Regulatory oversight of not for profit company selling crew berths on offshore passages/races

[dunedin]

If it was me, I would spend the ARC fee on my Rival and then sail across the ocean. They are old boats.

And indeed that is fine. Many cross the pond outside the ARC and nobody is stopping them.
Those like you and John, and many others, sail how you want.

But seems silly for people to criticise the ARC when never done it. And all the people who have done the ARC have gained the experience of an ocean crossing - which many of the critics have never done themselves.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I have taken part in the ARC Europe (2013 on a Vancouver 36), ARC (2015) and ARC USA (2016) on a Southerly 42 and I’m afraid I don’t agree that it’s over priced and over hyped. I hope to do the ARC+ next year if possible on my new to me Rival 36. As others have said, the organisation is first class, the many seminars are very informative and the parties are great. I’m not sure the ARC makes any safety claim but for those doing a Transatlantic crossing for the first time, the event is definitely a bit of a confidence boost. However, there are other benefits - on our crossing the skipper who nearly lost his thumb in a winch accident was very grateful to the plastic surgeon on our boat who was sent pictures of his injury and gave practical and expert advice on how to treat the thumb and prevent infection. I guess he may have thought that was worth the entry fee alone!
No one is forcing you to join the ARC but maybe if you did you might have a different opinion. Enjoy the crossing - a fantastic experience however you do it.

I’m delighted you had a good time.

The ARC 2023 fee for a 42 ft boat and two crew is £1,620 (note not “several thousand“). Happy to admit having spent several times this amount to get my boat ready to pass the ARC safety check! I still contend the fee is worth the money, but there again, it’s my money in this case….

We’re five on board for our next crossing.

 

[john_morris_uk]

But seems silly for people to criticise the ARC when never done it. And all the people who have done the ARC have gained the experience of an ocean crossing - which many of the critics have never done themselves.

The argument that if you haven’t done something you can’t criticise it is spurious.

There are plenty of examples of perfectly reasonable criticism of things by people who haven’t taken part in the activity itself. A commonly given example is that people criticise foxhunting who have never having been part of a fox hunt.

I’m delighted that many people have gained the experience of an ocean crossing care of the ARC but it’s not going to convince me that it’s good value for money. Personally I have sailed across oceans on multiple occasions and have never been part of WCC rallies so I criticise from the point of view of someone who has some ocean sailing experience. If armchair sailors with no ocean experience are critical then I join with your condemnation of their comments.

I wish the ARC and all who participate in the rallies every success, however nothing will convince me as it stands that it is good value for money.

 

[sailingmartin]

nothing will convince me as it stands that it is good value for money.

Sounds like you have already made up your mind. But maybe you should ask some of your crew what they would prefer?

As someone with ocean experience AND who has participated in the ARC, I would go with the rally every time if available. The ARC price for the boat and five crew is £2,100 including the five individual crew fees of £160 each - great value for them, as they will have a wonderful atmosphere and know their skipper has had to comply with a sensible list of safety requirements and equipment.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Sounds like you have already made up your mind. But maybe you should ask some of your crew what they would prefer?

As someone with ocean experience AND who has participated in the ARC, I would go with the rally every time if available. The ARC price for the boat and five crew is £2,100 including the five individual crew fees of £160 each - great value for them, as they will have a wonderful atmosphere and know their skipper has had to comply with a sensible list of safety requirements and equipment.

We already more than comply with the ARC safety requirements/suggestions and the crew are very happy not to end up in St Lucia.

I’ve no doubt that many people really enjoy the whole ARC thing but over £2k for some parties and a few days berthing isn’t good value for me.

 

[Stingo]

Ref the ARC parties: they're held nightly in the various, local Rodney Bay bars, which are open to Joe Public i.e. you, me and @john_morris_uk and everyone else who happens to be in the area. How do I know this? Having never done an ARC, I've still enjoyed many of their parties.

 

[Stemar]

Well, if you want to go, but don't want to fork out for the organisation and oversight, you can always go as a NARC (Not the ARC) - one of the many boats that sail at the same time over the same course. Purely by coincidence, of course.

 

[benjenbav]

We seem rather to be shooting our foxes at the moment, having moved onto whether it’s good value for experienced ocean sailors with their own boats to pay a fee to join ARC whereas the original topic was whether a meaningful complaint could be directed other than to the owner of an allegedly defective boat by someone who had paid for the privilege of crewing in same in an ARC event.

 

[Spirit (of Glenans)]

Should this be in the yacht racing forum?

The ARC, although there are some who take part competitively, is in essence a cruise in company.

 

[Spirit (of Glenans)]

I haven't done the ARC, but my wife has, in 2018. (I lost confidence in the skipper during the delivery trip and decided not to do the transatlantic leg. My wife decided to stick with it and had a pretty awful trip.)
I was there in Gran Canaria for the off, and yes, the boats are rigorously checked for the prescribed safety equipment.
We were 0n a charter holiday in Martinique recently and sailed over to Rodney Bay just as the ARC activities were winding up, and yes there was a great atmosphere.
Regarding payment, although it was a friend's boat, we were expected to contribute a considerable amount towards the expenses of the trip, over and above the ARC crew fees.

 

[capnsensible]

Personally, although it's not for me, I reckon the ARC has been a fab thing to enable people to have an adventure of a lifetime.

But to demean the event with the term 'pond' is, in my opinion, unnecessary and detracts from the endeavours required to cross an ocean.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I haven't done the ARC, but my wife has, in 2018. (I lost confidence in the skipper during the delivery trip and decided not to do the transatlantic leg. My wife decided to stick with it and had a pretty awful trip.)
I was there in Gran Canaria for the off, and yes, the boats are rigorously checked for the prescribed safety equipment.
We were 0n a charter holiday in Martinique recently and sailed over to Rodney Bay just as the ARC activities were winding up, and yes there was a great atmosphere.
Regarding payment, although it was a friend's boat, we were expected to contribute a considerable amount towards the expenses of the trip, over and above the ARC crew fees.

I haven’t worked out of the entire costs yet but I think our crew will be paying about £200 each as their contribution towards food, fuel and gas.

 

[penfold]

Thanks for information. I’m writing a long email to the company on a series of issues, many safety related and will send redacted version to MCA.
To give you a flavour:
1. Because the crew were working long days on fixing things wrong with the boat for the week prior to the start there was no time to go out and practice - the first time we all went out was on the way to the start line! We never did an MOB drill.
2. I and another crew member were cleaning out the bilge sections around keel bolts and after drying and closing lumber holes some salty tasting seapage occurred around some bolts. Another crew member was on board for the passage from La Coruna to Gib and experienced an impact strong enough to deflect the boat 90 degrees ( he showed me a screenshot of the track). In spite of this the owner resisted having it lifted for inspection in Las Palmas, although a diver did go down the day before we left.

As others have said the MCA is the relevant authority and they will be interested to hear your report as the vessel is coded; do not bowdlerise it, tell it all, when, where and who did what. Redacting does no one any favours except miscreants. No safety drill is a disgrace.

 

[benjenbav]

As others have said the MCA is the relevant authority and they will be interested to hear your report as the vessel is coded; do not bowdlerise it, tell it all, when, where and who did what. Redacting does no one any favours except miscreants. No safety drill is a disgrace.

I would certainly agree with sending a full copy of any complaint that is sent to the owner to the regulator.

 

[Uricanejack]

Thanks for information. I’m writing a long email to the company on a series of issues, many safety related and will send redacted version to MCA.
To give you a flavour:
1. Because the crew were working long days on fixing things wrong with the boat for the week prior to the start there was no time to go out and practice - the first time we all went out was on the way to the start line! We never did an MOB drill.
2. I and another crew member were cleaning out the bilge sections around keel bolts and after drying and closing lumber holes some salty tasting seapage occurred around some bolts. Another crew member was on board for the passage from La Coruna to Gib and experienced an impact strong enough to deflect the boat 90 degrees ( he showed me a screenshot of the track). In spite of this the owner resisted having it lifted for inspection in Las Palmas, although a diver did go down the day before we left.

Point No 1, you did sign on as crew. Paying crew and paid crew being two different things. Even so, fixing stuff, is part of routine crew duties.

I am not familiar with who does coding surveys ect, I believe a lot of it is delegated by MCA. Who to I don’t know.

Having dealt with DOT in the past though more frequently Lloyds. Who were delegated by DOT. The truth is a survey is really only good on the day. While it is valid for the next year or whatever the specified time frame is.
After the surveyor leaves, normal wear and tear ect. You are relying on the operator and crew to maintain the required standard between surveys.
My preference is do this required maintenance, routinely with regular inspections scheduling work as required.
Others do this in a mad rush just prior to the next inspection or survey.
One might suspect the operator in question uses the 2nd option.
Hard to judge from here and now how the boat was affected.

Even if a surveyor visit the boat today, The surveyor could only really comment on the condition of the boat today. He might be able to draw some conclusions on the general management of the vessel from the No of things found not to be as required.
The surveyor would provide a list of things (Deficiencies) required before vessel could sail. possibly a list of things (Deficiencies)with a time frame which may not required prior to sailing.

Point No 2. Is or was a serious concern. I would not have sailed with the boat. Why? Personal safety. I’ve read the MAIB report.

I suspect the skippers knowledge and understanding appears to be specifically lacking in a critical area.
Which is not uncommon with small commercial vessels. And unfortunately sometimes even on large commercial vessels.

Bottom line. If something happened to commercial vessel the Master or Skipper MUST inform.
MCA, Class, (if applicable), Insurance and P&I. (Protection and Indemnity it’s kind of like insurance) you can add owner.
If this was not done after striking something and possibly damaging vessel. The skipper could be in the shit.
By not doing so the skipper in addition to the varies charges possible for them. Has exposed his or her company and owners to a great deal of liability. Hull insurance forget about it. Same with P&I.

Other deficiencies, be it hill or equipment. MUST be reported as above unless they can be rectified right away. If a deficiency occurs underway the requirements is head for nearest safe port. However after advising as required it’s Usually ok to complete the voyage so as to get to a safe port where repairs can be made. Starting a new voyage generally not on except for minor issues with a planed time frame to put right.

As someone with the required knowledge something was far from kosher. I would have advised the skipper who he was required to inform and recommended they did so immediately.
If they didn’t I would. But not until after I had tried to persuade the individual in charge of the vessel to do so themselves.
Have I ever been in this position? Yes actually I have. The guy thanked me for helping him.

The correct time to deal with a safety concern is prior to departure.

As crew you also have a responsibility for the safety of the vessel. Your correct reporting point. is the person in charge of the watch and or the skipper.

Fortunately, The vessel skipper and crew appear to have survived the voyage unharmed. At this point. What to do. To some extent closing the gate after the horse has bolted,

presumably the possible damage to the boat has still not been properly checked and repaired if required. The owner and company may not even know about it.
So advise them in writing of your concerns and request you hear back what they plan to do about it within reasonable time. A week two weeks. Maybe even sooner if boat is continuing to be operated.
Give them an opportunity to do what should be done.
if you don’t get a satisfactory response in a short time frame. Write again saying you have not heard back and copy the MCA.

if you do contact the company and or MCA.

Be specific. Detail specifically what deficiencies you saw. Exactly who what where when. Generalization is virtually impossible to chase down after the fact.

Be aware if you did not bring your concerns to the skipper, The skipper may not have had the opertunity to explain to you what has been done to investigate or mitigate your concerns.
In fact the skipper may not even have been aware of the concern.

It is entirely possible the skipper did inform the required people something had happened and the response was to have the boat checked by a diver then approved as ok.
I must admit I’d be surprised if the MCA and insurance was ok with just a diver inspection prior to an ocean crossing. But I wasn’t there and I’m not a MCA surveyor.