QHM Portsmouth Requiring Risk Assessments from Sailing Clubs.

mainsail1 said:
Which kinda proves my point that QHM asking for risk assessments from sailing clubs, is a bureaucratic waste of everyone's time.
People around when you fall off the pontoon will know what to do without a risk assessment......laugh, then help you back onto the pontoon. No doubt a risk assessment should lead to action including no alcohol being sold, no fun and no pontoon which in turn leads in the end to no sailing club.
Click to expand...
If you want to over imbibe and fall into the oggin from the pontoon then fine, no amount of looking at the risks and mitigating them will stop you from doing that, but perhaps with a few ladders and the odd lifebelt around somebody just might be able to stop you from an early death.

A boat owner that I know had an unpleasant surprise one morning finding a body next to the boat, as a result they almost put the boat on the market.
 
mainsail1 said:
Which kinda proves my point that QHM asking for risk assessments from sailing clubs, is a bureaucratic waste of everyone's time.
People around when you fall off the pontoon will know what to do without a risk assessment......laugh, then help you back onto the pontoon. No doubt a risk assessment should lead to action including no alcohol being sold, no fun and no pontoon which in turn leads in the end to no sailing club.
Click to expand...

If you study HASWA 74 Mr Mainsail, don't skip the Preamble - as many folk do. There it will tell you to interpret the Act with 'reasonableness'. There is no need for hysteria or to close Clubs down.

There is a way of avoiding HASWA 74 of course.... That is for the Club to say eg. This w/e we will rendezvous at this venue. Offer no tide/navigation advice, no safety boat, no weather forecast. Each skipper will be responsible for his/her own boat and crew.
 
Odd how HASAWA applies to some, but not to others... particularly the highways authorities.

Their standard is to do nothing until 8 serious accidents occur at a location over six years. Indeed there has been a fatality and two further serious accidents near me during the last 9 years. Nothing done about the management of the road. Who else could get away with that? ... but I digress.
 
mainsail1 said:
Were there more accidents at your Club before risk assessment started?
Click to expand...

That is not the point, the point that when the accident does happen you first have the means of dealing with it then can show the subsequent investigation you thought of the risks and mitigated them as far as practically.
 
EdWingfield said:
If you study HASWA 74 Mr Mainsail, don't skip the Preamble - as many folk do. There it will tell you to interpret the Act with 'reasonableness'. There is no need for hysteria or to close Clubs down.

There is a way of avoiding HASWA 74 of course.... That is for the Club to say eg. This w/e we will rendezvous at this venue. Offer no tide/navigation advice, no safety boat, no weather forecast. Each skipper will be responsible for his/her own boat and crew.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember the RYA lawyers suggesting this may not be a satisfactory defense though as far as I know it has not been tested in court.
 
Tomahawk said:
Odd how HASAWA applies to some, but not to others... particularly the highways authorities.

Their standard is to do nothing until 8 serious accidents occur at a location over six years. Indeed there has been a fatality and two further serious accidents near me during the last 9 years. Nothing done about the management of the road. Who else could get away with that? ... but I digress.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. Road users are trained how to use the roads (you may have forgotten that at some stage). There are risks & rules for dealing with those risks which are conveyed to the road users. it is generally the users who are at fault in that they fail to follow those rules.
In the same way, if the club does have sensible guidelines & does take steps to convey those risks & how to deal with them to the membership then you cannot blame the club if some idiot decides to sail straight into the path of a ship.
If, however, a club operates in an area where there are shipping movements & fails to advise visitors to open meetings of such risks & does not have procedures in place to ensure that races are, where possible, carried out to give a safe race course then the club could be taken to task.
 
EdWingfield said:
I would like to see that RYA's lawyers advice Mr Maxi. Can you link me to it plz?
Click to expand...

Nope, wish I could but it is a vague memory from my time as sailing sec many years ago. From memory it was based on the thought that if you organise the event you imply it is OK to take part thus if the conditions are foresee-ably bad it is your responsibility to either call it of or take action to mitigate the risks to competitors.
 
Thanks for looking Peter. In my mind I was thinking of the annual get-together with a friendly Club 20M away. Your members will drink their beer and buy a bbq. You know - mutual support, funds into the coffers.

Other than notifying your skippers of the invite - offer them no advice. Treat them as the experienced skippers they are. If they choose to share info or sail in company they will.

I know of no case law where such a Club is held responsible for its Members. (I might be wrong though)
 
mainsail1 said:
Which kinda proves my point that QHM asking for risk assessments from sailing clubs, is a bureaucratic waste of everyone's time.
People around when you fall off the pontoon will know what to do without a risk assessment......laugh, then help you back onto the pontoon. No doubt a risk assessment should lead to action including no alcohol being sold, no fun and no pontoon which in turn leads in the end to no sailing club.
Click to expand...

Actually that is a situation that proves the point that risk assessment helps to save lives. One will find that marina owners are duty bound to consider risks to those using their pontoons. As a result most well run marinas are littered with ladders on pontoons into the water along with signage, lifebelts poles with hoops etc to assist in life saving. There are numerous stories from forumites describing how hard it can be getting people out of the water when they have fallen from pontoons. 17 stone drunks are no laughing matter & I expect that a properly written risk assessment will have considered this to some extent. It does not lead to " No alcohol" but it does lead to a certain amount of recovery equipment often being available.
It may not always be in the right place or sufficient, but then it never could be 100% if people are going to behave like idiots & throw " Common sense" out the back door- which , unfortunately, they often do
 
Simple guide to risk assessment.

1. Organised event + no risk assessment / results in injury = someone is in the shit.

2. Organised event + reasonable attempt at but, not very good risk assessment / results in injury = likely to be ok.

H&S is really pretty straight forward but massively over interpreted.

For a basic planned event, give some thought too and record your findings for the following and all should be well!
....... and remember, risk assessment is about identifying and reasonably reducing risk, NOT eliminating it otherwise we wouldn’t even leave the sofa,!

What are the five steps to risk assessment?

[*]Step 1: Identify hazards, i.e. anything that may cause harm.

[*]Step 2: Decide who may be harmed, and how.

[*]Step 3: Assess the risks and take action

[*]Step 4: Make a record of the findings.

[*]Step 5: Review the risk assessment.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
I have used a matrix of consequence and likelihood... one to five.

Thus event is guaranteed to happen, 5
Event will result in fatality or debilitating injury, 5
Score 25.

Event will happen 5
Event will cause no harm 1
score 5.
 
Tomahawk said:
I have used a matrix of consequence and likelihood... one to five.

Thus event is guaranteed to happen, 5. Event will result in fatality or debilitating injury, 5. Score 25.
Event will happen 5, Event will cause no harm 1. score 5.
Click to expand...

Fairly standard procedure and used in UK construction sites and Railways. I remember the Clapham Rail crash caused by stressed manager and lack of safety culture, and resulted in court action. So we all got worried about being taken to court in future. HMRI (now HSE) said taking precautions but making a misjudgement of risk is human error, however failing to assess risks or ignoring a known risk is negligence and would get us pilloried and prosecuted to the utmost.
 
Kingfisher 4 said:
Kettles were banned by H & S in my wife's head office in London … I wonder if QHM Pompey has got a kettle on the premises. Dangerous things kettles!
Click to expand...

That’s a sign on an incompetent H & S Manager banning something that is in general use in millions of locations with all users likely to be very familiar with how to use
 
Daverw said:
That’s a sign on an incompetent H & S Manager banning something that is in general use in millions of locations with all users likely to be very familiar with how to use
Click to expand...

It wasn't an incompetent H & S manager it was a visit, in force, by the H & S authorities to the Unilever Building, London.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top