Two dead, four injured in Padstow speedboat crash.

[Seajet]

How do rope / flotsam cutters relate to the people injured or killed by props ?

In that regard they could be said to be an added danger to swimmers - ' cutter ' being the clue - also that they make it harder to stop a runaway high speed boat.

 

[l'escargot]

An interesting perspective is if you look at MAIB reports and sort them by leisure craft Injury/Fatality, it lists 3 fatalities from yachts and only 1 from RIBs (excluding the ones in this incident) and only 1 "serious" injury attributed to both yachts and RIBs. Figures go back to 1999. Obviously every death is a tragedy but using these figures it looks as if the risk of death or serious injury is pretty even between yachts and RIBs but you are safer on a motorboat...

 

[l'escargot]

How do rope / flotsam cutters relate to the people injured or killed by props ?

In that regard they could be said to be an added danger to swimmers - ' cutter ' being the clue - also that they make it harder to stop a runaway high speed boat.

They don't. If you read back through the threads Maby is considering whether a prop guard would be useful for preventing rope from being caught on his sail drive as he doesn't think the rope cutters are up to the job.

 

[alant]

An interesting perspective is if you look at MAIB reports and sort them by leisure craft Injury/Fatality, it lists 3 fatalities from yachts and only 1 from RIBs (excluding the ones in this incident) and only 1 "serious" injury attributed to both yachts and RIBs. Figures go back to 1999. Obviously every death is a tragedy but using these figures it looks as if the risk of death or serious injury is pretty even between yachts and RIBs but you are safer on a motorboat...

Interesting, I know of at least 3 deaths in the Solent/Southampton Water, covered by that time period.

 

[davidej]

An interesting perspective is if you look at MAIB reports and sort them by leisure craft Injury/Fatality, it lists 3 fatalities from yachts and only 1 from RIBs (excluding the ones in this incident) and only 1 "serious" injury attributed to both yachts and RIBs. Figures go back to 1999. Obviously every death is a tragedy but using these figures it looks as if the risk of death or serious injury is pretty even between yachts and RIBs but you are safer on a motorboat...

You have to be careful with these statistics


More people drown in their bath than from a yacht - so bathing is more dangerous than sailing.

NO - more people take baths and more often than yachtsmen go sailing

 

[Seajet]

You have to be careful with these statistics

Too right, according to statistics 33% of deaths on the road are caused by drunk / drugged drivers; so logically we must ban sobre drivers immediately, this menace cause 67 % of deaths !

 

[l'escargot]

You have to be careful with these statistics

More people drown in their bath than from a yacht - so bathing is more dangerous than sailing.

NO - more people take baths and more often than yachtsmen go sailing

Oh I know that, but guess what the government base their policies on - figures from official bodies such as MAIB.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

An interesting perspective is if you look at MAIB reports and sort them by leisure craft Injury/Fatality, it lists 3 fatalities from yachts and only 1 from RIBs (excluding the ones in this incident) and only 1 "serious" injury attributed to both yachts and RIBs. Figures go back to 1999. Obviously every death is a tragedy but using these figures it looks as if the risk of death or serious injury is pretty even between yachts and RIBs but you are safer on a motorboat...

I may be wrong, but don't the MAIB only report in non-commercial cases where there are likely to be lessons learnt? So an incident where it was perfectly obvious what had gone wrong, and where the remedy was equally obvious wouldn't be featured in a report?

 

[l'escargot]

I may be wrong, but don't the MAIB only report in non-commercial cases where there are likely to be lessons learnt? So an incident where it was perfectly obvious what had gone wrong, and where the remedy was equally obvious wouldn't be featured in a report?

Yes, they don't report on all incidents, but I don't know of any other UK organisation that records boating incidents for statistical purposes.

I linked to these American Coastguard statistics earlier, I don't see any reason why ours should be vastly different from over there:http://www.propellersafety.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/uscg-boating-statistics-2012-table17.jpg. They don't differentiate between types of vessel though.

 

[Seajet]

Every MAIB report I've seen has been extremely fair and designed to be a training aid as in ' lessons learned ' not apportioning blame to anyone.

The RAF has / had an in - house accident report form ' Feedback ' which was a mine of information and tried to make anything not too serious into a joke*, so that it stayed in peoples' memories and was discussed, so spreading the message.

This MAIB / Feedback approach seems right to me delivering lessons, if anyone wants to blame someone they can get on to ' ambulance chasers are us ' lawyers.

* 25 years later I still remember the accident report of a chap on the ground being knocked out by a frozen chicken falling from a poorly supported cargo net under a Chinook; the heading was ' birdstrike '.

 

[Tranona]

I may be wrong, but don't the MAIB only report in non-commercial cases where there are likely to be lessons learnt? So an incident where it was perfectly obvious what had gone wrong, and where the remedy was equally obvious wouldn't be featured in a report?

They pick up pretty much all of leisure incidents where there is a death or a commercial vessel was involved. Not all result in a full report, but they do log them. However, they refuse to disclose all the incidents they log, and it is hard to reconcile some of their more sensational pronouncements (not the reports I hasten to add) with other sources.
This is particularly true about drink/boating where they grossly overstate the figures. You may recall when the drink regulations came up last time questions were asked about the kind of figures that were being bandied around as justification. In the end the minister had to admit that the real documented cases were a fraction of those claimed. Made him look a bit of a p***, but disclosure was part of the reason the whole idea was dropped.

There is a problem with collecting data as the main bodies that report incidents - MCA, RNLI, Police collect and report in different ways to suit their own purposes. There is not the equivalent of the US CG statistics, which are only possible because it is a statutory duty to report incidents, but even then they use fixed categories which are very different from ours, but useful in their context.

 

[trapezeartist]

Every MAIB report I've seen has been extremely fair and designed to be a training aid as in ' lessons learned ' not apportioning blame to anyone.

They go further than that. I quote:
This bulletin is not written with litigation in mind and, pursuant to Regulation 14(14) of the
Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012, shall not be
admissible in any judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purposes, is to
apportion liability or blame.

That's one in the eye for the legal parasites.

 

[Capt Popeye]

So, reading above postings, do I now understand that those on here, stating the 'await for investigation' outcome are poss misguided in this statement, understanding?

As its not likely that there will be a published 'outcome' of any real worth, will there?

Seems to me, that there has been much more informative and knowledgable comment and observation, and even argument (differences of opinion), in these pages than we are likley to get in the Press! Or poss anywhere else!

If 'focussing' in on the 'Kill Cord' (or Stop Cord) as the 'reason' is, I find, quite a simplistic approach; where is the 'who how' did the Throttle/ Gear shift control get moved? poss so quickly? poss by a passenger? poss in error? was/ did illness (even sudden death) feature in the accident?

But perhaps 'others', like coroner will throw 'light' on these matters!

I might add, in my opinion/ observation, that the 'single lever gear shift throttle control' is a quite dangerous at times, because the earlier two lever device required two deliberate hand movements to first put engine into gear then apply throttle to move/ accelerate. The single gear/ throttle control only requires one hand moverment to do both at same time, so much easier to accidentally engage gear and GO, with engines of size in this accident, Go is really GO GO GO.

Anyways, we can all speculate and ponder, and be thankfull that any poss similar 'errors/ accidents' have not happened to us (yet).

 

[[70521]]

They go further than that. I quote:
This bulletin is not written with litigation in mind and, pursuant to Regulation 14(14) of the
Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 2012, shall not be
admissible in any judicial proceedings whose purpose, or one of whose purposes, is to
apportion liability or blame.

That's one in the eye for the legal parasites.

It's a bit more complex than that. The MAIB won't prosecute, but they know a man who can. While their report cannot be admissible in a court other agencies can submit the same evidence, e.g. The Crown Prosecution Service, and I am glad that there is a way for "lessons learnt" to be shared in an un-litigiousness way.

In some cases there is a need for a prosecution, but not in this one. We must all learn the lesson - use your kill cord, simples

 

[Observer]

So, reading above postings, do I now understand that those on here, stating the 'await for investigation' outcome are poss misguided in this statement, understanding?

As its not likely that there will be a published 'outcome' of any real worth, will there?

Seems to me, that there has been much more informative and knowledgable comment and observation, and even argument (differences of opinion), in these pages than we are likley to get in the Press! Or poss anywhere else!

If 'focussing' in on the 'Kill Cord' (or Stop Cord) as the 'reason' is, I find, quite a simplistic approach; where is the 'who how' did the Throttle/ Gear shift control get moved? poss so quickly? poss by a passenger? poss in error? was/ did illness (even sudden death) feature in the accident?

But perhaps 'others', like coroner will throw 'light' on these matters!

I might add, in my opinion/ observation, that the 'single lever gear shift throttle control' is a quite dangerous at times, because the earlier two lever device required two deliberate hand movements to first put engine into gear then apply throttle to move/ accelerate. The single gear/ throttle control only requires one hand moverment to do both at same time, so much easier to accidentally engage gear and tentGO, with engines of size in this accident, Go is really GO GO GO.

Anyways, we can all speculate and ponder, and be thankfull that any poss similar 'errors/ accidents' have not happened to us (yet).

Inadvertent operation of the throttle is a possible explanation for all six passengers/crew departing the boat at the same time. But I haven't read anything that indicates that is what happened.

I agree that a single lever throttle without a neutral lock is a real point of vulnerability. I don't know if the accident RIB was so equipped.

Single lever not otherwise a problem, IMO. I don't like frictionless throttle but a device that electronically retards the throttle to idle (or even cuts the ignition) if a positive action is not taken periodically is a real possibility IMO.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Ah well, seems that this Incident has raised the 'issues' of 'stop or kill cord' being made 'compulsory' by/ in law.

There is an Internet on-line petition asking for people to sign to this effect. Evidently follows a 'similar' accident/ incident at the Southampton Boat Show, (if I read it right?)

Seems to have attracted lots of signitures so far.

Lets see in due course how it 'pans out'!

Just perhaps we will see 'marine insurance companies' taking a stand on this 'issue'?