YM exclusive interview with Charlie Sturrock of Liquid Vortex.

Pete R

Pete R

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
860
Visit site
Very, Very disappointing interview. The story covers 2 pages, with photo's, and it is not until the middle of the second page that there is a direct quote. There are only 5 other quotes after that.

Don't just go and buy the magazine if you thought you were going to learn anything more than what has been said on here.
 
RobbieW said:
YM have reported that charges have already been brought
Click to expand...

I think that like their claims to an "exclusive interview" they may exaggerated the truth.

It appears the only investigation still running is the MCA one and there is no mention of any charges from them.
 
Last edited:
Pete R said:
Very, Very disappointing interview. The story covers 2 pages, with photo's, and it is not until the middle of the second page that there is a direct quote. There are only 5 other quotes after that.

Don't just go and buy the magazine if you thought you were going to learn anything more than what has been said on here.
Click to expand...

Are you 'disappointed' because there aren't more quotes or because what he said makes it look as though he isn't such an 'idiot' after all? How many people would sail on past Beachy Head with a following wind at F7? Or leave Southampton with a reefed main & preventer fitted?

As ever with these incidents, people are quick to judge without knowing all the facts. The interview with one of the crew in PBO makes her sound hysterical until one reads it was only her 3rd trip, despite holding a Competant Crew certificate. She complained of 'being cold and had been seasick for quite a while', yet this was January, what did she expect, a Mediterranean cruise? She wasn't so incapacitated that she couldn't text her daughter though.
 
Whiskey Bravo said:
Are you 'disappointed' because there aren't more quotes or because what he said makes it look as though he isn't such an 'idiot' after all?
Click to expand...

I am disappointed because there is no interview, as they said there would be, but instead there are just a few worthless quotes.

For me an interview would have asked Sturrock why he did not go into Eastbourne at 01.00hrs when the "possible 10 later" was due and he had already sick crew, instead he thought he could make it another 5-6 hours to Dover. He says his passage plan included the bolt holes, what changed his mind?

I never said he was an "idiot", you used that. But if all I have to go on is that piece in YM then I believe you are not far wrong.

Whiskey Bravo said:
The interview with one of the crew in PBO makes her sound hysterical until one reads it was only her 3rd trip, despite holding a Competent Crew certificate. She complained of 'being cold and had been seasick for quite a while', yet this was January, what did she expect, a Mediterranean cruise? She wasn't so incapacitated that she couldn't text her daughter though.
Click to expand...

To try and blame the crew is a bit feeble in my opinion. If she was cold and sick then for me it was all the more reason to pop into Eastbourne for a rest. Whether she can text or not in rough conditions is not part of the RYA syllabus as far as I am aware. Safety and comfort of your crew is, which is another question I would have asked Sturrock in this "exclusive interview".

My point of the thread is not really to go into the decision making of Sturrock more into the use of YM of the words "exclusive interview".
 
Last edited:
Blueboatman said:
At some point won't the reporting be sub judice?
Click to expand...

Does anyone know if the (supposed) prosecution is about this latest incident or the one on Liquid Vortex during the RORC Myth of Malham Race?

And second question: why has no tabloid come up with the headline "Hot Liquid in Hot Water"?
 
dt4134 said:
Does anyone know if the (supposed) prosecution is about this latest incident or the one on Liquid Vortex during the RORC Myth of Malham Race?
Click to expand...
http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/530725/sailing-school-faces-court-hearing states:
"Legal proceedings against both the skipper and the sailing school at the centre of the New Year storm rescue have been instigated by the MCA"

The article in Yachting Monthly states that Charlie Sturrock was not involved in either of Hot Liquid's previous incidents.

So I think the Legal Proceedings relate just to the most recent one.
 
Whilst in this case the Company have been caught out there are many tales of Delivery Skippers taking a chance,some have got away with it some have not.
If I recall a few years ago did not the same thing happen with a delivery of a New vessel from the Uk to Caribbean vessel sank in a force 10 in the Biscay in January.
I think the vessel was behind build schedule hence delyed start but Owner wanted etc etc.
In this Liquid case how much pressure was placed on the Skipper -you will be at excell by .
If some good comes out hopefully those delivering vessels will think. Just because they have the qualifications does not make them any different the seas its own boss.
 
Whiskey Bravo said:
As ever with these incidents, people are quick to judge without knowing all the facts. The interview with one of the crew in PBO makes her sound hysterical until one reads it was only her 3rd trip, despite holding a Competant Crew certificate. She complained of 'being cold and had been seasick for quite a while', yet this was January, what did she expect, a Mediterranean cruise? She wasn't so incapacitated that she couldn't text her daughter though.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, whatever happened to only sailing to the capacity of your weakest crew-member? Seems (at face value based on the info here) like a joint failure between HL accepting almost anyone with 225 quid burning a hole in their pocket and the skipper for failing to adapt to this.
 
Whiskey Bravo said:
As ever with these incidents, people are quick to judge without knowing all the facts.
Click to expand...

I agree.

The article [1] seems to me to present the people on the boat in a far better light. All the below from the article:

- At least two of the crew had gale experience.
- At least one of the crew enjoyed himself and enjoyed the challenge.
- The boat exceeded MCA requirements (Whatever that means!)
- Charlie Sturrock had been sailing since 9 & had been a Joint Services Adventure Training Skipper.
- LV did make Ramsgate under her own steam.
- CS's adult daughter was on board, given that hard to imagine him taking needless risks, also with a sailing father you have to assume she might have known what she was doing.
- They didn't set out into a F11. They set out with a forecst 5-7 Possibly 10 later & plenty of sheltered places to duck into before the 'possible' 10 arrived.
- As we know, in addition to CS (a Commercial YM) there were four competent crew on board and "two qualified Day Skippers"[2]
- The RYA have not permanantly removed HL's recognition - it's suspended.
- If the article is to be believed the MCA have made any charges. [3]

In the negative column, CS admits they pushed the "weather window a little too far" & it turns out they did put out a Mayday which wasn't initially reported AFAIK.

Be interesting to see what the MCA have to say, but for now, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.



[1] I bought YM for this article, but it's a cracking issue. I'm amazed there isn't a thread on here to debate each of our 25 Cruising Heroes. (If the inclusion of Tristan Jones wasn't an attempt to start a 450 post thread on here I don't know what is!)

[2] Direct quote from YM.

[3] Don't know how that squares with this: http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/news/530725/sailing-school-faces-court-hearing
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
- They didn't set out into a F11. They set out with a forecst 5-7 Possibly 10 later & plenty of sheltered places to duck into before the 'possible' 10 arrived.
Click to expand...

Please could you name the several sheltered places along that piece of coastline which are suitable for a deep keeled boat to duck into in a SW F9 or F10?
 
Simondjuk said:
Please could you name the several sheltered places along that piece of coastline which are suitable for a deep keeled boat to duck into in a SW F9 or F10?
Click to expand...

In a 5-7 you mean? (Note the word BEFORE).

Dover, behind the wall at Newhaven. In a 5 I'd cheerfully go into Shoreham or Brighton if the tides were all right.

Apparently they were 1 mile off Dover in an 8. I'm sure you can enter Dover in an 8.

As it happened, of course, they didn't duck in anywhere, but I didn't say they had.
 
No I don't mean F5 to F7, and since it seems to be necessary, I'll explain why.

He set out, sailed past a few places and didn't go in anywhere in a F5 to F7.

Fairly obviously then, he'd be seeking shelter in higher, like a F8, F9 or F10. Realistically, even if he made the decision to run for shelter when the F7 became a F8, it could easily have increased to F9 before they got within a shot of any of your 'many sheltered places'. So where are they in F9/10, which is when he may have been using them?

From his actions, it is clear, if you actually think about it, that a minimum of F8 was his decision point, so why are you going on about places providing suitable shelter in a F5 to F7?
 
Last edited:
toad_oftoadhall said:
- - They didn't set out into a F11. They set out with a forecst 5-7 Possibly 10 later & plenty of sheltered places to duck into before the 'possible' 10 arrived.
Click to expand...

Id be interested to see the forcasts and actual wind for the day. I live local to SOuthampton and as I posted at the time the wind was blowing strong all day and even the seagulls had given up and were sheltering in the field behind my house.

It may be being protrayed as a "sensible" decision to set sail (ONLY F7/8) but as I recall there was a storm forcaset well in advance and there were weather warnings of structural damage on the TV forcast the night before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top