'Foolhardy' five

codprawn · 14 September 2009, 00:13

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8253797.stm

Well according to the BBC and the MCA they were........

2 RIBs went "missing" crossing the channel. They were caught in a F8 and didn't wear proper clothes.

"At least one of the vessels had a portable VHF marine band radio on board, but unfortunately did not use it to call the coastguard and did not respond to the urgency broadcast we made."

Could it be that they didn't realise there was a problem and that is why they didn't use the VHF?

Anyone know any more???

Markyboyo · 14 September 2009, 00:38

I know the BBC's editing isn't what it was!

"Dover Coastguard said the party was "extremely foolhardy" to venture out without "inadequate" clothing. "

SeaSkills · 14 September 2009, 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by codprawn

Could it be that they didn't realise there was a problem and that is why they didn't use the VHF?

Anyone know any more???

At ten minutes past six, Dover Coastguard received a telephone call from a concerned lady.

The lady reported that her husband was one of a party of five adults and four children travelling on two 8.5 metre RIBs from Boulogne to Dover. Her husband had called her on the telephone and had said that they had lost the other RIB, although they had set out together from Boulogne.

Dover Coastguard called out the Langdon Coastguard rescue team, requested the launch of the Dover RNLI lifeboat and scrambled the Coastguard spotter plane based at Manston. The Coastguard Tug Anglian Monarch and Dover Harbour board police were also tasked to assist in the search.

The weather forecast was North Easterly Force 5-7, gusting Gale Force 8.

Dover Coastguard made a pan pan (Urgency) broadcast to all shipping in the Dover Strait and received a response from a motor tanker who reported that they had seen a RIB fitting the description on their port side.

The Coastguard aircraft was able to fly to this last known position and from the air was able to spot the two RIBs and direct the lifeboat to them

spartacus · 14 September 2009, 08:57

It was widely reported on the MET and BBC weather forecasts that the Dover area had a severe gale force warning in place on Saturday/Sunday. Even with 8.5m RIBS, this does seem foolhardy, especially with children onboard.

Rogue Wave · 14 September 2009, 09:51

Agreed,

It's a good c ase for an IQ test before being allowed to buy a boat

JSP · 14 September 2009, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue Wave

Agreed,

It's a good c ase for an IQ test before being allowed to buy a boat

That's me knackered then!

Rogue Wave · 14 September 2009, 10:35

copy that

Pablo · 14 September 2009, 10:46

From what I understand they didn't actually ask for help. What exactly does "got lost" mean ? Were they really in difficulty ? They just couldn't see each other from what I can understand of the article. It's not really surprising they couldn't see each other in those sort of conditions is it?

Daniel · 14 September 2009, 11:32

personaly i dont think the issue here is the conditions or boat or owner.

it's lack of passage information submitted to CG, lack of monitoring (a fixed / DSC) VHF.

I've crossed the channel in similar conditions. I lodged a passege plan. I contacted the CG on the VHF when i was delayed, they confirmed and even took down my position at that time.

if there had been a Panpan i would have known about it on the VHF. For one, the CG had my MMSI.

Daniel · 14 September 2009, 11:33

PS: I was sailing and RIbing yesterday, it was WINDY

chewy · 14 September 2009, 11:34

I think what people are getting at is that they went out when a gale was forecast and with children on board.
One RIB did lose contact with the other and didn't contact the CG, how did he know what had happened to the other RIB?

Daniel · 14 September 2009, 11:37

yes OK fair enough.

they should have both had bloody VHF's. MMSI's are also great for this kind of thing.

Plus, children (u 16?) prehaps also fair enough.

Having said all of this, i found out yesterday my fixed VHF set is not Transmitting, and i hadn't done a radio check (for ages) proves that the people you hear "radio check please" all the time have the right idea.

Rogue Wave · 14 September 2009, 12:11

Hi Dan,

I accept that a channel crossing where you guys are is no big thing as you can see your'e destination (on a good day) so getting lost would be difficult. Also on those boats it should be a quick 30 minute journey.

I can also see that setting out with a gale warning in place could be a good test of skills, balls and boat. Doing it with people on board that cant assess the risks (kids) is an act of stupidity.

The contract I've just been on we were limited to a force 8 any more than that and we could run for cover. You get some big holes in the water on an 8
and whilst we all think that's fun cos were all very macho boat drivers in reality it's usually wet and cold and scary especially for the passengers and fatiguing for the driver.

The lack of comms is an obvious SNAFU and most certainly not an indicator of intellect.

Cheers stu

Pablo · 14 September 2009, 14:20

All that is very true.

However, an article was wrote about an incident that wasn't actually an incident at all. I'd like to add that we are currently writing pages about this non-event as well

They were probably going to make it back without serious incident from what I can understand from the article.

Daniel · 14 September 2009, 14:28

more importantly, the following people wasted their time and effort:

Dover Coastguard
A concerned lady
Langdon Coastguard rescue team
Dover RNLI lifeboat
Coastguard spotter plane based at Manston
The Coastguard Tug Anglian Monarch
Dover Harbour board police
a motor tanker
Me
All RIBnetters who've read this

chewy · 14 September 2009, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel

more importantly, the following people wasted their time and effort:

Dover Coastguard
A concerned lady
Langdon Coastguard rescue team
Dover RNLI lifeboat
Coastguard spotter plane based at Manston
The Coastguard Tug Anglian Monarch
Dover Harbour board police
a motor tanker
Me
All RIBnetters who've read this

True but if something had happened it wouldn't be a wasted effort.
Buggered if you do, buggered if you don't.

Poly · 14 September 2009, 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel

more importantly, the following people wasted their time and effort:

Dover Coastguard (*)
A concerned lady (**)
Langdon Coastguard rescue team (*)
Dover RNLI lifeboat (*)
Coastguard spotter plane based at Manston (*)
The Coastguard Tug Anglian Monarch (*)
Dover Harbour board police (*)
a motor tanker (***)
Me (****)
All RIBnetters who've read this (****)

(*) This is good practice for them / made them feel valued / important for a little while [chose option depending on personality type]. If their paid then they did their job (with a lower level of "false incidents" then we could cut the number of staff and they would be on the dole); if they are volunteers no one is making them do it and they presumably accept that a fair proportion of call outs will be to non-immediately-life-threatening situations.

(**) Surely not really a waste of time - if your spouse calls you with a concern/problem and you relay that to the CG?

(***) A couple of VHF calls - presumably broke up the boredom of watchkeeping.

(****) Is it a waste of time - if it reinforces the need for appropriate planning / precautions / equipment? If you already do/have all this in place then it helps you feel that little bit better/smugger about your boating - which can't be a bad thing!

Poly · 14 September 2009, 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pablo

All that is very true.

However, an article was wrote about an incident that wasn't actually an incident at all. I'd like to add that we are currently writing pages about this non-event as well

They were probably going to make it back without serious incident from what I can understand from the article.

They had set out in company, they presumably planned to retain visual contact, they had lost that contact - and seemed to have no way of communicating between the two boats to ensure all was well. There is a decision to be made at that point, turn your boat and try to find your friend to rejoin them and cruise back in - or press on in the hope that your friend is doing the same. Yes a non-incident but I can understand how it might not feel like that to anyone involved at the time.

SeaSkills · 14 September 2009, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel

more importantly, the following people wasted their time and effort:

Dover Coastguard
A concerned lady
Langdon Coastguard rescue team
Dover RNLI lifeboat
Coastguard spotter plane based at Manston
The Coastguard Tug Anglian Monarch
Dover Harbour board police
a motor tanker
Me
All RIBnetters who've read this

But - as has been said many times before, including on this forum - just about everyone on this list would far rather have been called out (I'm talking about those who were actively involved, not those who choose to discuss the event afterwards) and found they weren't needed than not have been called when they were.

In my opinion, the lady did exactly the right thing in calling the Coastguard, and the Coastguard did exactly the right thing in calling in assets to make sure that everything was OK.

chewy · 14 September 2009, 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeaSkills

But - as has been said many times before, including on this forum - just about everyone on this list would far rather have been called out (I'm talking about those who were actively involved, not those who choose to discuss the event afterwards) and found they weren't needed than not have been called when they were.

In my opinion, the lady did exactly the right thing in calling the Coastguard, and the Coastguard did exactly the right thing in calling in assets to make sure that everything was OK.