Purbeck Isle deaths report: Life raft failures blamed

[sailorman]

Three fishermen died because an incorrectly-stowed life raft failed when their vessel sank, a report said.
David McFarlane, 35, Jack Craig, 21, and Robert Prowse, 20, were onboard the Purbeck Isle when it went missing.
The Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) report said it was "entirely possible" they could have survived if the raft had inflated.
"Because the life raft canister did not fit snugly into its cradle, the skipper had applied additional lashings to prevent it from falling off the wheelhouse roof in heavy seas," the report indicated.
"These additional lashings had been intertwined with the life raft's main lashing rope and they prevented the raft from floating free."
The life raft was stowed upside down which would have allowed water to build up, the report said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-22367838

 

[oldharry]

The report makes sad reading: the main causes of the sinking are identified as the hull being in very poor condition, with numerous temporary repairs which had never been properly sorted. Extensive rot was noted on the wreck. The crew "relied heavily on the bilge pumps" to keep the boat afloat.

The owner is slated as having an 'irresponsible attitude' to safety, and to not having learned from similar recent previous incidents.

The likely cause of the sinking is attributed to a catastrophic failure of the hull fastenings leading to a plank or planks springing causing a sudden massive leak. This caused the boat to sink so rapidly the crew had no time to send out a distress call, or to put on their LJs, which were stowed below in the engine space. The liferaft had been tied down because it kept falling off its bracket in rough seas, so could not float free. It was not properly installed anyway and did not inflate although the hydrostatic release mechanism had operated. The report suggests the hull may have failed on the garboard strake. The hull was 60 years old, and in a 1997 survey was commented to be in need of 'constant maintenance'. The owner was still paying for the boat, and it is suggested that this meant he could not afford to give the hull the maintenance it needed, simply putting on tingles to try and stop the worst leaks, and using pitch and silicone sealant to seal areas of rot above and below the waterline.

Altogether a tragic story of a young man determined to make a living out of a boat he could not afford to pay for and maintain, and taking increasing risks with a hull in very poor condition.

 

[savageseadog]

Seems surprising that it wouldn't have been subject to regular survey, especially considering the type of construction, age and the results of previous surveys. I would have thought the insurance company and harbour authorities would have had something to say.

 

[Seajet]

I have to say that skipper showed a distinct lack of imagination, a slip knot with a small float on the liferaft lashing and having the lifejackets handy - even to float free - would have quite possibly saved them.

The crew paid for his mistakes with their lives, the age old story; if going aboard any boat, commercial or leisure, check everything out especially the safety gear and arrangements.

I'm often saddened by the decrepid state of British fishing boats, no pride of ownership evident; almost anywhere else the boats are immaculate and the owners' pride and joy.

The UK lot like to call themselves ' Professional seamen ' ? but are more adept at laying lobster pots in narrow dangerous channels or deliberately sending a wash over yachts in harbour; not so good at maintenance...

 

[oldharry]

Seems surprising that it wouldn't have been subject to regular survey, especially considering the type of construction, age and the results of previous surveys. I would have thought the insurance company and harbour authorities would have had something to say.

The report comments on this. There is supposed to be a 5 yearly MCA survey, but they admit they have neither the personnel or funding to cover all the thousands of under 15m fishing boats. This surprises me alongside my own experience of out of water annual surveys required for the pleasure boats I used to run, though that was some time ago. It was commented elsewhere that these surveys tend to be restricted to equipment and availability of safety gear, not out of water hull surveys. I am not sure Harbour Authorities have the power to do much more than refuse admission to a boat that is clearly unsafe - and a rotten, nailsick hull would not be all that obvious as it chugs past.

 

[prv]

I have to say that skipper showed a distinct lack of imagination, a slip knot with a small float on the liferaft lashing

No need for that, he already had a hydrostatic unit which did its job. The problem was that he'd added sundry other lashings that weren't rigged to be released by the HRU.

Pete

 

[fisherman]

The report comments on this. There is supposed to be a 5 yearly MCA survey, but they admit they have neither the personnel or funding to cover all the thousands of under 15m fishing boats.

MCA surveys all registered boats, but as stated above it only extends to equipment, flares, HRU if fitted, L/R if fitted, lights, fog signal, fire extinguishers, lifejackets, latest addition was the gas alarm. Interested to know if it was even insured given the 1997 survey. No need to lose your life like that.