
MAIB has been caught with its pants down and we need to get to the bottom of this /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif.



[/ QUOTE ]

James,

I agree with the above, and I think a few more searching questions need answers.

You're just the man for the job in my opinion.

Should we all be writing to our MP?
 
[ QUOTE ]
MAIB should be able to provide source info for each 'incident' it recorded

[/ QUOTE ] I read it that this was exactly what they were asked for but were unable to provide or refererence (hence 'database').
 
I agree that we, the user-community, should be demanding a public retraction or a justification that journalists - and ourselves - can validate. 'Put up or shut up....'

It's easy to be 'short-changed' on our Statutory rights, only if we don't bother and always leave it to someone else.

I also believe it's inadequate simply to leave it to someone else - e.g. Tim Bartlett and/or James Jermain; we should each be prepared to 'rattle the cage' individually. And that's quite easy....

If you share the expressed concerns that the published figures may have been distorted and the conclusions unjustifiable, then I urge you - each and everyone - to email to the MAIB your own request for the info Tim Bartlett was denied. Then, may I encourage you to send a copy also to your MP here, asking him/her to find out what is going on.

For convenience, I attach below a copy of my own email to the MAIB. You may want to use this, or prefer to create your own.

[ QUOTE ]
To: maib@dft.gsi.gov.uk

MAIB Annual Report 2005 - Request under the Freedom of Information Act

For the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents - Mr Stephen Meyer

Sir,

I am aware of the complaint made to the Information Commissioner by Mr Tim Bartlett, which concerned the MAIB 2005 Annual Report, in which you, the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents, wrote: 'For the two months 8 August - 10 October, we compiled a register of leisure craft accidents and incidents in UK waters, using the criteria against which merchant ships and fishing vessels report to the MAIB. With little effort, we identified an astonishing 1162 leisure craft accidents/incidents in UK waters. By the end of 2005, we were aware of 24 deaths in leisure craft accidents in the UK.'

I, too, am concerned to see adequate validation of your claim that, 'with little effort we ( you ) identifed.....1162 leisure craft accidents/incidents in UK waters.' and I request from you the source and detail of the data on which you based this claim, in sufficient detail to permit further analysis and validation.

Should you refuse, or obfuscate, I shall raise my concerns with my Parliamentary Representative in the expectation of eliciting a reply from the relevant Minister of State, preferably in a formal Written Answer.

You may reply to me at........

I am, sir,


[/ QUOTE ]

/forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
For anyone who hasn't read the report download it here

The offending statements are made on p6 ahead of subsequent recommendations towards the introduction of legislation to limit the amount of alcohol that may be consumed by operators of leisure craft, presumably based on their shocking statistics. Tim Bartlett has done well to challenge their flawed platform
 
They have really shot themselves in the foot. On the face of it they told an untruth by falsely claiming to have "compiled a register". They should be brought to account for misleading the public on that fact alone. IMHO they should make a public statement apologising for their apparent incompetence.

In addition to that, if they want to retain any credibility at all, IMHO they should go back and justify with clear and transparent facts whether the actual conclusions they drew have any basis in fact or were just drawn out of the air.
 
I wonder if they don't want their statistics examined closely because a number (I would guess quite a few) are low risk incidents in which RNLI were called out by Coastguards. Our society has become progressively risk averse - which coastguard officer would hesitate to call out the cost-free (to him) RNLI while his organisation assumes responsibility for an incident which may deteriorate? None, I think. By the way I'm not in favour of mixing alcohol with sailing and certainly not in favour of mixing it with motor boating.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Surely it's not a good thing if public bodies are found to be lying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid that it's not just the MAIB.

See this front page and report from today's Independent.....


Indi1.jpg



and Report here

IMHO, everything that is issued by the MAIB now is likely to be tainted with 'agenda'. That's what comes of appointing a 'party apparatchik' ( er, career civil servant ) to the post of Chief Inspector, instead of a career Master Mariner./forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

In the words of the Ruskin College anthem - "The working class can kiss my a**, I've got the PM's job at last..."


/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
I would refer you to a series of interviews I did a year or two ago for the RYA Magazine including the then shipping minister and the head of the RNLI, also various statements by the MCA. Those in authority over us are by and large united in the belief that we need organising and regulating, they are just not yet quite sure how to do it cost effectively. In the meantime we are facing piecemeal legislation which will ultimately lead to a 'tidying up' operation. Beware tidying up - it's when things get lost.
 
[ QUOTE ]
we are facing piecemeal legislation

[/ QUOTE ]

They can legislate for all they're worth - we've seen that in other spheres - but to make it work, they need to police it. And that takes plenty of people and plenty of money. Yours and mine.

I, for one, will not be co-operating - in any way - with any MCA, DfT or government-funded ( i.e. funded from taxation ) Coastguard and Rescue Service.

This is only and solely another civil service ploy to increase someone's Area of Responsibility, so as to get paid more. We don't need it, and I - for one - don't want it.

/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Def. looks like another "jobs for the boys" opportunity. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the response is generally along the lines off "keep your nose out - we decide what's good for you".
 
[ QUOTE ]
"keep your nose out - we decide what's good for you".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's the thinking that I and some thousands of others put on uniform, and learned to shoot, to prevent coming here during the 70's. And so did my father and grandfather in their day......

I'm not at all keen to see it 'home-grown'.

Include me out.

/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

My constituency MP, who's Shadow Health Minister, came back to me today with this on the rumbling MAIB 'dodgy dossier'....

[ QUOTE ]
What I can do is write to the relevant minister at the DfT but you have identified the probable stumbling block which is common in FoI requests and that is individually identifiable data. I’ll do what I can.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect - as do others - that the 2-month figure of 1162 leisure-craft related accidents/incidents quoted by the Chief Inspector was made up of duplicated and triplicated '999' calls to HMCG, false alarms, incidents involving large groups of dinghy-racers in well-planned 'strong wind contingency' situations, and suchlike, which will not stand up to detailed scrutiny by journalists like Tim Bartlett, or others with a legitimate interest.

He infers that there were 24 marine deaths involving the use of recreational craft during the stated period. I, for one, simply do not believe that.

That may be why the Royal Institute of Navigation took the unusual step, for them, of publishing the issue on their website.

While the work of the individual accident inspectors and their teams may be above reproach, I have yet to come to that conclusion about their managers and masters.

Does anyone else feel we should demand a proper justification of Stephen Meyer's 'conclusions' and better access to the suspect information he uses to prepare his recommendations to the Minister of State for Transport....?

/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

He's Dr Andrew Murrison, of Westbury ( near Warminster ).
He's an ex-GP and Consultant, ex-RN Surgeon Commander, has lots of Servicemen as constituents, and has served in Iraq. He has lived in his constituency for years.

It's my impression that he pulls his weight.
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

For info I put in an FOI request to the DTI on 29/12 coming from a different tack:

"Dear Sir,

Request Under the Freedom of Information Act

I am requesting copies of correspondence including email correspondence and records or minutes of meetings or of telephone conversations between Ministers or senior civil servants at the Department of Trade and Industry and Mr Stephen Meyer, Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents in relation to MAIB's publication of a claim in its 2005 Annual Report that "For the two months 8 August - 10 October, we compiled a register of leisure craft accidents and incidents in UK waters, using the criteria against which merchant ships and fishing vessels report to the MAIB. With little effort, we identified an astonishing 1162 leisure craft accidents/incidents in UK waters. By the end of 2005, we were aware of 24 deaths in leisure craft accidents in the UK." and in relation to MAIB's inability to produce any evidence to support this claim when challenged.


Yours Faithfully"

I'll post the response.
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

Good one. I've asked the RIN admin to info Tim Bartlett re this on 'ere.

Given the appointment of a new 'head apparatchik' for the MCA - and his record - I sense a new raft of restrictive legislation coming along to burden us with more cost and constraint.



/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

I've written to Michael Mates MP requesting his assistance in getting the statement withdrawn or else for Stephen Meyer's dismissal. Have emailed the link to this thread to Tim Bartlett through the RIN members area
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

Michael Mates MP has responded thanking me for my communication and noting what I say. He will make some enquiries and write to me again in due course
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

Folks,
Thank you for your interest and support. Sorry it's taken me a while to respond. This is a pretty long-winded post, so I've broken it into bite-sized chunks:-
WHO CALLS THE TUNE?
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
IS IT IMPORTANT?
COCK UP OR CONSPIRACY?

<span style="color:red"> WHO CALLS THE TUNE </span>
Some of you may not know that I write a regular "column" in Motor Boat and Yachting. My comments there about the MAIB have attracted just two letters to the Editor. One said (I quote) "Instead of an investigative report, Tim chose to treat us to yet another rant under the headline "The MAIB is targeting boaters again". It really is time to play another tune." The other was so similar that I wonder whether it may have come from the same person!

I try to write articles that editors want to publish, and Editors want to publish articles that readers want to read. But if the only letters he/she gets are from people who object to seeing government officials being criticized, it is bound to colour his/her opinion.

<span style="color:red"> FREEDOM OF INFORMATION </span>
Whatever the wishes of Parliament may have been when it passed the Freedom of Information Act, the Act itself was drafted by Civil Servants. So it's hardly surprising that to find that although it appears to give us freedom of information, it doesn't really do anything of the kind. If a query would cost more than £600 to answer, for instance, that is sufficient grounds for refusal. So if a civil servant doesn't want to tell you something, he only has to find a way of making it look as though it would cost more than £600, and he's off the hook. I've heard tell that almost half of all FOI applications are rejected for this reason. And I wouldn't mind betting that it's the most interesting half that are rejected.

Anyway, when the MAIB published their fascinating statistic, I saw an opportunity to by-pass this loophole in the law. The MAIB said it had "compiled a register" -- but if they had already compiled it, it couldn't possibly cost much to copy it onto a CD and stick it in the post. The only way it could cost more than £600 would be if they hadn't compiled the register in the first place.

They told the FOI Commissioner that it would cost £15,000!

<span style="color:red"> IS IT IMPORTANT? </span>
Well, I think so, and it seems you guys do too.

The MAIB seems to be using this particular set of dodgy data to campaign for compulsory reporting regulations which -- if they ever came into force -- would mean that a windsurfer would be committing a crime if he failed to tell the coastguard if he fell off his board, So would a dinghy sailor who capsized. And cruising sailors would be breaking the law if we failed to notify the coastguard of a flat battery, a non-starting outboard, or a gel-coat scratch during a slightly forceful approach to a pontoon... or even if our boats lean over!!!

The MAIB is already on record as having supplied a government minister with statistics that are clearly false, but which were subsequently presented to Parliament as "evidence" that the number of fatalities caused by drunks driving boats have more than doubled in the past five years, and that legislation is urgently required. The legislation in question would have meant that if you and your wife share a bottle of wine on board your own boat, even inside a locked marina, you would be breaking the law.

<span style="color:red"> COCK-UP OR CONSPIRACY? </span>
I'm pretty certain that although the MAIB inspectors may be well-qualified to deal with commercial shipping, their expertise in small craft is generally limited or non-existent. This leads them to make simplistic assessments based on dodgy data.

The Roaring Meg report is a good example. In spite of the fact that the report itself says the skipper had told his crew what they were going to do that day, and had warned them about the dangers posed by the boom and traveller, it blames the two accidents on poor passage planning and risk assessment procedures!

Another recent incident involved two people who fell out of a RIB during an emergency turn. The investigation didn't question whether the RIB seating provided enough lateral support, or why the kill-cord didn't stop the engine, or why one person died while wearing an uninflated 150N lifejacket. Instead, it blames the accident on alcohol and says that the 50N buoyancy aid worn by the survivor wasn't appropriate for the situation!

I could understand these things being caused by inspectors operating in an environment that is so completely alien to them that they fail to ask the right questions or to see the significance of the information available to them.

The thing that suggests conspiracy rather than cock-up is that several recent reports have referred to legislation that is inapplicable or non-existent. If civil servants can convince us that it is already illegal to move a boat away from its berth without at least two Yachtmasters and a First Aider on board, or that everyone must wear a lifejacket, drysuit and crash helmet at all times while on board, then it will be a lot easier for them to persuade their tame ministers that such legislation should be nodded through.

"Look minister", they will say. "All sensible yachtsmen already take these commonsense precautions. It is only the foolish minority that object"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top