the Gypsy Moth debacle

[Sea Devil]

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't a court martial.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the company organising this publicity cruise flew into Tahiti a RN navigation officer two other 'officials' and having paid them and given them suitable hospitality then required them to interrogate the Skipper and Mate. They did not provide any defence council, found the skipper and crew guilty and with what could be described as a fanfare of publicity sacked them. The publicity made it very clear that in no way was the management to blame.

If the previous post is correct and the Skipper and Mate were clearly not up to the job, were making elementary mistakes for several days previously with children on board then who the hell was responsible for employing them in the first place?

If you are sending out children into dangerous waters (I spent some weeks cruising that area and found it possibly the most demanding pilotage in the whole circumnavigation,) then you should be pretty sure that the people you are entrusting the lives of trainee crew/passengers in up to the job!

What I find most worrying is not the sacking but the very public way it was done. Nobody puts a boat on a reef for fun. It must have been a very traumatic experience for the skipper and mate and the way it was handled by the employers appears to be insensitive and possibly a way of covering up their own failings in not verifying these people had the experience, knowledge ability to look after a group of youngsters whilst sailing in a very demanding place...

Michael

I confess I have not seen a full report of the incident? I have not seen the detailed findings of the 'court martial' which caused them to put the 100% blame on the couple? Have I missed something?

 

[Tisme]

None of us know the full story but you seem to be jumping to all sorts of conclusions about this.

It's irrelevant anyhow. The company is fully entitled to dismiss employees. There is no more need for them to provide a defence team than there is for Tesco's to provide a barrister when a check-out girl is felt to not be up to scratch. It does however look as if they have thoroughly investigated the incident and acted accordingly.

Of course they have had to publicise what action they have taken. The whole incident was very public in the first place. I suspect that if they had not announced what action they had taken you would be complaining that they were being secretive about the whole incident.

 

[Bejasus]

afraid I am a little bit with MichaelE on this one.
It all seems a bit hasty, and to compare a professional skipper and first mate losing their jobs to a Tesco checkout girl, is a bit ott, imho. For a start the Tesco's(or any other supernarket checkout person), isn't facing the prospect of a long worked for career going down the tubes and becoming largely unemployable in their chosen profession.
If in fact the persons so employed were indeed totally responsible, then let us see all the facts and not just those which appear to totally exonerate all others from any guilt whatsoever.
I am not suggesting that those punished were not guilty of the negligence implied, just that we should see all the facts before the pronouncing of judgement by so called forum experts.

 

[Tisme]

You miss the point. An employer can dismiss somebody who is not up to scratch. Whether the employee is a check out girl or the Managing Director or the skipper of a boat the principle is the same.

Neither are they are obliged to put the details of their internal inquiry into the public domain. In fact, if they did, I suspect that there are peeps on this forum who would shout "whitewash" or "breach of confidentiality". If you want full details you'll have to wait for an inquiry by the Authorities and I don't know if any such inquiry is being proposed.

Frankly, if careers are on the rocks, I don't think that the skipper and his mate should have put the boat on the rocks.

It seems very harsh to be blaming UKSA for this when there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.

 

[Bejasus]

the thing is, I'm not blaming anyone at this point, although it seems that others are. Just feel that if the verdict is public domain, then so should be the reasons. Otherwise the management is just trying to appear squeaky clean. They may in fact well be.

 

[Tisme]

To be pedantic the verdict is in the public domain. The skipper has been sacked!

The details of their investigation are not in the public domain and probably never will be so there's little point in theorising about it.

 

[PeterStone]

I, too, feel somewhat uneasy about this. The Tuamotus have always been known as "The Dangerous Archipelago". We can only speculate on what happened out there in the absence of a public statement.

The restoration of GM IV was a very public affair, with appeals made for financial assistance. So it's only natural that there is a great deal of interest in the circumstances of her grounding.

 

[Guest]

Keeping it general, as we do not know the facts, I believe the skipper takes on the responsibility. However, I believe, in business, that the organizers of any event, race or rally are also responsible for the selection and any conditions placed on the skippers.

After witnessing one of the organizers of a rally last year putting undue pressure on a skipper, and talking with the skippers afterwards, I definitely believe they are responsible for some of the incidents.

Also, sailing schools are just sailing schools. You can be taught to pass their standards. However, sense, experience and a safe track record, can not be taught. Having a qualification is not the end of the story when qualifying for roles like this. There is no substitute to learning by your mistakes. Yes, I support what GMIV was doing, but I would have liked to have seen a single well known skipper with an obvious track record in charge of her full time. I would also like to see a stop to the rally mentality were organizers of rowing and sailing adventures make it easy for unprepared individuals to risk their lives. We all have the right in the UK to go to sea, but for someone to take huge amounts of money from you, then tell you a few tricks and send you out on the ocean is wrong.

My view of experience and qualifications not being the same thing is based on a number of incidents, where so called qualified skippers, including one fast track qualification, have called Maydays and endangered my crew through their inexperience or inability to cope with changing circumstances. You can not teach sense, but you can select skippers with proven track records especially when in charge of young inexperienced passengers.

 

[Guest]

The final proof that qualifications are not enough, is that they were sacked. This is from the organization that certified them as competent. So if they can not stand behind their own teaching and qualification procedures why should anyone else take any heed to their other issued certificates. By this action they have just down graded the qualifications of all the sailors that went through their doors.

 

[rhinorhino]

As a matter of employment law they are not.....
"Even" a check-out person at a super-market would be entitled to a union rep / friend / lawyer etc at such a hearing under UK law.
Of course the skipper may not have been employed at all, ie they could have been self-employed and just under contract for that voyage, in which caase it would all depend on the terms of the contract.
Where the logs posted on here then removed?

 

[dratsea]

Michael,

I think we are all interested in an explanation of the events leading up to the accident. I assume the incident will be reported to MAIB. Their investigation reports give a clear, factual and understandable description of the events leading up to an accident.

John

 

[Benbow]

[ QUOTE ]
However, what I can not understand was the skippers logs from the days before the incident. Inaccuracies and in my view lunacy. They have now been removed from the site.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expand on that ?

 

[Guest]

I put a few points on a previous posting. Look on the site www.gipsymoth.org/skipperslog.asp all the logs have gone even the ones from previous trips. I had not seen the MAIB site before, but that seems the correct organization to investigate this, also the right attitude about corrective action instead of blame. The message sent to the children encouraged to watch and follow the voyage should also be considered. My issue is with the whole yachting teaching industry and their reliance on paper qualifications, what happened to time served midshipmen!

 

[bilbobaggins]

The first I saw of this marketing stunt was at the SIBS, when one couldn't get near the stand for bleary-eyed journos, ad agency reps and marketing wonks. They even put up barriers to keep the paying public - those they wanted to fork out some money - away from the freeloaders downing their freebie G&Ts and canapes.

"What's going on here," I asked myself, and it was all too obviously a marketing exercise. There are many organisations taking youngsters sailing, and they don't behave like that!

In my book, it has remained a brash, naff publicity stunt for UKSA - which has backfired! It seems clear to me that they are now deeply mired in an ineffectual damage-limitation exercise - and I don't refer to GMIV's hull....

A while ago, when someone asked me which sea school to go to for training ( and that happens quite frequently ), I'd like as not have suggested UKSA as having a sound reputation. Not any more.

Sir Francis Chichester didn't suffer fools too gladly, and I find myself wondering what he would have said to the 'grey suits' at Cowes, had he got wind of this monumental and continuing cock-up......

Grrr.

 

[Tisme]

[ QUOTE ]
As a matter of employment law they are not.....
"Even" a check-out person at a super-market would be entitled to a union rep / friend / lawyer etc at such a hearing under UK law

[/ QUOTE ]

Only partly true. You are entitled to be accompanied by a colleague or a Union Rep. You are not entitled to bring in an outsider (such as a friend who is not employed at your organisation) or a lawyer. The idea is that you can have somebody to give you moral support, not to "represent" you in the sense that having a solicitor would mean. Many local authority Disciplinary Procedures, to avoid any doubt, specifically make it clear that lawyers are not permitted.

 

[Sea Devil]

But surely the point here is that an attempt is being apparently being made to 'whitewash' the organisers..

They paid, flew in 3 judges or prosecution council or court martial or board of enquiry and set up a formal form of judgement. This was not 'human resources or personnel' saying - "we feel you are not suitable for the job so you are fired" which in any case would be 'odd' as they apparently trained, qualified and decided they were suitably qualified and trained for the job - by themselves!!!

No - they set up a quango - court of enquiry and their paid 3 experts found the 2 young people guilty guilty guilty... With nobody to help them with their defence. Sounds like bullying tactics to me. Grossly unfair.

These experts brought in and paid for by the organisers decided that the organisation had no responsibility for putting the lives of young people at risk by using people they had trained and certified in a situation they were apparently not capable of controlling the situation.

They then used national/international publicity to crucify the skipper and mate and totally whitewashing the idiots who put them in charge in the first place.. I think there is something rotten in this state of Denmark!

Michael

 

[Tisme]

You are determined to find fault with UKSA despite the lack of any evidence to support your claims.

I'll wait until the facts emerge...if they do. Until then we won't be able to agree on this.

 

[Sea Devil]

Yes I am finding fault with an organisation the publishes it's own conclusion in a media blitz but does not publish a full finding. It has destroyed the careers of the Skipper and Crew without apparently giving them a fair hearing.

This blaze of publicity was not necessary until a report of all the facts was available to be included for those interested.

If you go down the route of telling the world that you are not to blame but the two young people who you trained, certified and employed are then you better be able to back up your press release...

Michael

 

[Tisme]

As I said we won't agree. I'm just astonished that you seem to forget that the only thing we do know is that these two were in charge when the boat hit the reef! You virtually appear to be saying that they were not at fault.

Beyond that you are putting two and two together and coming up with totally unsubstantiated conclusions.

 

[kds]

" you trained, certified and employed "

In fact the skipper has been a professional skipper for charter boats off Phuket for some time and on her return to this country, I think she set up the "girls 4 sail" enterprise. So she does have a fair bit of experience.
But I do agree with you - the way this situation has been handled seems outrageous - and as YM and UKSA craved public and media support - they really must come clean on the facts soon.
Ken