Local Sailing Club - Trial requested by the RIBnet Court - Page 3

Bigmuz7 · 06 October 2009, 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jono Garton

People - £100 for the week / £20 per day and lunch

No mention of qualifications / ages / ability

So the 'people' were expected to do what ? , in your understanding ?

chewy · 06 October 2009, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

So the 'people' were expected to do what ? , in your understanding ?

Turn up have lunch and go home!

Bigmuz7 · 06 October 2009, 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewy

Turn up have lunch and go home!

so were they experienced at all ?

chewy · 06 October 2009, 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

so were they experienced at all ?

Your taking the biscuit now mate, they were kids and have a pack lunch every day, of course they were experienced in eating sandwiches!

Bigmuz7 · 06 October 2009, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewy

Your taking the biscuit now mate, they were kids and have a pack lunch every day, of course they were experienced in eating sandwiches!

Nah .. just trying to establish some facts .. some folks still refer to 19 year olds as kids, but Jono did say 'children' .. anyhoo .. whatever .. still .. my earlier post stands

Were experienced crew expected then ?,.. which is what the 'hirer' was expecting ?

Jono Garton · 06 October 2009, 22:51

All helms were Qualified and Experienced

In this case the crew (kids) were experienced dinghy sailors and hold a Level 2 PB.

Jono

Poly · 06 October 2009, 23:19

OK Jono, So whats the purpose of the thread?

Posting here won't get the kids their money.
Their dad was alegedly happy enough at the time, and if he's not been in touch with the club chasing this - then why stir it up?

The club has pissed you off / let you down - so you won't be helping them next year.

The learning point is obvious - make sure both sides understand what is expected of them.

So what's your hope/expectation for the thread?

Jono Garton · 06 October 2009, 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polwart

So what's your hope/expectation for the thread?

I'm still going to get the money from the club for the kids.

The purpose of the thread, Well I'm always amazed with threads like this, they always highlight different peoples views and different routes to tackle the problem.

Jono

Bigmuz7 · 07 October 2009, 07:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jono Garton

All helms were Qualified and Experienced

In this case the crew (kids) were experienced dinghy sailors and hold a Level 2 PB.

Jono

So apart from their ages, which may be a technicality, they had some useful experience already, so were able to provide bona fide help.

I think the club sound really mean, and are trying to get out of paying using any cheap trick they can

If I was in their shoes and felt really strongly about their ages, I would have paid it, and had a word afterwards about it .. thereby keeping good faith, as I believe that is important, and as I said,.. the job got done, and they got their cover after all.

Unless they specified the training level of every crew member beforehand, part of the fault is theirs as I see it or at least perhaps they should accept the consequences of not doing so... IMVVHO

Will the bench now pass me black hat for sentencing

PeterM · 07 October 2009, 08:44

I still think they should be paid . I think alot of sailing clubs use members who have no qualification to man safety boats . I can think of at least 3 off the top of my head that do & a rowing club also .

There does not seem to be any requirement from the sailing club for them to hold certain qualifications - if they had that need they shoudl have checked them all out at the time - likewise if they needed coded boats.

If I had flipped my hobie when I was younger I would have welcomed ANY boat with a bit of sense along side if I was in trouble - not just a coded one with qualified crew.

JSP · 07 October 2009, 10:08

I've not had chance to read all this thread. I think there's some very valid points been made about level of experience required when doing safety work and the points about the club.

I just feel it for the kids, they would have had the money spent already in their heads as the week went on. And to not get it in the end would have been a big downer for them. Poor buggers.

chewy · 07 October 2009, 10:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSP

I've not had chance to read all this thread. I think there's some very valid points been made about level of experience required when doing safety work and the points about the club.

I just feel it for the kids, they would have had the money spent already in their heads as the week went on. And to not get it in the end would have been a big downer for them. Poor buggers.

You taking yours next year mate, easy £800 and no one has yet to say what age you can't take....

JSP · 07 October 2009, 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewy

You taking yours next year mate, easy £800 and no one has yet to say what age you can't take....

Naa they'll be too busy up 't chimney mate.

chewy · 07 October 2009, 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSP

Naa they'll be too busy up 't chimney mate.

Aye lad, I'm just off out to get some mannequins and a load of old inflatables, easy money this safety boat lark.

zodiacman · 07 October 2009, 10:53

Think its time to call in

Observer · 07 October 2009, 11:03

I think the boat was required to be coded (I stand to be corrected by one of the commercial members) for the following reasons.

1. It was clearly a commercial arrangement.
2. The Code (of Practice for Small Commercial Vessels) applies to any size of boat up to 24m that "goes to sea".
3. "to sea" means "beyond category D waters or category C waters if there are no category D waters"

Category C and D waters have the following meanings

Quote:

Category C: Tidal rivers and estuaries and
large, deep lakes and lochs where the
significant wave height could not be expected
to exceed 1.2 metres at any time.

Category D: Tidal rivers and estuaries where
the significant wave height could not be
expected to exceed 2.0 metres at any time.

So if the boat was used "at sea" and was uncoded, the skipper/owner was breaking the law (probably the Club was complicit).

The Code stipulates that on a commercial vessel operating in Category 4 (up to 20 miles from a safe haven), the skipper is required to have minimum Coastal Skipper (Motor) with commercial endorsement. No other crew are needed . If the Club required additional crew, they could have specified minimum age/qualifications. If that wasn't stipulated then, it seems to me, they should have paid the rate agreed if the service provided was reasonably satisfactory. The contract was made between the Club and the owner/skipper, who sub-contracted the additional crew (who happened to be his children but that's not pertinent to the analysis). However, a contract made for an illegal purpose is unenforceable.

p.s. On the south coast, "category D waters" include

Quote:

Inside the Isle of Wight within an area bounded by lines drawn between the church spire, West Wittering, to Trinity Church, Bembridge to the eastward, and the Needles and Hurst Point to the westward

So a vessel used in the Solent does not "go to sea". However (I believe), a commercial vessel, even if it doesn't "go to sea", remains subject to some other regulation (but not the Code).

biffer · 07 October 2009, 12:04

thats interesting if thats right that all boat need codeing for commercial stuff, run with me on this one for a while, small rib from a good company, has rcd, ce plate etc, most likely been in production for 4/5 years, now, if we go to code it with all the kit they say we have to have that boat will probaly fail the rcd test, for if the boat was a few years old it would have been tested with a two stroke on it at best or maybe a load of bodies in it to simulate the weight, now that four strokes are the norm and are much heavier plus all the kit the freeboard at the transom would be too low if not underwater, so without the rcd, no ce plate the boat is not codeable, i'm trying to make some in roads to the mca to suggest that they don't generalise boats in there code book but to look at ribs with a more specific code of practice, after all i wouldn't mind betting that ribs are there biggest part of the codeing, check out what anchors you have to have on a 8.5 m boat, you could use them on a 7 tonne yaght, it's time the code rules were updated properly

chewy · 07 October 2009, 12:46

Regards boats and engines you have a max weight and hp that shouldn't be exceeded so regardless whether 2 strokes were around or not the max hp and weight still shouldn't be exceeded.

biffer · 07 October 2009, 13:08

ok, chewy, say you had a boat with 75hp two stroke that blows up would you be happy with a replacement 45/50 four stroke, it's about the same weight, you can guess what happens 90 percent of the time

Downhilldai · 07 October 2009, 13:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by biffer

ok, chewy, say you had a boat with 75hp two stroke that blows up would you be happy with a replacement 45/50 four stroke, it's about the same weight, you can guess what happens 90 percent of the time

Yes, a certain training school, not far from here has a small fleet of training/safety boats, all of which are fitted with outbords exceeding the manufacturer's stated maximum.