LittleSister
Well-Known Member
We all make mistakes, but it seems this skipper doesn't realise that he has done so.
Red Funnel Captain in "is a bit arrogant" shocker...
- Thread starter flaming
- Start date
We all make mistakes, but it seems this skipper doesn't realise that he has done so.
dom
Well-Known Member
As I mentioned in post #3, Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants!
We're all free to draw different conclusions. Me, I think that Captain Drummond is a menace and subject to the various reports being correct believe his career as a mariner should be terminated with immediate and permanent effect. It is of course up to the court to decide.
Seajet
...
I think that would be an over-reaction, but a ' retraining course ' would sort out any bad habits, ego or complacency - I've always thought that must be a problem for ferry pilot / skippers - and maybe a week or two on ' how to handle PR ' might be an idea - it's very lucky the mobo crew - yes deficient too - weren't hurt or killed.
duncan99210
Well-Known Member
The MAIB report made an entertaining read with a catalogue of errors on made by both skippers. The press report mentions that the mobo skipper was given a caution but not prosecuted as he was not a “professional seaman”.
I was initially sympathetically inclined towards the ferry captain but his arrogant attitude under questioning by the MCA explains why they’re throwing the book at him. I suspect a more contrite attitude would have resulted in a caution for him as well.....
I was initially sympathetically inclined towards the ferry captain but his arrogant attitude under questioning by the MCA explains why they’re throwing the book at him. I suspect a more contrite attitude would have resulted in a caution for him as well.....
PilotWolf
Well-Known Member
Personally I think it's wrong that the pleasure boat 'skipper' wasn't prosecuted just because he wasn't a professional mariner is wrong. That's a bit like trialing a lorry driver but not a car driver in an accident where they both contributed to the RTC .
The alleged attitude of the RF captain isn't good, but the same goes for the pleasure boat skipper who after a few years on boats never bothered to learn the IRPCS or local bye laws and failed to keep a proper look out. I'm against compulsory training for the leisure world but I think you need to take some responsibility for your safety and that of your passengers.
I was regularly 'ridiculed' in my last job for doing things by the book/rules. My argument was if the $h1t hits the fan I know I can say I did it the correct way and I did my best to prevent said incident.
W.
The alleged attitude of the RF captain isn't good, but the same goes for the pleasure boat skipper who after a few years on boats never bothered to learn the IRPCS or local bye laws and failed to keep a proper look out. I'm against compulsory training for the leisure world but I think you need to take some responsibility for your safety and that of your passengers.
I was regularly 'ridiculed' in my last job for doing things by the book/rules. My argument was if the $h1t hits the fan I know I can say I did it the correct way and I did my best to prevent said incident.
W.
Last edited:
Resolution
Well-Known Member
Well said.
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
Yes I was being flippant.
The vast majority of times I would be opposed to prosecution or persecution
I accept errors are made and accidents happen. The best way to prevent accidents is to learn what went and change what is required to help prevent a reoccurrence.
This guy may have made 600 crossings. Big deal. 5999 times the other vessel has taken action to compensate for his attitude and lax, complacent and I would suggest negligent watch keeping habits.
He clearly has not accepted his portion of responsibility for this incident. Or expressed any form of Mea Culpa.
This time the motor boater was also lax and complacent possibly even negligent. Result a collision which the boaters were luck to survive.
I don't believe blame is a effective method of preventing accidents. Unfortunately a system where there is no accountability is no effective either. A just system is required where accountability must be upheld.
Occasionally, when someone's actions have intentional, or deliberate or so far bellow accepted standards and procedure. They could reasonably have been expected to know. Some form of disciplinary action is require.
After reading the MAIB report and the Masters alleged responses.
This particular Masters watch keeping practice was so far bellow the expected standard. which he should or would clearly have known. Chose to neglect.
I believe this is one of those rare occasions.
Last edited:
flaming
Well-Known Member
I find it hard to justify why the skipper of Atalanta was charged, but not the skipper of this Mobo.
Neither or both I would have thought...
Neither or both I would have thought...
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
Which one was the Atalanta?
He of Big Red Tanker infamy? If I remember right. He was charged and found guilty of what was effectively a nautical traffic offence. Received a small fine and huge bill for costs. Punishment for pleading not guilty?
One significant difference, He was a Navy Officer, Deck type, presumably expected to know better.
I have always felt it was a bit unfair the Skipper he was charged. He was certainly publicly humiliated as an ex navy officer.
Particularly since there was no MAIB investigation or public report of any kind about the piss poor performance by the Two Pilots and the Bridge crew of the Big Red Tanker.
If there had been an MAIB report. Or if the Ports internal report was made Public. We would have learned about the errors made by both vessels.
The Charges and the Guilty Verdict, don't tell us very much about "why" the incident happened.
Last edited:
dom
Well-Known Member
To be fair the other difference is that the Atalanta skipper received a smallish fine for breaching an explicit bylaw, which is drawn to the attention of all Cowes Week participants, and for ignoring the instructions of a blue light escort vessel.
http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/PDF_Downloads/Yachtsmans-guide-LowRes.pdf
As the skipper refused to pay the smaller fine, the case wended its way to a full 5-day hearing at the Southampton Courts, after which he was fined a heftier £3,000 for 3 offences. He was also ordered to pay the prosecution's costs which amounted to £100,057 on top of his own costs.
The lesson here is perhaps that elevating smallish fines, even if one is peeved by them, to full-on legal battles can prove very expensive?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Perhaps it's the difference between sins of omission (failing to spot a ferry) and sins of commission (spotting a honking great cargo ship and deliberately breaking the rules by trying to cut in front of it"?
duncan99210
Well-Known Member
The difference lies in the report that the mobo skipper was cautioned for the offence. That is a legal sanction which generates a criminal record but means that the offender accepted he was in the wrong and expressed contrition. In other words, he said sorry and was given a good telling off.
The ferry captain clearly didn’t accept any responsibility nor did he admit to any wrong doing. Therefore the only way to determine if he is in fact guilty of any crime is to allow the court to hear the case. That’s why he’s been charged and will have his day in court where his guilt or innocence will be decided.
There’s a parallel to be drawn here with the skipper of Atalanta. If he’d accepted his guilt, he would have been given a slap on the wrist at the magistrates court at minimal cost and embarrassment. Instead, he decided to defend his actions, the court examined all the evidence he produced, including the actions or lack of actions of the escort boats, and was found guilty. The judge, sitting as a magistrate, was an experienced yachtsman and was therefore able to bring his own knowledge to the case. I recall reading his judgement in the case, which was several pages long. It demolished the defences mounted by the skipper. The costs in the case were later reduced to IIRC to about £30k from the original judgement.
It’ll be interesting to see where this case goes.
Ohlin Karcher
N/A
Quick heads up: Actual fines in the magistrates' courts for skippers of commerial vessels are often very far from trivial, a 'slap on the wrist', etc.
I know of one who was awarded a £20,000 approx fine + £10,000 costs.. for having pleaded guilty to having some uncorrected charts and out of date books on the bridge... no collision involved, a business rival told the MCA he needed looking at.
Mag's concerned were shiny-bottomed office workers with no knowledge of navigation, of course.
I know of one who was awarded a £20,000 approx fine + £10,000 costs.. for having pleaded guilty to having some uncorrected charts and out of date books on the bridge... no collision involved, a business rival told the MCA he needed looking at.
Mag's concerned were shiny-bottomed office workers with no knowledge of navigation, of course.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Is that allowed? I don't think jurors are allowed to base their decision on anything other than the arguments they hear, are they?
mjcoon
Well-Known Member
Even jurors have to bring their life experience to understanding the meaning of what they hear. But this was "The judge, sitting as a magistrate" (I didn't know they were explicitly play-acting, especially below their pay-grade!)
Mike.
duncan99210
Well-Known Member
A magistrates court is lowest level of court and offers “summary” justice (ie no jury). Usually the magistrate(s) are lay people with little legal training: they’re guided in law by the clerk to the court. They listen to the evidence, decide guilt or innocence and level of punishment where required.
In some instances the lay magistrates are replaced by a judge sitting as a magistrate. It’s a practice used for more complex cases which might otherwise be dealt with at Crown Court level but where both sides consider that a jury is not required: it has the advantage for the accused of limiting the level of punishment to that of the magistrates court.
In some instances the lay magistrates are replaced by a judge sitting as a magistrate. It’s a practice used for more complex cases which might otherwise be dealt with at Crown Court level but where both sides consider that a jury is not required: it has the advantage for the accused of limiting the level of punishment to that of the magistrates court.
Resolution
Well-Known Member
Thank you for a succinct explanation. IIRC the judge owned a Bavaria on the South coast. He certainly should have been familiar with the terminology and the realities of Solent sailing.
Ohlin Karcher
N/A
I respect your optimism
duncan99210
Well-Known Member
Judge Callaway also dealt with the initial stages of the Cheeki Rafiki case.....
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
You are looking increasingly daft and rather chippy, do you seriously expect the courts to find Magistrates who have worked in a particular industry to try each case? It'll be pushing it to locate magisterial lorry drivers to try HGV related traffic cases for starters.