MAIB Report, A Salutary Tale

[Puffin]

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...oty_Report.pdf

This MAIB report was published today. Was aware of the accident as it happened in my area earlier in the summer. Thought it might be of interest to others, hence the posting. MAIB reports tend to be written in a positive way and can often have some useful learning points.

Bottom line..........Don't drink and dive / drive!

[PeterR]

I have read only about 10 pages so far and find it very interesting thanks

[PeterM]

Sobering reading ( pun intented) .

[cuttlefish]

Redbay, I should not be at all pleased with being associated with this incident. It may well be that the owners of the Humber said that they had copied the Redbay design (not the only canopy type around BTW), but for the MAIB report to actually show a Redbay boat in this context is grossly damaging to their image.

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by rupert

Redbay, I should not be at all pleased with being associated with this incident. It may well be that the owners of the Humber said that they had copied the Redbay design (not the only canopy type around BTW), but for the MAIB report to actually show a Redbay boat in this context is grossly damaging to their image.

over the pic ............

'Image courtesy of Redbay Boats'

Lets not get away from the point of the report - ie to let us all learn from the accident.

I for one am stunned at the 2007 fatality numbers for when anchored / alongside

[willk]

Originally Posted by rupert

Redbay, I should not be at all pleased with being associated with this incident. It may well be that the owners of the Humber said that they had copied the Redbay design (not the only canopy type around BTW), but for the MAIB report to actually show a Redbay boat in this context is grossly damaging to their image.

Easy Tiger! Redbay obviously gave them the photo. Nowhere (far as I can see) does the report implicate the canopy design in the incident. The causes are perfectly clear - boating Party full as ticks! Sad, but It Happens Every Year

[Mollers]

Originally Posted by rupert

Redbay, I should not be at all pleased with being associated with this incident.

Likewise, Parker get a mention in this one.

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ow_Annexes.pdf

[chewy]

All too easy to have a few to many.
I won't take alcohol on a boat or accept it off someone if they choose to bring it.

The fact they copied the Redbay console must mean Redbay are doing something right, can't see how it would damage either RIB builder. They can't control what the owners of RIB's built by them do.

[cuttlefish]

ghoulish, so I do not want to dwell on people's misfortune. An accident that should not have happened, and the reason why it did is obvious.
I have little to add except condolences to his family! I agree that we can all learn from it.

[Mollers]

[QUOTE=willk;322544] Nowhere (far as I can see) does the report implicate the canopy design...../QUOTE]

Perhaps they were hiding in embarrassment rather than maintaining a proper watch?

[chewy]

Originally Posted by rupert

An accident that should not have happened.

Isn't that what accidents are un-planned and un-forseen events.

[cuttlefish]

before I sign off on this thread. In no way did I mean that the canopy design was to blame, but long after much of the accident is forgotten there is a risk that the image associated with it will remain. End of clarification.

[willk]

Originally Posted by willk

Nowhere (far as I can see) does the report implicate the canopy design...../QUOTE]

Perhaps they were hiding in embarrassment rather than maintaining a proper watch?

or possibly from Mortification at not being able to get their QUOTES on properly

[willk]

Originally Posted by rupert

but long after much of the accident is forgotten there is a risk that the image associated with it will remain.

Certainly I'll remember the funky canopy with the unfortunately named "suicide seat".

And don't go, the fun is just starting!

[cuttlefish]

I'll stick around a bit longer.

Chewy wrote: :Isn't that what accidents are un-planned and un-forseen events."

Don't think they could have done much planning or foreseeing with that much alcohol in their bodies.

[Mollers]

Originally Posted by rupert

before I sign off on this thread. In no way did I mean that the canopy design was to blame, but long after much of the accident is forgotten there is a risk that the image associated with it will remain. End of clarification.

Nah, much as I'd like to rip it out of the psuedo RedBay kiosk. The bottom line was, that a bunch of pi$$ed-up guys took the wrong course at speed at night and got it wrong.

[willk]

Originally Posted by Mollers

The bottom line was, that a bunch of pi$$ed-up guys took the wrong course at speed at night and got it wrong.

Yes. You make your own luck.

http://rib.net/forum/showthread.php?...rmory+accident

There are a few members in there who can now comment freely in light of the MAIB report, and state openly what was obvious to the rest of us six months ago.

I've been waiting

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Mollers

Nah, much as I'd like to rip it out of the psuedo RedBay kiosk. The bottom line was, that a bunch of pi$$ed-up guys took the wrong course at speed at night and got it wrong.

I agree.

Of course all the blame will be laid upon the cox - even though they were really all crew and equally to "blame".

Personally I think the death of a good mate would be blame enough.............

[Observer]

A few observations on this:

First:
- the helmsman had a breath/alcohol concentration of 74mcg/100ml (road driving limit 35/100). This was back calculated to the time of the accident and estimated to be ~3 x the road limit (so impliedly ~105/100)
- the deceased crew had blood/alcohol concentration of 264mg/100ml (road driving limit 80/100) so he was also ~3 x the road limit

Yet the helmsman (reportedly) had not consumed the same amount

The coxswain ... only consumed alcoholic drinks on alternate rounds

Hmm.

Second:
There is no direct reference to the lunar phase. There's a massive difference between navigating at night with a half moon or better (even with cloud cover) and no moon.

Third:
What part (if any) was played by the tinted windscreen and/or the canvas canopy with clear plastic sections (this may have been rolled up out of the way, I'm not certain)? On a moonless night in confined water, I find it essential to get my head in the open air. I wonder if this played a part.

Fourth:
The effect of the deck light (apparently switched on) is mentioned and is in my view very significant. Even if it was switched off when they left the mooring, the white light from a few minutes earlier would have delayed/prevented the development of night vision for some considerable time. Even without that, it is easy, in an open boat, for night vision to be affected by the all round white light.

It seems quite likely that alcohol played a part in this accident. I wonder if the combination of moonless night, glare/night blindness from the deck light, no adjusted night vision and tinted windscreen meant that the helmsman, for practical purposes, may as well have been wearing a blindfold.

Don't 'drink and drive' is fine as far as it goes, but the direct cause of the accident, it seems to me, was the fact of navigating in the dark, at speed, without actually being able to see. That's simply dumb regardless of intoxication level.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Observer

Second:
There is no direct reference to the lunar phase. There's a massive difference between navigating at night with a half moon or better (even with cloud cover) and no moon.

Section 1.5.2 - "no moon"