G
Guest
Guest
All this creating double identities stuff is very confusing!
the Gypsy Moth debacle
- Thread starter Sea Devil
- Start date
BrendanS
Well-Known Member
are you connected in any way with those dismissed, or is this just a general rant?
Tisme
Well-Known Member
Rubbish. The UKSA has been very careful to not denounce them, and they had no choice other than to tell the press about the dismissals. They have stated that they held an enquiry and that they then held a disciplinary meeting following which the skipper and mate were dismissed. What else could they do? Simply keep quiet and say nothing when the worlds press were clearly demanding answers? Of course not....and they have issued the very minimum amount of information they could about the skipper and mate.
The fact that they crew had enjoyed themselves is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the boat was put on the rocks putting the crews lives in peril. Or don't you think that matters? A skipper is required to take on many legal responsibilites when he/she takes on the job. Putting a boat onto rocks in the middle of the ocean is not one of them.
You say that the only place where the positive comments from the crew are shown is the RYYC site. Simply not true. There are many of the comments listed on the UKSA site. Look at their press releases.
I didn't read the log before the incident but, in the circumstances, I'm not surprised that they were deleted by UKSA. They are operating in the real world and it's called damage limitation. However somebody did say that, in the days before the incident, the log details which were posted were a little "odd". I don't know if that's true but it may be one of the reasons for the removal.
You still haven't given us your sailing credentials!
The fact that they crew had enjoyed themselves is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the boat was put on the rocks putting the crews lives in peril. Or don't you think that matters? A skipper is required to take on many legal responsibilites when he/she takes on the job. Putting a boat onto rocks in the middle of the ocean is not one of them.
You say that the only place where the positive comments from the crew are shown is the RYYC site. Simply not true. There are many of the comments listed on the UKSA site. Look at their press releases.
I didn't read the log before the incident but, in the circumstances, I'm not surprised that they were deleted by UKSA. They are operating in the real world and it's called damage limitation. However somebody did say that, in the days before the incident, the log details which were posted were a little "odd". I don't know if that's true but it may be one of the reasons for the removal.
You still haven't given us your sailing credentials!
Sea Devil
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The UKSA has been very careful to not denounce them, and they had no choice other than to tell the press about the dismissals.
[/ QUOTE ]
But that is the point I have been making.
The Skipper and Mate were very publicly sacked with the assertion that they were 100% to blame. A group of Experts were flown in to Tahiti, paid for by the organisers. The Skipper and Mate were found guilty as charged. As far as I know they were offered no professional representation and no professional representation with the press.
Their careers and livelihoods have been ruined. There has been no independent inquiry and JJ states (not sure if this is official line or just him) that there is no certainty there will be. He says the lessons of this incident have already been learned.
In professional terms the RN and MN both use the phrase:- 'relieved of their command pending an enquiry'
Now that seems a proper way to proceed rather than - these two were 100% to blame and we have done nothing wrong! We have nothing to learn!
JJ states that there were time pressures to get this group of youngsters to Tahiti.. How intense were those pressures. Did the Skipper feel pressurised to leave to early before the weather had settled.
The Tuamotu islands are called the dangerous islands because they are dangerous. Who authorised the boat to go there? It is not on the itinerary of the Blue Water Rally. Somebody must have?
Now I get the impression you have not sailed too much. Let me tell you that things do happen at sea which can entrap the most experienced of navigators. Of course it is the skipper that makes the final decision but the employer is also required to be certain that the pressures on the skipper are fair and realistic. There was also innuendo in JJ's post that really should not have been written - as a journalist he knows that and I am disappointed.
Michael
The UKSA has been very careful to not denounce them, and they had no choice other than to tell the press about the dismissals.
[/ QUOTE ]
But that is the point I have been making.
The Skipper and Mate were very publicly sacked with the assertion that they were 100% to blame. A group of Experts were flown in to Tahiti, paid for by the organisers. The Skipper and Mate were found guilty as charged. As far as I know they were offered no professional representation and no professional representation with the press.
Their careers and livelihoods have been ruined. There has been no independent inquiry and JJ states (not sure if this is official line or just him) that there is no certainty there will be. He says the lessons of this incident have already been learned.
In professional terms the RN and MN both use the phrase:- 'relieved of their command pending an enquiry'
Now that seems a proper way to proceed rather than - these two were 100% to blame and we have done nothing wrong! We have nothing to learn!
JJ states that there were time pressures to get this group of youngsters to Tahiti.. How intense were those pressures. Did the Skipper feel pressurised to leave to early before the weather had settled.
The Tuamotu islands are called the dangerous islands because they are dangerous. Who authorised the boat to go there? It is not on the itinerary of the Blue Water Rally. Somebody must have?
Now I get the impression you have not sailed too much. Let me tell you that things do happen at sea which can entrap the most experienced of navigators. Of course it is the skipper that makes the final decision but the employer is also required to be certain that the pressures on the skipper are fair and realistic. There was also innuendo in JJ's post that really should not have been written - as a journalist he knows that and I am disappointed.
Michael
Tisme
Well-Known Member
There's little point in my responding to your exercise in creative writing other than to express amusement at your patronising comments about my sailing skills. I am so pleased that you have also informed us that "things happen at sea".
Your ability to draw conclusions from fresh air is astonishing. Your desire to apportion blame when you do not have the facts beggars belief.....having dreamt up all your accusations you then accuse JJ of "innuendo". Remarkable. Truly remarkable.
Good troll!
Your ability to draw conclusions from fresh air is astonishing. Your desire to apportion blame when you do not have the facts beggars belief.....having dreamt up all your accusations you then accuse JJ of "innuendo". Remarkable. Truly remarkable.
Good troll!
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Boat on rocks = skipper's fault, equipment failure or extreme weather excepted.
Open and shut case.
Whatever the skipper's arguments to the contrary, it's a lose-lose situation. Even if the 'employer' gave specific instructions to wreck the boat, the skipper should have refused them.
Fortunately, no lives lost, boat salvable.
Careers wrecked - maybe, but brick hitting on anyone's CV is likely to reduce earning power.
Open and shut case.
Whatever the skipper's arguments to the contrary, it's a lose-lose situation. Even if the 'employer' gave specific instructions to wreck the boat, the skipper should have refused them.
Fortunately, no lives lost, boat salvable.
Careers wrecked - maybe, but brick hitting on anyone's CV is likely to reduce earning power.
This is fun to watch, only 14 days left to the YM exposé publication date.
Tisme
Well-Known Member
Rubbish.
There was a big organisation behind them which <u>must</u> have been to blame. Was it caring and sharing enough? Did they check that everyone had washed behind their ears each morning? Had they read them a bedtime story each evening? Had they issued written instructions that everyone tied their shoelaces with an approved knot? Had they warned the skipper that "things" happen at sea?
NO?
They must be responsible.
Skipper exonerated.
Next? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
There was a big organisation behind them which <u>must</u> have been to blame. Was it caring and sharing enough? Did they check that everyone had washed behind their ears each morning? Had they read them a bedtime story each evening? Had they issued written instructions that everyone tied their shoelaces with an approved knot? Had they warned the skipper that "things" happen at sea?
NO?
They must be responsible.
Skipper exonerated.
Next? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Tisme
Well-Known Member
It wiles away the hours!
Sea Devil
Well-Known Member
Like some others I was waiting to hear what your sailing experience actually is!
Where have you been?
Longest passage?
In which boats?
fair winds
Michael
Where have you been?
Longest passage?
In which boats?
fair winds
Michael
Benbow
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The Tuamotu islands are called the dangerous islands because they are dangerous. Who authorised the boat to go there? It is not on the itinerary of the Blue Water Rally. Somebody must have?
[/ QUOTE ]
A skipper on a trip such as this is effectively authorised to go anywhere he likes within the constraints of the voyage. The 'office' will not and cannot micro-manage day-to-day decsisons. If the skipper was authorised or even instructed to sail off the edge of the world, it would still, IMHO, be his fault if he did so. He is employed for his seamanship and judgement and is expected to excercise that judgement at all times in the running of the boat.
We don't know the facts, and it seems pointless to speculate further. But whatever the criticism of the way the dismissal was handled, it seems to me that the fault probably lies onboard.
The Tuamotu islands are called the dangerous islands because they are dangerous. Who authorised the boat to go there? It is not on the itinerary of the Blue Water Rally. Somebody must have?
[/ QUOTE ]
A skipper on a trip such as this is effectively authorised to go anywhere he likes within the constraints of the voyage. The 'office' will not and cannot micro-manage day-to-day decsisons. If the skipper was authorised or even instructed to sail off the edge of the world, it would still, IMHO, be his fault if he did so. He is employed for his seamanship and judgement and is expected to excercise that judgement at all times in the running of the boat.
We don't know the facts, and it seems pointless to speculate further. But whatever the criticism of the way the dismissal was handled, it seems to me that the fault probably lies onboard.
Sea Devil
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Boat on rocks = skipper's fault, equipment failure or extreme weather excepted.
Open and shut case.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually Ken I do not quite agree - surprise surprise! There are lots of cases in professional maritime experience which do not bear that out..
The new QE2 went on a rock outside New York - insurers paid up - not the masters fault.
3 years ago a RN frigate went onto a properly charted rock in the Great Barrier Reef area. Whilst the Captain (very experienced and popular) was of course court martialed he is still has the same rank and was not 'sacked'!
As I posted earlier the great Captain Cook put the Endeavour on a reef just off Cook town Australia and nearly finished the voyage for good... Probably our greatest non military sailor - he was not admonished for this.
Lots of similar cases.
I have no problem with them being relieved of their command whilst and investigation takes place but I really dislike the concept that they are declared guilty as charged by employees of the organisation. International publicity that they are 100% to blame and the organisation is pure as driven snow!
With respect I think you are oversimplifying the situation?
fair winds
Michael
Boat on rocks = skipper's fault, equipment failure or extreme weather excepted.
Open and shut case.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually Ken I do not quite agree - surprise surprise! There are lots of cases in professional maritime experience which do not bear that out..
The new QE2 went on a rock outside New York - insurers paid up - not the masters fault.
3 years ago a RN frigate went onto a properly charted rock in the Great Barrier Reef area. Whilst the Captain (very experienced and popular) was of course court martialed he is still has the same rank and was not 'sacked'!
As I posted earlier the great Captain Cook put the Endeavour on a reef just off Cook town Australia and nearly finished the voyage for good... Probably our greatest non military sailor - he was not admonished for this.
Lots of similar cases.
I have no problem with them being relieved of their command whilst and investigation takes place but I really dislike the concept that they are declared guilty as charged by employees of the organisation. International publicity that they are 100% to blame and the organisation is pure as driven snow!
With respect I think you are oversimplifying the situation?
fair winds
Michael
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
You can't oversimplify a simple situation.
You can, however, overcomplicate it.
You can, however, overcomplicate it.
Sea Devil
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
A skipper on a trip such as this is effectively authorised to go anywhere he likes within the constraints of the voyage. The 'office' will not and cannot micro-manage day-to-day decsisons.
[/ QUOTE ]
But this is not micro management. From the Marquesas to Tahiti there is a straight forward 'safe' route to the north of the Tuamotus.
The dangerous islands are a group that extend several hundred miles to the nuclear test zone. In any organised cruise somebody would need to take a decision to go there. In no way can it be compared to going into Yarmouth instead of Lymington -- more like deciding to leave the Solent and night sail through the Channel Islands to Ushant and then parking up in the Raz du Seine... Would that be considered micro management?
[ QUOTE ]
We don't know the facts, and it seems pointless to speculate further. But whatever the criticism of the way the dismissal was handled, it seems to me that the fault probably lies onboard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course fault lies on board but it may well - probably also can be apportioned to the organisation to some degree as well - perhaps? Shame there is no guarantee of an independent inquiry.
Michael
A skipper on a trip such as this is effectively authorised to go anywhere he likes within the constraints of the voyage. The 'office' will not and cannot micro-manage day-to-day decsisons.
[/ QUOTE ]
But this is not micro management. From the Marquesas to Tahiti there is a straight forward 'safe' route to the north of the Tuamotus.
The dangerous islands are a group that extend several hundred miles to the nuclear test zone. In any organised cruise somebody would need to take a decision to go there. In no way can it be compared to going into Yarmouth instead of Lymington -- more like deciding to leave the Solent and night sail through the Channel Islands to Ushant and then parking up in the Raz du Seine... Would that be considered micro management?
[ QUOTE ]
We don't know the facts, and it seems pointless to speculate further. But whatever the criticism of the way the dismissal was handled, it seems to me that the fault probably lies onboard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course fault lies on board but it may well - probably also can be apportioned to the organisation to some degree as well - perhaps? Shame there is no guarantee of an independent inquiry.
Michael
Sea Devil
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
You can't oversimplify a simple situation.
You can, however, overcomplicate it.
[/ QUOTE ]
We beg to differ - I just think it is sad to ruin peoples careers - part of their lives without due consideration of all the facts.
Michael
You can't oversimplify a simple situation.
You can, however, overcomplicate it.
[/ QUOTE ]
We beg to differ - I just think it is sad to ruin peoples careers - part of their lives without due consideration of all the facts.
Michael
dratsea
Well-Known Member
[/ QUOTE ]The Tuamotu islands are called the dangerous islands because they are dangerous. Who authorised the boat to go there? It is not on the itinerary of the Blue Water Rally. Somebody must have?
Michael
[/ QUOTE ]
I am not so sure Michael: According to the BWR Website they are on the itinerary
Michael
[/ QUOTE ]
I am not so sure Michael: According to the BWR Website they are on the itinerary
Sea Devil
Well-Known Member
John hi,
The impression I got was that the Toamotu islands were an option.
Galapagos
5-16 March 2008
Marquesas
2-12 April 2008
Tahiti
1-11 May 2008
Tonga
16-28 June 2008/b]
Because of the real problems and challenges of these dangerous islands I think the BWR gives individual yachts the time to stop there but they are not a specified destination on the route. I would have thought that the Skipper and Mate of Gypsy Moth would have had to discuss this with their 'boss' if they wanted to take a load of 16 year olds into the area.. And the Boss would have had to decide if the skipper and mate had sufficient experience and knowledge of these waters to make the 'risk' acceptable.
Michael
The impression I got was that the Toamotu islands were an option.
Galapagos
5-16 March 2008
Marquesas
2-12 April 2008
Tahiti
1-11 May 2008
Tonga
16-28 June 2008/b]
Because of the real problems and challenges of these dangerous islands I think the BWR gives individual yachts the time to stop there but they are not a specified destination on the route. I would have thought that the Skipper and Mate of Gypsy Moth would have had to discuss this with their 'boss' if they wanted to take a load of 16 year olds into the area.. And the Boss would have had to decide if the skipper and mate had sufficient experience and knowledge of these waters to make the 'risk' acceptable.
Michael
Sea Devil
Well-Known Member
Tisme
[ QUOTE ]
You still haven't given us your sailing credentials!
[/ QUOTE ]
?
[ QUOTE ]
You still haven't given us your sailing credentials!
[/ QUOTE ]
?
Tisme
Well-Known Member
[quote I just think it is sad to ruin peoples careers - part of their lives without due consideration of all the facts.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's why they had an Inquiry! They examined the boat and the log. They spoke to everyone on board. They looked at weather conditions. They may even have looked at the charts! That's what Inquiries are for; to gather and evaluate the facts.
.....and then you accuse them of not giving due consideration of the facts!!!! Perhaps you would list the facts that have not been considered and send it to UKSA so that they can benefit from your experience.
Having held the Inquiry they then held a separate Disciplinary meeting. They have followed the correct procedures meticulously.....but you know better. Perhaps you would tell us how you would have handled it. Do let us know how you would have handled the worlds press too. We could all benefit from your experience.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's why they had an Inquiry! They examined the boat and the log. They spoke to everyone on board. They looked at weather conditions. They may even have looked at the charts! That's what Inquiries are for; to gather and evaluate the facts.
.....and then you accuse them of not giving due consideration of the facts!!!! Perhaps you would list the facts that have not been considered and send it to UKSA so that they can benefit from your experience.
Having held the Inquiry they then held a separate Disciplinary meeting. They have followed the correct procedures meticulously.....but you know better. Perhaps you would tell us how you would have handled it. Do let us know how you would have handled the worlds press too. We could all benefit from your experience.
Vigilante
New Member
In answer to your question it was really a general rant based on the fact that I sent my child to the UKSA some time back and have happily recommended it to many due to the fantastic, committed staff that they attract - amongst other things. As a result, I have followed the GMIV voyage on and off and am disappointed in the way this has been handled.
In answer to Tisme, I too have sailed for ten years on and off but my work has always been in mainstream corporate life. I was just deeply saddened to see the underdogs lambasted so publicly. It is they who cannot defend themselves, hardly the organisation who have the weight of legal and PR support behind them.
In answer to your question to Michael, I would say that the only press who were interested for a while seemed to be the Times and the Telegraph with a few others dipping in and out. I therefore feel that there was hardly a public outcry or a need for such a speedy response. I believe a better angle ( based on the fact there were no injuries ) would have been a damage limiting, dignified statement saying that the organisation was working with its staff to review the learnings and in the meantime to focus on the success of the voyage through the eyes of the participants. This surely would have been a far more compelling and enduring angle for the press and could potentially have encouraged specific sponsorships for the second half of the trip.
As it happens, the careers of two people ( who it appears have actually done no worse than others before them who have not been so harshly punished ) are already diminished whatever the outcome of any appeal they may chose to pursue, yet this self-limiting PR approach has already made the whole incident yesterday's news when up against other high profile sailing news features of the past week.
In answer to Tisme, I too have sailed for ten years on and off but my work has always been in mainstream corporate life. I was just deeply saddened to see the underdogs lambasted so publicly. It is they who cannot defend themselves, hardly the organisation who have the weight of legal and PR support behind them.
In answer to your question to Michael, I would say that the only press who were interested for a while seemed to be the Times and the Telegraph with a few others dipping in and out. I therefore feel that there was hardly a public outcry or a need for such a speedy response. I believe a better angle ( based on the fact there were no injuries ) would have been a damage limiting, dignified statement saying that the organisation was working with its staff to review the learnings and in the meantime to focus on the success of the voyage through the eyes of the participants. This surely would have been a far more compelling and enduring angle for the press and could potentially have encouraged specific sponsorships for the second half of the trip.
As it happens, the careers of two people ( who it appears have actually done no worse than others before them who have not been so harshly punished ) are already diminished whatever the outcome of any appeal they may chose to pursue, yet this self-limiting PR approach has already made the whole incident yesterday's news when up against other high profile sailing news features of the past week.
Other threads that may be of interest
