Wheelyboat accident 6/22 any info please ?

[sarabande]

AP, I am with you on the idea of having passengers transfer to seating systems pre-fitted to the Wheelyboat, but there will amost certainly be supports, straps, and cushions that are specifically needed for a named individual. Without such devices, the comfort and safety of disabled passengers would likely to be compromised.
Fitting a wheelchair or a car under the Motability scheme is a slow and necessarily expensive process, so a boat seat is liable to be even more so.

I think you are being a bit harsh in the last sentence of your post.

 

[ylop]

The problem is that electric wheelchairs aren't designed with boating in mind, so quick release mechanisms aren't in the design brief. Fitting such things would a) be unnecessary for the vast majority of users and b) increase the cost of equipment that is already expensive for most users. It seems to me that it would be better if the boats were equipped with suitable wheelchairs (probably not motorised) that could a) be locked in place and b) had quick release harnesses and c) were equipped with suitable buoyancy. The failure point in this case seems to me to be that a) users had to be strapped into their wheelchair for safety reasons (these were people with severe mental and physical handicaps) and b) they were allowed to use their own equipment which wasn't adapted for boating in any manner.

But if the boat had been properly maintained and operated, the accident wouldn't have happened.

If you have major mobility issues wheelchairs are often customised (well the insert you sit in is) to your shape - simply assuming that one wheel chair user can easily transfer from their own chair to a generic one may be a mistake. moving users between chairs often involves hoists or somewhat dodgy lifts.

My immediate reaction was emergency release straps like those worn on kayak tow belts / sup waist harnesses may be better — but it would require the users understanding, sufficient dexterity to find it, and the ejection process to give them enough time before a heavy chair is on top of them.

It strikes me that this risk is not unique to boats capsizing/sinking. dis/embarkation is probably the most likely time for any of us to go for an unplanned swim, fishing from a pontoon in a wheelchair would have similar risks, as would using one on a harbour wall to watch the world go by, or near a pond or swimming pool. Whilst clearly the WBT should have been particularly switched on to these risks - nowhere in the MAIB report does it consider if the wheelchair manufacturer had given any thought to accidental immersion.

I know it's a slow process, but I would hope a few people appear in court over this. Avoidable deaths and rescuers risking their own lives.

I’m not sure, other than some fairly trivial (in the face of two deaths) charges what offence would be likely to secure a conviction and against who. Especially since the admissable evidence in court will usually be less than the maib report.

 

[ylop]

I think you are being a bit harsh in the last sentence of your post.

if it hadn’t have taken on water through the badly sealed front door it would never have been an incident.

If the chairs had been loaded so it was bow up (something the WBT could have very cheaply mitigated against with a colour labelled sprit level at the helm) it wouldn’t have happened.

If the helm had been a bit better trained so he understood the impact of free surface effect it wouldn’t have happened.

If the activity centre staff had been better trained in loading the boat / checking the helm knew how to load the boat, it wouldn’t have happened.

If the activity centre manager had been able to contact the helm when we said was “going too fast” (I assume in relation to bow wake?) it wouldn’t have happened - the report doesn’t explain why that vhf call or the call for help didn’t work.

If the WBT had better processes to monitor maintenance of the vessels it provides (and potentially common issues) it potentially wouldn’t have happened.

If the WBT had done a better job of assessing against the RCD it potentially wouldn’t have happened (as the stability risk on a small lake may have been much clearer).

If the WBT had considered the competence and experience of its operating recipients better it might have provided better operating guidance.

It the RYA activity centre had paused for a moment when describing their scope of operations and AALA scope such that it excluded the wheelyboat - perhaps they would have seen they were introducing a risk.

The bouyancy of wheelchair occupants was at the very end of a list of factors. It would be wrong to conclude that this is all about the chair/strap issue.