MAIB Roasted

Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

[ QUOTE ]
we would soon hear from the Nautical Institute if the MAIB's Inspectors were any less punctilious than that

[/ QUOTE ]

The NI maintains the MARS reporting database and their report 200630 has an Editors Note "it must be continually borne in mind that yachting and the consumption of alcohol and/or drugs are sometimes culturally associated"

I challenged the NI over this statement, and it's author replied
"I wrote that statement, and after 30 years of yachting experience as well, I can attest to the fact that many weekend and casual sailors (both motor and sail) do drink while operating their vessels.

I think this practice is less prevalent in certain areas and not a common practice of professional and offshore yacht crews, but it does happen and any vessel operator who is navigating around leisure yachts particularly near marinas on weekends, in my opinion, would be remiss not to take this into account when determining risk"

You still so sure about the Nautical Institute slapping down MAIB?
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

We've all seen the pictures on the forums here of mobo's on rocks in Scandinavia after drinking

Maybe I mix with the wrong people, though apart from a few trips to Wareham, where drunken skippers go gently aground chasing ducks, I've not met any who boat whilst under the influence
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

I take your point, and recollect that it is drunken operators of commercial vessels that e.g. crash their vessels into jetties in Southampton Water....

There are several examples in the pages of recent MAIB Safety Digests of alcohol-influenced marine accidents caused by well-qualified professionals. And if memory serves, one or two British airline pilots have found themselves on the wrong end of a breathalyser in recent years. There's even a traditional song about this..... 'What shall we do....', so it's an old issue that the NI and MAIB have failed to resolve.

It's always illuminating to follow the money. Who gains by regulating and licensing recreational yotties?

/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Re: Response from MAIB

Response from MAIB to my FOI request - see below.
I'm not happy. The request was addressed to the Dept of Transport. The DoT is MAIB's governing body. The Minister of Transport is answerable in the House for MAIB. I find it hard to believe that has been no conversations or correspendence at senior level on an issue that has involved the Information Commissioner. Right. Let's ratchet this up a stage.

maibrl1.gif
 
More from NI

"it must be continually borne in mind that yachting and the consumption of alcohol and/or drugs are sometimes culturally associated"

I've had some further correspondence with the author of this comment, and think it's only fair to post his clarification:

"I’ve never had the pleasure of sailing in the Solent, as most of my experience is around the US (E&W coast) and Caribbean. Although, as I’ve said before, it may not be common, I have had recent experience witnessing the consumption of alcohol and cannabis on leisure craft. I have also seen and heard of incidents where if inebriation hasn’t been involved, sheer stupidity has.

My original comment was not meant as a derision of the majority of yacht folk, but rather as a (reasonable in my opinion) aspect of risk that should lead to extra caution being exercised when in the proximity of yachts"

To which I replied
[ QUOTE ]
I’m aware of the situation being somewhat ‘different’ in the Caribbean and some parts of the US ...

I wish you had said that "in some parts of the world it must be borne in mind that yachting and the consumption of alcohol and/or drugs are sometimes culturally associated"

That at least would have suggested that it isn’t a universal problem, and that some of us do take our responsibilities seriously

[/ QUOTE ]

And his response

"Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind for the future, in the meantime good sailing"
 
Re: More from NI

Having read the details of the ICO report you can see why the request was turned down and why the complaint was not upheld.

However also suggests a very workable solution to get some of the requested information.

The numerical log is held in an excel spreadsheet - so they can provide that to you at low cost. Once you have the sheet you will be able to identify days that have a number of incidents reported.

Then making a firther request for certain sample data could produce a representative sample of information to enable some data quality analysis to be undertaken.

You should be able to get the excel sheet, the 64 daily reports and a sample of 60 reports (raw data so you can extract the information)
 
Re: Response from MAIB

I believe we're aligned on this. /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I note that the Report, at Annex B - Statistics, includes under 'Other Vessels' two vessels commercially engaged in fishing ( whether registered or not ), which could not properly be described as recreational vessels, and which account for 2 of the listed fatalities for that year.

Further, another 6 deaths, at least, occurred on non-tidal landlocked inland waterways - and while entirely regretable, should not have been lumped together with marine accidents, but included among other inland waterways drowning incidents - of which there were more than 250 in 2002 ( the latest RoSPA statistics )

That makes, by my reckoning, 8 of the 24 'deaths in leisure craft accidents.... and incidents in UK waters' to be properly attributable to other groupings. There is strong suspicion that much of the '1126 accidents/incidents' are likewise properly attributable to groups other than leisure marine craft, and that reality is why the data sources are being obscured so strongly.

In my view this is a clear and cynical example of managers manipulating the figures to support a preconceived agenda - that of justifying further intrusive regulation, and the voting of increased departmental resources to police it. It is noted that the Branch overspent it's 05/06 budget by £240,000. I wonder what proportion of that overspend is attributable to increases in management-grade salaries and pensions contributions..... At least half of it, I hear.

In well over half of these deaths, 'failure to wear a lifejacket' was noted. One wonders if the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the MAIB, and ACPO with the Crown Prosecution Service in February 2006 will lead to the prosecution of those who die without wearing a lifejacket - or, possibly more productively, a redoubling of educative effort.

It is my view that the investigative teams, per se, do a good job. It is also my view that conclusions are being reached by Stephen Meyers on the basis of selective and misleading data, and that - as in this report - such misconceived conclusions are being used to inform policy considerations. And I have that, unattributably, from the DfT inside......

We should resist that 'Yes, Minister' abuse of public trust and public money.


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

Notwithstanding all that has been written before, I submit the following research:

[MAIB QUOTE] 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. [END QUOTE]

http://www.maib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/LCSD.pdf - Leisure Craft Safety Digest 2004 mentions *about* 20 deaths over the 8 year period to 2004 which averages out to just over 2 per year?

Having spent a good few hours researching information which is freely available in the public domain, (MAIB, BBC, local paper reports on-line), I have come up with only the following 10 deaths in leisure craft in UK waters for the year 2005:

13 Mar 2005 Lock Lomond, 2 lives lost; 6 APR 2005, canoe Poole Harbour 1 lost; 2 July 2005 north Wales ailing dinghy 2 lives lost; 10 JUL 2005 Loch Fyne, 3 lives lost; 16 JUL 2005, St Mawes Cormwall, 1 life lost; 8 SEP 2005 Weymouth Bay 1 life lost.

This makes a total of 10 lives. There could be more?

Page 10 of the Annual Report 2005 mentions that Accident Investigation Reports that are free and available following every full investigation??

What they probably mean, in the original statement is in the whole of 2005 there were MAI which ‘involved’ 24 incidents of *death or injury*’ or much less likely, the total number of deaths the MAIB investigated including all commercial, fishing and leisure craft?

On page 26 they list all the MAI involving ‘non-commercial, UK flagged craft’ over the year and it comes to 23 incidents of which 10 were total loss.

I find the most interesting part is Table 23 on page 32 ( right at the very end of the document) where it states that the total number of deaths in 2005 on vessels UNDER 15 METRES was 3 and a total of 9 (NINE) deaths in 2005 on *all vessels* (in British waters?).


So there you have it, they don't know what they are writing!

ps: I spent 22 years in HMG doing research and investigations and I think that the MAIB was truthful to a point but got their facts totally wrong and in reporting that they “we were aware of 24 deaths in leisure craft accidents in the UK” led some of you to think this referred to the previous statement of “. .. . . For the two months 8 August - 10 October, we compiled a register of leisure craft accidents and incidents in UK waters”. Take another read. Of course it might have been deliberate to bolster their kudos?
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

It seems from both the IC and MAIB's replies that they have actively sought ways and means to justify a refusal. This is entirely consistent with the intention of the FOI Act, if not its spirit..

I think perhaps an investigative journalist may be interested in the affair to date, and may be able to bring additional pressure to bear.
 
Re: Response from MAIB

If I published a paper in a medical journal based on 1162 adverse incidents and was not able to furnish the raw data (with appropriate deletions for the sake of confidentiality), I would be rightly suspected of fraud, or at very least, unscientific conduct.

The Information Commissioner's report contains the following statement: [ QUOTE ]
With regard to the remainder of the request, the MAIB suggested that although it did hold the information on a database, to recover the requested information for all 1162 leisure craft incidents would be a ‘huge administrative task’.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there is a database. The problem seems to be that the database doesn't include fields for the information requested. Surely what we need to know is what fields the database does contain.

Mark
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

"This makes a total of 10 lives. There could be more?"

it could be that some of the fatalities were natural causes, ie heart attacks etc, which happened to occur on a boat. The MAIB may have used these to embelish their numbers, even though those folk would have sadly died anyway.

Once again we need to see the detail to understand the reality.
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

MCA have a stand at the Boat Show. One of the posters on the stand says that alcohol was responsible for over a thousand deaths (over a period of about three years, if I remember correctly). I challenged the figure, but was told that it included deaths such as beach swimmers, and was not restricted to deaths on boats. I asked about the raw data, but was told that the figure came from ROSPA and RLSS, and that MCA had just accepted the figures without the raw data. The man on the stand then added "Of course, ROSPA and RLSS are not subject to the FOI Act".

In other words, MCA can take figures from organisations with significant axes to grind, and put them into publicity in a quite misleading way, knowing that there is no means by which they can be checked.

I used to work for government in the fire field. Every fire attended by a fire brigade was reported back on a standardised form, and was placed on a data base which could easily be interrogated. Maybe it's time that MCA did the same.
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

If the figures were collected from RLSS / RSPOA then it is almost certainly does not even include those from boats.

I don't think either organisation has an agenda to influence government policy but is very bad practice for people like the MCA to use such statistics without understanding what they mean.
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

[ QUOTE ]
The man on the ( MCA ) stand then added "Of course, ROSPA and RLSS are not subject to the FOI Act".

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I wonder just how he knew that - and why! I've had a closer look at the MAIB website, and followed some of the links. It's instructive....

[ QUOTE ]
From the MAIB website on the classes of information in the publication scheme:

'Research and Statistics: Information on ......as well as
statistical information on reported accidents, major and serious injuries, and hazardous incidents'

[/ QUOTE ]

That website contains a link to the published Report of the Information Commissioner regarding Tim Bartlett's complaint.... .
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, the ( Information ) Commissioner has established that under the The Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2005 the MAIB is only obliged to investigate accidents involving merchant ship and fishing vessels. Therefore, there is no statutory duty for the MAIB to investigate accidents or incidents involving leisure craft.

Consequently, the Commissioner is satisfied that the MAIB would not have any need to hold information about leisure craft incidents

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that the MAIB has overspent its budget by £240,000 - largely by involvement in overseas trips and increased salaries/pension contributions for its senior people - including Chief Inspector Stephen Meyers and Head of Admin Roger Brydges - how on earth can it justify spending time and ( our ) money compiling reports on leisure craft incidents from admittedly highly-suspect and inadequately-validated data which comes to them, unregulated and unquestioned, from 'other sources'. They then use this to compile conclusions which feature prominently in the body's Annual Report......

I assume that we are paying these types quite a lot of money each year for their professional skills and probity. Even a schoolboy studying GCSE Statistics is drilled in the need to evaluate and test the integrity of data used, and to take particular care in drawing conclusions which can be justified clearly within the data, by others.

Whether the management of this outfit failed to ensure the quality of analysis on which their 'dodgy dossier' Annual Report was based, or - as we have seen elsewhere - they simply pre-determined some conclusions and had someone find some 'dodgy' data' to underpin their agenda, scarcely matters.

This particular debacle from the upper reaches of the MAIB and DfT shows incompetence, arrogance - or worse, a self-serving personal agenda being followed. Either way, we the public are not being served sufficiently professionally by those in management at the MAIB, as we have every right to expect.

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

I received this today;

------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the attention of that Carlton bloke,

Dear that Carlton bloke,

Thank you for your e-mail of 29 December 2006 to the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents. He has asked me to reply on his behalf.



The complaint made to the Information Commissioner was the subject of a Decision Notice published on 21 November 2006. This had followed a challenge to the section of the foreword to the Marine Accident Investigation Branch's (MAIB) Annual Report 2005 in which the Chief Inspector described some work the Branch had carried out during the year in an attempt to quantify the level of accidents involving privately owned leisure craft. The lack of any reliable statistics in this sector has been recognised by this Department, as well as by the Royal Yachting Association and the RNLI, and we are working together to improve the basis upon which our respective policies can be based.



The full Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner's Office can be read on its website (www.ico.gov.uk), but I attach a copy for ease of reference.



Yours sincerely







Roger Brydges
Head of Administration
Marine Accident Investigation Branch
Carlton House, Carlton Place
Southampton SO15 2DZ
Tel: 023 8039 5511
Fax: 023 8023 2459
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing new, then. Brilliant cop-out, that £600 limit. Means they can say/do whatever they want as long as they can justify any investigation would cost at least £600.01.

As predicted, the response is along the lines of, "Just keep paying your taxes - we'll decide what's right for you". Suspect the whole things a crock of [--word removed--]. Democracy my arsehole.
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

"The lack of any reliable statistics in this sector has been recognised by this Department, as well as by the Royal Yachting Association and the RNLI, and we are working together to improve the basis upon which our respective policies can be based."

Well at least they have kind of acknowledged they didnt really know what they were talking about.
 
Re: MAIB Roasted over \'dodgy dossier\'

That's a useful suggestion, but;

[ QUOTE ]
The full Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner's Office

[/ QUOTE ]

lists the costings involved, and I can't see how they can be broken down into bite-size chunks - can you suggest a way? Unless you're suggesting that we examine the excel spreadsheet and 1162 of us request further information on each individual "incident" ? Could be done, I s'pose,,,,,,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top