Missing boat found. Comments?

[ThreeSummers]

http://www.bloodonthehulls.com

I've just read this, and if true, not impressed!

 

[pvb]

Sunsail are probably constrained by their insurers as to how they can respond.

 

[RichardS]

Sunsail are probably constrained by their insurers as to how they can respond.

There may be some truth in that ..... but whoever heads-up Sunsail needs to grow a pair and tell their insurer to take a jump. The CEO of Thomas Cook made the same mistake that Sunsail seem to be making.

Richard

 

[dunedin]

Perhaps everybody on here who has booked with Sunsail should email them asking them to act with more compassion

 

[NormanB]

That is the way Corporate entities discharge their ethical governance.
Very very shabby.

 

[dom]

There may be some truth in that ..... but whoever heads-up Sunsail needs to grow a pair and tell their insurer to take a jump. The CEO of Thomas Cook made the same mistake that Sunsail seem to be making.

Richard

The degree to which insurance/legal obstacles prevent companies from doing the right thing is often somewhat contrived, some might say convenient.

 

[Triassic]

It is unfortunate that todays compensation culture does rather encourage morally questionable behaviour but am I going to be unpopular if I suggest a slightly alternative viewpoint on this?

Certainly in the case of two of the three sailors involved this was a professional and extremely experienced delivery crew who were delivering a brand new boat to a customer. I see there is still some question as to who exactly owned the vessel at the time of it's loss suggesting the contract may have been subject to delivery, and this may well explain the apparent detachment on the part of Sunsail. I also noticed that one of the names of the sailors is the same as the company that built the boat, I don't know if this is coincidence or is there a connection?

I guess what I am saying is that the article posted by the OP is only one side of a story as seen by an understandably grieving family who may well have their own agenda behind it. I think it would be quite inappropriate to form a firm view around responsibility here, let alone act on it.

 

[sarabande]

I think I understand the family's concerns to have got the wreck back. Other cats of that class seem to have weathered storms without capsizing, so was there a structural issue with the rig, or another cause which could have been forensically determined from a physical inspection.

Could there even have been the remains of crew still on board ? Was the liferaft still stowed ?

I agree we are not in a position to assign responsibility, but the forum's detailed analysis of Cheeky Rafiki may even now be contributing to the safety of delivery crews bringing back hard-driven boats across the Atlantic. The corporate knowledge of the forum is immense and benevolent; I see no reason why it cannot explore all possibilities.

 

[dunedin]

I think I understand the family's concerns to have got the wreck back. Other cats of that class seem to have weathered storms without capsizing, so was there a structural issue with the rig, or another cause which could have been forensically determined from a physical inspection.

Could there even have been the remains of crew still on board ? Was the liferaft still stowed ?

I agree we are not in a position to assign responsibility, but the forum's detailed analysis of Cheeky Rafiki may even now be contributing to the safety of delivery crews bringing back hard-driven boats across the Atlantic. The corporate knowledge of the forum is immense and benevolent; I see no reason why it cannot explore all possibilities.

Spot on - as I read it, it is not about blame but recovering the boat to see if any of their loved ones bodies are still aboard, and /or learning about what happened. It's about compassion and closure - and they were seeking help from an organisation who had some moral involvement

 

[Triassic]

From another report I found on the web.


“There is no doubt the missing yacht should not have been at sea in those conditions, in spite of its quality. The blame lies with numerous people, including the pr.”

These are the questions TUI refuses to answer:
If the boat is found and bodies are found aboard, under what jurisdiction will the post mortems be conducted?
Will the family members be notified if bodies are recovered?
How will TUI Marine compensate the families for causing the death of their loved ones?
Will TUI Marine suspend the deliveries of these unsafe craft, or will you continue to take the cheapest option?
Why did TUI Marine not react immediately when the wreck was first spotted and photographed six weeks ago?
How much is the search costing? How much did TUI pay for the boat in the first place?
Is TUI Marine going to pay compensation voluntarily or will there have to be a lawsuit?

And we wonder why TUI are reluctant to engage with the family?

 

[dom]

I think I understand the family's concerns to have got the wreck back. Other cats of that class seem to have weathered storms without capsizing, so was there a structural issue with the rig, or another cause which could have been forensically determined from a physical inspection.

Could there even have been the remains of crew still on board ? Was the liferaft still stowed ?

I agree we are not in a position to assign responsibility, but the forum's detailed analysis of Cheeky Rafiki may even now be contributing to the safety of delivery crews bringing back hard-driven boats across the Atlantic. The corporate knowledge of the forum is immense and benevolent; I see no reason why it cannot explore all possibilities.

A neat way way to distill out the essence of what is important here. Of course there are many sides to this story, some of whom want to tell theirs, others who for whatever reason would rather not, or perhaps not right now.

That is of course their right, as it is us onlookers right to wonder why, or as the legal bods put it more drily:

Criminal Justice Act 1994

"Section 35 allows an inference to be drawn when a defendant is silent at trial.
R v Cowan [1996] Q.B. 373 sets out the five steps that a court must take prior to a section 35 adverse inference being drawn:

1. The judge must tell the jury that the burden of proof remains upon the prosecution throughout and what the required standard is;
2. The judge must make clear to the jury that the defendant has the right to remain silent;
3. An inference from failure to give evidence cannot on its own prove guilt;
4. Therefore the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a case to answer before drawing any inferences from silence. The jury may not believe witnesses whose evidence the judge thought raised a prima facie case;
5. If, having considered the defence case, the jury concludes that the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant's having no answer or none that would stand up to cross-examination, they may draw an adverse inference."

 

[JumbleDuck]

From another report I found on the web.
“There is no doubt the missing yacht should not have been at sea in those conditions, in spite of its quality..."

What are they supposed to do, wait until there is guaranteed good weather forecast all the way from South Africa to Thailand?

 

[KellysEye]

>How will TUI Marine compensate the families for causing the death of their loved ones?

That would be impossible to prove, it could have been structrual failure or bad weather or something else.

 

[Tranona]

This is not the first time this type of thing has happened. Once again it raises all sorts of questions about whether there is a regulatory framework within which there is a means to investigate.

Typically boats under delivery tend not to be registered, or registered under a flag of convenience, owned for the duration of the delivery by an entity that is not the eventual customer and sailed by self employed individuals. There is no recognise standard of equipment nor inspection required, nor crewing requirements.

The result is that there is no body responsible for investigation and prosecution as no regulations or laws to break.

Issues have been well covered here in the past - and through the courts. Google Reliance Marine for the details.

 

[Triassic]

A neat way way to distill out the essence of what is important here. Of course there are many sides to this story, some of whom want to tell theirs, others who for whatever reason would rather not, or perhaps not right now.

That is of course their right, as it is us onlookers right to wonder why, or as the legal bods put it more drily:

Criminal Justice Act 1994......

That is one heck of a misleading inference.

What exactly do you expect TUI or Sunsail to say?

Yes we ordered a new boat from "South Africas largest boat builder" (taken directly from the Robertson and Caine webpage).
Yes a professional crew were engaged to deliver the vessel.
No it didn't arrive.
We don't know why that happened.

Without details of who hired them, what their remit was, who's decision was it to put to sea, and ultimately what went wrong I don't see how anybody on here can suggest, or even infer, that any particular party has a responsibility, let alone be critical of them which is pretty much what the first four out of five posts on this thread were doing. As Tranona says the position with regard to delivery crews on new boats is complicated but ultimately it's the skippers decision, along maybe with their crew, to put to sea.

I wonder why the builders who supplied and dispatched the boat haven't had a mention anywhere?

If someone was asking me the sort of questions the family are asking, worded the way they are, I certainly wouldn't be saying anything or agreeing to meeting them either.

 

[dom]

That is one heck of a misleading inference.

What exactly do you expect TUI or Sunsail to say?

...If someone was asking me the sort of questions the family are asking, worded the way they are, I certainly wouldn't be saying anything or agreeing to meeting them either.

Was it misleading; or simply an accepted principle of UK, European and other Western legal systems, alongside what many would see as a fairly basic principle of natural justice?

As to what Sunsail should say, I have no idea and I have not and do not accused them of anything. You ask what I would do if I were CEO of a company in such tragic circumstances; well I would ask the company's legal advisers to quantify the possible cost of contacting the family at the earliest possible moment, with a mind to swallowing the associated bill and perhaps even reaching a negotiated settlement. I say negotiated because as Tranona rightly points out the incident appears to fall outside the remit of a single competent legal authority.

So Sunsail have a choice here as to what to say, as does everyone else have a choice to infer from a persisting silence the same type of inference they could quite explicitly infer within a UK Court. In short, Sunsail's enduring silence does not apply a de facto a veto upon open conversation and nor should it.

 

[Triassic]

You ask what I would do if I were CEO of a company in such tragic circumstances; well I would ask the company's legal advisers to quantify the possible cost of contacting the family at the earliest possible moment, with a mind to swallowing the associated bill and perhaps even reach a negotiated settlement. I say negotiated because as Tranona rightly points out the incident appears to fall outside the remit of a single competent legal authority.

As I said in my very first post on this thread it is unfortunate when issues of litigation may prevent otherwise decent behaviour. As the CEO of Sunsail how would you word your message to the family without them being able to use it as an admission of responsibility or liability for the incident?

 

[RichardS]

As I said in my very first post on this thread it is unfortunate when issues of litigation may prevent otherwise decent behaviour. As the CEO of Sunsail how would you word your message to the family without them being able to use it as an admission of responsibility or liability for the incident?

I'm certainly not blaming Sunsail or Robertson and Caine or the Skipper and Crew for this tragedy, simply because we don't have enough information.

However, the CEO could certainly write to the families and say something like "I was very saddened to hear about the loss of your loved ones and, if you wish, would be happy to meet with you to discuss this terrible tragedy"

Simple.

Richard

 

[Lon nan Gruagach]

As I said in my very first post on this thread it is unfortunate when issues of litigation may prevent otherwise decent behaviour. As the CEO of Sunsail how would you word your message to the family without them being able to use it as an admission of responsibility or liability for the incident?

Even just "Hello, our deepest condolences for your loss" is streets ahead of "We wont even see you"

 

[Triassic]

Sorry, I should have worded that better. You are aware Sunsail have only refused to meet with the family as a result of the subsequent correspondence between them, and in particular the family's questions which I copied into post 10? Bearing in mind those were in an article printed in July 2015. I don't think you can realistically throw that kind of mud around and not expect a somewhat guarded response.

I helped deliver a catamaran not dissimilar to the one involved in this incident earlier this year. It was a brand new boat built in France and needed to be delivered to Greece for the charter company there (not Sunsail.) The skipper involved had done several similar trips for the same parties however he was in effect "self employed" and bids against other skippers for each delivery. I and the other crew were recruited by the skipper, not the charter company or the boat builder. I don't know if this is the arrangement in place for the described incident however I understand it is common place.

Although we were under a certain amount of pressure to deliver the vessel on schedule there was never any question in my mind as to where our individual responsibilities lay. We and our skipper were responsible to checking the vessel over prior to the voyage, we were responsible for satisfying ourselves that we had appropriate equipment and provisions, and we decided when and when not to sail. I would be hard pressed to think of any area where the charter company had any involvement in our decision making process or our actions and I certainly don't see how they could be held responsible for the consequences of them. We were the professionals providing a service, indeed you might consider that if we were to lose or damage the boat as a result of a poor decision on our part it could easily be the charter company seeking settlement from us......

I'm sorry but I haven't read anything in any of the various articles and reports I found in relation to this incident on the web that in my view justifies the family taking the position they seem to be adopting against Sunsail.