A good one, RIB International.

jwalker · 18 November 2007, 01:11

Despite subscribing since the early days, I generally don't give RIB International much credit and I find the articles a bit wishy-washy and lacking substance. However, I've just finished reading the article on the MAIB and their reporting. In it, they're being brave enough to give the MAIB a bit of flack and, after reading various MAIB reports in the past I'm pleased others are also finding them to be sometimes odd, ill-concluded and often appearing to be supporting an agenda.
So, RIB International has my vote on this one. I hope they continue to be bold in future issues.

Poly · 18 November 2007, 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwalker

Despite subscribing since the early days, I generally don't give RIB International much credit and I find the articles a bit wishy-washy and lacking substance. However, I've just finished reading the article on the MAIB and their reporting. In it, they're being brave enough to give the MAIB a bit of flack and, after reading various MAIB reports in the past I'm pleased others are also finding them to be sometimes odd, ill-concluded and often appearing to be supporting an agenda.
So, RIB International has my vote on this one. I hope they continue to be bold in future issues.

JW - I remember reading the article and being surprised at the directness of their criticism. But whilst I do agree that sometimes the narrative of the MAIB reports doesn't necessarily support all of the conclusions - I'm not sure if this article was either:

(a) being contravertial for the sake of it [which I don't really object to - although I'm not sure that it was the right place / style of article for that] OR
(b) pushing some sort of anti-MAIB agenda [again I am not fundamentally against a magazine pushing an agenda - but in the interests of journalistic balance I think it is useful if they can include balance, e.g. by inviting the MAIB to respond to their comments]

IMO, the journalistic quality/style & use of a very small panel of writers for all the articles (so it is not uncommon for one writer to have 3 or 4 articles per issue) does tend to make RIB International come across as a bit of a "newsletter" rather than a serious publication.

jwalker · 18 November 2007, 13:19

I've no idea why they chose to publish the article but I'm pleased they did. I'm sure they will have considered carefully before making the decision to publish.They must have felt strongly about it for whatever reason. Maybe time will tell.

Rogue Wave · 20 November 2007, 19:47

It was a very bad magazine a few years back, It's definitely got better since then

pvm · 20 November 2007, 20:50

Dear Polwart.

the article only came out a few days ago, I remember reading it and it DID give the MAIB full right of reply. The MAIB standard reply was to say 'no comment' to most fully reasonable questions asked of them.

this made the MAIB seem to be a closed secretive organisation, not open to reasonable scrutiny by we taxpayers and stakeholders.

such attitudes have no place in this day and age, and one can only wonder what sort of management committee MAIB has... rather 'titanic' like it seems.

pvm

Bigmuz7 · 20 November 2007, 20:55

I thought it was one of their more informative issues myself, which I particularly enjoyed reading. After subscribing for a good few years now, this issue had me wondering about the differences between considered 'articles' and forum posts such as on here, both can be informative but in a different fashion, a forum being more discursive, on a good thread for example, with proactive input etc. Printed matter has no scope for debate, and has to be, sometimes, as Polwart put it, a bit 'news lettery'. Also they have to pitch a magazine to appeal to the widest possible tastes, in what is a fairly narrow spectrum of interest, so to some, it may seem less informative. For me I found the opposite, so I agree JW, it seems content has improved.

Do you think such a publication is under threat from the internet, or do you prefer to read a written article from this or another similar publication in the peace and quiet of your bunk..... say ? I'm not looking for a debate about how good Ribnet is or Ribmag isn't, just curious to know where the direction of each might go and why ?

Poly · 20 November 2007, 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvm

Dear Polwart.

the article only came out a few days ago, I remember reading it and it DID give the MAIB full right of reply. The MAIB standard reply was to say 'no comment' to most fully reasonable questions asked of them.

this made the MAIB seem to be a closed secretive organisation, not open to reasonable scrutiny by we taxpayers and stakeholders.

such attitudes have no place in this day and age, and one can only wonder what sort of management committee MAIB has... rather 'titanic' like it seems.

pvm

Sorry - I was talking about a previous article -as haven't yet read latest issue.

Poly · 20 November 2007, 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

as Polwart put it, a bit 'news lettery'.

that wasn't meant to be a compliment - I was trying to describe "amatuer journalism".

Quote:

Do you think such a publication is under threat from the internet, or do you prefer to read a written article from this or another similar publication in the peace and quiet of your bunk..... say ?

I don't think RI is anymore at threat from new media than any other publication - I think most people are agreed that their standards are improving. There is a degree of immediacy to web publication... ...but there should be a degree of independent authority to a printed publication. For factual content I prefer printed media... For opinion it is nice to be able to explore what was actually meant by a comment (or perhaps the absence of a comment).

jwalker · 20 November 2007, 21:59

If I didn't subscribe, I'm not sure I'd bother hunting it out on the magazine shelves. Except, maybe, when I'm a bit bored and could do with a read of something. I'm sure they were very well aware of that when they cajoled us subscribers to change from standing order to direct debit.

However, boat mags do give me a view from a different perspective and I like that. I always keep in mind, though, that they are there primarily to make money so treat their content accordingly.

On the subject of RIB international, I very much preferred the early magazines, before they saw the possibility of big bucks. I noticed Hugo and family on the telly last night, too.

Poly · 04 December 2007, 20:32

I have now had a chance to read the article JW was originally referring to - and I would agree that they seem to have been particularly evasive and that the article was fair.

I see the MAIB have been at it again:

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...Part%5F3%2Epdf

Here are the conclusions from an accident with a RIB safety boat:

Quote:

The Lessons

Quote:

4. Although both of the boys were familiar with general manoverboard drills, they had not practised these in this particular design of dinghy. Had they done so, they would probably have been aware of the problem with the harness and the lip of the hull, and found a way of overcoming it.

Lesson 4 - shows that they have little understanding of the way that man overboard drills are taught and practiced with sailing dinghies - typically using a fender and bucket! Indeed if they used real people and had an accident I would fully expect the MAIB to question the wisdom of training with real people.

codprawn · 05 December 2007, 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwalker

Despite subscribing since the early days, I generally don't give RIB International much credit and I find the articles a bit wishy-washy and lacking substance. However, I've just finished reading the article on the MAIB and their reporting. In it, they're being brave enough to give the MAIB a bit of flack and, after reading various MAIB reports in the past I'm pleased others are also finding them to be sometimes odd, ill-concluded and often appearing to be supporting an agenda.
So, RIB International has my vote on this one. I hope they continue to be bold in future issues.

Funnily enough I made similar comments on this site in the past - I seem to remember most people instantly jumped to the defence of the MAIB as they were the so called experts............

Jelly · 06 December 2007, 12:11

I have not read the Rib Int mag so can't comment on the article.
But I think I know the incident involved in the MAIB case No.25 and the pictures tie up.
The comment about the safety boat needing a prop guard is interesting as the sailing site that its from fit the half guard, basically a ring not a full guard.

The story goes the leg went between the ring and the prop and caused the damage, where as a full one would have resulted in full protection and no guard would have caused laceration but pushed the leg away.

The lad is back sailing now and is rather good !

James

havener · 06 December 2007, 12:19

Quote:

typically using a fender and bucket

I knew you were posh...your sailing club has a fender AND a bucket!!

Poly · 06 December 2007, 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by havener

I knew you were posh...your sailing club has a fender AND a bucket!!

Actually where I learned to sail it was an old car tyre and then laterly a sailbag stuffed with all the old bouyancy aids which were too fousty / mouldy etc for anyone to wear.