MAIB statistics

[Observer]

Following on from this thread, it is now quite interesting to look back at 2006. I did a little research from MAIB annual reports in the middle of last year, which I have now updated, and these are some of the conclusions I draw:

1. 2005 was certainly a horrendous year for pleasure vessel fatalities but (contrary to the thrust of the MAIB Annual Report) it's very far from showing a dramatic surge in the trend. I collected pleasure vessel fatalities from all reports as far back as I could (1998) and found that the average number of fatalities over the 8 years from 1998-2005 is 10 - and the 2001-2005 5 year average is - 10.

2. In 2006, assuming all pleasure boat fatalities have been investigated or are under investigation, the total number appears to be - 5.

3. In 2002, there were 9 pleasure vessel fatalities and 0 full investigations; in 2003, 10 fatalities and 3 investigations; in 2004 3 fatalities and 0 investigations; and in 2005, 25 fatalities and 8 investigatons. In 2006, there were 5 fatalities (in 3 accidents) and there have been 3 full investigations (commenced or commenced and completed).

4. In 2005, there were two high-profile fatal accidents (Carrie Kate/Kets and Sea Snake) resulting from collisions with 4 fatalities. The impression from the MAIB is that high speed, alcohol fuelled collisions is a growing problem. The statistics do not support this. Out of the 81 pleasure vessel fatalities between 1998 and 2005, only 7 resulted from collisions. By far the largest number (43) come under the description "capsized/foundered/sank".

 

[Shanty]

You are clearly making the elementary mistake of looking at the facts before making your conclusion.

As any politician will tell you, you must get your conclusions clear in your mind before coming into contact with reality. Otherwise, how will you be able to sort the significant data (the 2005 figures here) from the rest of the irrelevant facts (here, all the other years data).

An obvious clue to the erroneous nature of your analysis is the fact that it doesn't support the need for some form of legislation.
/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[deep denial]

it would be interesting to ask them to defend their conclusions in the light of your analysis. I hope someone from the RYA is reading this!
incidentally does it give a breakdown of accidents by type of craft ie sail vs power?

 

[Observer]

[ QUOTE ]
..... does it give a breakdown of accidents by type of craft ie sail vs power?

[/ QUOTE ]

The detail in the older reports is a bit sketchy so it's difficult to say with confidence. If the "type of vessel" is "dinghy" that could be either power or sail or other. If the dinghy is a tender, the mother vessel could be power or sail (does it matter?).

Of the 25 fatalities in 2005, the breakdown was: power 9, sail 9, other 7. However, within each catgory are accidents that do not really help draw meaningful conclusions - for example, in the sail group are a sailing yacht skipper who fell in the water trying to clear a fouled propeller and another who became entangled in propeller while laying anchor from a grounded yacht; whilst in the power category is an owner who fell from the vessel trying to fix a tarpaulin. Is the type of vessel of any relevance at all in those cases?

 

[ParaHandy]

well done you ... personally, i think the accident in Tarbet coloured their judgement