MAIB interim report on Seadogz fatality

[C2 RIBS]

Originally Posted by willk

I wouldn't assume anything of the sort, IIWY. Ian/C2 had a bit of a meltdown here a few years ago and this is his first serious foray back into the thick of things here. He is obviously emotionally invested in this case and will be more sensitive to our comments than may appear reasonable. I fully get this - I once had to lug a client down four flights of stairs in a body bag. For the next 10 years I couldn't look at a flopping arm without getting quite anxious...

Attack the messenger is never a good look .

I posted with a very good knowledge of events and the posts which were pre judging and could influence anyone who later sits in a court room. I posted on a professional level within the same charter industry, with my directors head from the association and from working with authorities to assist in reviews of evidence , I also was in receipt of a message from a person involved in this tragic event , not a meltdown .

I thank one poster who has seen the words used and corrected, I will await John’s review

[willk]

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

Attack the messenger is never a good look

Now now - I wasn't attacking you - I just thought that you were over-reacting to a fairly harmless discussion. IMO, what's not a good look is when a very highly qualified member of a professional organisation is involved in a fatal accident and someone else in that organisation tries to silence further discussion.

Sub Judice means under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere - is it?
Natural Justice is when you've run out of real Laws to enforce.

[Matt]

Anyway, I recommend everyone read the MAIB report. Even for its incompleteness, there are some useful insights there, not just for commercial operators.

And while we're here, this one makes particularly harrowing reading : https://assets.publishing.service.go...port2_2016.pdf

Especially relevant to people with stepped hulls since the Ocke stepped hulls are awesomely efficient, but can really really bite you hard if you mishandle them! But to anyone who enjoys rounding marks in close proximity at speed (we've all done it), it highlights the importance of staying well clear of anything solid.

I ran up Southampton water once many years ago as the "nav" in a Phantom 28 with twin V8s and superchargers (and the mad professor at the helm) and we were well into the mid 80s mph, possibly even 90, I can't remember. The harbour started to feel quite small very very quickly. Especially since you can have the harbour being nice and flat, but you can get a nasty standing wave with the tide near calshot that comes up on you ever so quick unless you know it's there.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

Many will know I operate in this area and know all parties involved. I have also sat through hours of reviews which are still not completed on this tragedy.

And there’s the rub. We are having a discussion based on freely available information, that has been placed into the public domain by the authorities, for the explicit purpose of encouraging said discussion. You are viewing the discussion from a position of having inside privileged information that we aren’t privy to. Your view is skewed based on your insider knowledge. If you were in the same position as the rest of us, I doubt we’d be having this conversation.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, what exactly has been said that you deem objectionable or sub-judice?

[GuyC]

The MAIB reports are almost always quite interesting. They should be compulsory reading for designers and operators particularly as the causes are often a recurring theme.

[Old seahorse]

Having been the first to respond to the link on this interim report, I
Was aware that I had an indirect emotional link to this tragedy. I tried, therefore to pick my words carefully, and avoid any implied criticism of any parties.
I am in no doubt that many, not least the other passengers, their families, and the skipper and his family will be deeply affected by the events.
I did not intend for my observations to cause anyone to feel there isa sense of trial by media in this ongoing discussion.
My own professional life involved sub judice on many occasions, when involved in judicial process.
I believe that this enquiry has not reached that stage(unless someone knows different), and may not do so.
As others have said, the document has been put in the public domain, and this surely, at least in part, be for us all to learn from this tragedy, and to consider our own practices.
As long as we tread carefully, I think there is great value in discussing, and thinking about what we do to avoid a repetition of this event

[C2 RIBS]

Sub Judice means under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere - is it?


Answer yes. Hence my request and statement.
As for protecting anyone you clearly do not know me. I am very interested in correct proceedures, hence I raised the issue and all posts are captured in case challenged at a later date in proceedings.
Carry on discussing report is not an issue and welcomed, as seen on many facebook posts on this very subject, but dont presume guilt or facts. We dont make those decisions

I will now await JK response

[lakelandterrier]

Originally Posted by Old seahorse

Having been the first to respond to the link on this interim report, I
Was aware that I had an indirect emotional link to this tragedy. I tried, therefore to pick my words carefully, and avoid any implied criticism of any parties.
I am in no doubt that many, not least the other passengers, their families, and the skipper and his family will be deeply affected by the events.
I did not intend for my observations to cause anyone to feel there isa sense of trial by media in this ongoing discussion.
My own professional life involved sub judice on many occasions, when involved in judicial process.
I believe that this enquiry has not reached that stage(unless someone knows different), and may not do so.
As others have said, the document has been put in the public domain, and this surely, at least in part, be for us all to learn from this tragedy, and to consider our own practices.
As long as we tread carefully, I think there is great value in discussing, and thinking about what we do to avoid a repetition of this event

I fully agree with everything you have said.

I take this interim report as a clear reminder of the risks of high speed operation, and if that makes people consider the speeds they move at especially in busy or restricted waters and the visibility / lookout required - commercially or private - that is no bad thing. I don't think anyone has criticised any individual or passed any judgement - that is part of the MAIB investigation. I fully accept for those involved it must have been and will still be a terrible traumatic and painful experience and my sympathies go to all affected.

[Matt]

No need to be like that, we can all be friends

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

all posts are captured in case challenged at a later date in proceedings.

[C2 RIBS]

Originally Posted by Matt

No need to be like that, we can all be friends

Agree thats not a dig Matt, it is about disclosure in court cases, All my contacts on this have been documented due to the rules.

[Pikey Dave]

Having watched the video & read the preliminary text, I can't help but question a business model that depends on putting it's clients in "danger" (perceived or otherwise)for its success. I think it's fair to say that most of us when setting out to sea, think "how can I avoid danger" rather than go looking for it. Personally I tend to give large solid objects e.g. Buoys a wide berth. If crossing a wake, I do it in a manner & speed that reduces the chance of damage to boat & crew. I'm no way in the elf & safety police, but having run a business in the construction industry, & had to plough through reams of Method Statements & Risk Assessments, I sincerely wonder how this business justified its model. I've been on Seafari trips myself in the past, & they have been invariably been a means to an end, i.e., whale watching, wildlife/scenery/bird watching etc. I've never been on a trip where the sole purpose was to scare the bejeesus out of me.

[TimB]

Just my observation. Most ribs commercial or otherwise do not have any padding or collapsible in case of impact seat backs. Now I know you cannot wear a seat belt, but if a rib comes to a dead stop as it appears this incident caused a high speed to a dead stop incident, most people suffered crush, or similar injuries. Is this something that needs looking at. And before anyone has a dig, it's just my view from looking at the interim report

[willk]

Originally Posted by TimB

Now I know you cannot wear a seat belt,

Oh you can, and I have 3 fitted on my RIB. They're useless, but a Requirement nonetheless....

[GuyC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjmZ2cs8nCU

They seem pretty popular.

[jakew009]

Originally Posted by C2 RIBS

Sub Judice means under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere - is it?


Answer yes. Hence my request and statement.
As for protecting anyone you clearly do not know me. I am very interested in correct proceedures, hence I raised the issue and all posts are captured in case challenged at a later date in proceedings.
Carry on discussing report is not an issue and welcomed, as seen on many facebook posts on this very subject, but dont presume guilt or facts. We dont make those decisions

I will now await JK response

Until someone has been charged or arrested it’s not sub judice.

So are you suggesting someone has been charged?

What exactly are you going to do with your ‘captured’ posts?

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by jakew009

What exactly are you going to do with your ‘captured’ posts?

I hear Willk is handy with the gaffer tape.....allegedly [emoji6]

[jakew009]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

I hear Willk is handy with the gaffer tape.....allegedly [emoji6]

The MAIB interim report has raised more questions than answers in my mind.

How on earth do you manage to spend nearly 10s heading towards a buoy the size of a car at 40 knots on a perfectly clear day without seeing it (whilst your passengers evidently could see it but assumed you were going to drive round it)?

[C2 RIBS]

Originally Posted by Poly

C2 - I'm assuming you PM'd John (and he may have already replied), but just to reiterate if there is something of concern the fastest way to get it removed is to hit report post because then all the admin team will get alerted - if it's obvious we will deal with it immediately if it's less obvious we may discuss before removing or if we see fit temporarily remove pending someone else making the final decision.

Have done both as one area needs urgent review

[willk]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

I hear Willk is handy with the gaffer tape.....allegedly [emoji6]

Hey! That case is Sub Judice - imma sue you!

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by willk

Hey! That case is Sub Judice - imma sue you!