Girl, 15, died of 'abdominal injury' in Solent boat crash

[Stick Legs]

MOTORVATOR said:

They don't know, we don't know, exactly what led to the failure to adjust course away from the static object and Sticks calling Manslaughter is extremely unprofessional in my mind given that he would be aware of the ongoing investigation(s).

To be clear; I was giving my opinion. Obviously the investigation will reach it's conclusion and the court case will happen in the fullness of time.
I am very sensitive to the apparent inconsistencies in the way these issues are prosecuted across the marine industry.
The criminalisation of the Ship's Master is an issue in the industry, see the case of the Hebei Sprit as a case in point. The apparent risk tolerance of operations like the fast rib rides and others is breath taking when the consequences of human element or equipment failure are taken into account.

My own conduct of the navigation of ships in close waters always makes allowance for the possibility of equipment failure and contingency planning.
It would be negligent in the extreme to bring a ship into a turn or into a berthing manoeuvre carrying excess speed and relying on a large engine or thruster action to avoid incident if a slower more measured approach would suffice. This is also my experience of assisting and training and observing other Ship's Masters and Pilots over 25 years at sea, 15 at senior rank, 7 of which have been in command.

The conduct of the vessel prior to the incident suggests strongly to me that that the rib was being driven in a cavalier manner and reliance was placed wholly on the power and manoeuvrability of the rib and the judgement of the cox to avoid a collision situation which he deliberately created in order to excite and wow the passengers. When either mechanical systems or judgment failed, and the rib contacted the Weston Shelf Buoy the allision was the fault of the cox of the rib who set the chain of events in motion.

In my considered opinion, with all due regard for caveats and ongoing investigations which are privy to information that I am not aware of, it would appear that the incident was wholly avoidable, furthermore the goal of wowing and exciting passengers on a fast rib ride could be conducted by carving high speed turns and wake jumping without resorting to the practice of approaching large static objects at high speed.
It is this last point where the accident crossed from 'unforeseeable accident with tragic consequences' to 'negligent handling of vessel without due regard for the safety of life of those on board' hence my use of the word 'Manslaughter'.

Edited by Stick Legs on Wednesday 26th May 11:41

[MOTORVATOR]

Stick Legs said:

MOTORVATOR said:

They don't know, we don't know, exactly what led to the failure to adjust course away from the static object and Sticks calling Manslaughter is extremely unprofessional in my mind given that he would be aware of the ongoing investigation(s).

To be clear; I was giving my opinion. Obviously the investigation will reach it's conclusion and the court case will happen in the fullness of time.
I am very sensitive to the apparent inconsistencies in the way these issues are prosecuted across the marine industry.
The criminalisation of the Ship's Master is an issue in the industry, see the case of the Hebei Sprit as a case in point. The apparent risk tolerance of operations like the fast rib rides and others is breath taking when the consequences of human element or equipment failure are taken into account.

My own conduct of the navigation of ships in close waters always makes allowance for the possibility of equipment failure and contingency planning.
It would be negligent in the extreme to bring a ship into a turn or into a berthing manoeuvre carrying excess speed and relying on a large engine or thruster action to avoid incident if a slower more measured approach would suffice. This is also my experience of assisting and training and observing other Ship's Masters and Pilots over 25 years at sea, 15 at senior rank, 7 of which have been in command.

The conduct of the vessel prior to the incident suggests strongly to me that that the rib was being driven in a cavalier manner and reliance was placed wholly on the power and manoeuvrability of the rib and the judgement of the cox to avoid a collision situation which he deliberately created in order to excite and wow the passengers. When either mechanical systems or judgment failed, and the rib contacted the Weston Shelf Buoy the allision was the fault of the cox of the rib who set the chain of events in motion.

In my considered opinion, with all due regard for caveats and ongoing investigations which are privy to information that I am not aware of, it would appear that the incident was wholly avoidable, furthermore the goal of wowing and exciting passengers on a fast rib ride could be conducted by carving high speed turns and wake jumping without resorting to the practice of approaching large static objects at high speed.
It is this last point where the accident crossed from 'unforeseeable accident with tragic consequences' to 'negligent handling of vessel without due regard for the safety of life of those on board' hence my use of the word 'Manslaughter'.

Edited by Stick Legs on Wednesday 26th May 11:41

There will be much more to come from this no doubt including whether the mandatory, which appears to have been satisfied, not voluntary COP is up to the job or not and also possibly further harbour conditions being implemented.

My point is we have absolutely no commentary from MAIB as to the cause of the allision itself and I suspect that is for good reason.

It's also maybe worthy of note that MAIB spend far more time investigating commercial incidents than pleasure due to the higher number of them. We could well have similar discussions no doubt about negligence etc in those cases, including this mornings update from MAIB, but again I would leave that for the appropriate agencies to determine 'Manslaughter' or not.

[dhutch]

dangerousB said:

... comes with its own degree of risk and I'd want my passengers to be very well briefed on what those risks were before they agreed to getting involved.

And that is a huge part of the picture.

I compete in autotesting events, threshing a car around a carpark full of cones/markers/curbs against the clock. However I sign a declaration beforehand, the the place is also littered with 'motor sport is dangerous ' signs and everyone has a briefing.

When we do demonstration days at the NEC, taking passengers, (non-paying) members of the public out. Then they also get disclaimers and declarations, but we also dial the risks right back. It's not a race, it's not against the clock, the distance to the cones goes up five fold, the speed comes down to maybe 60%, and what we give is an experience of what what a race is like, a warm sighting lap, not a hot lap in a live race. However the risk is still there.

I am sure that is what this was, certainly should have been, and mistakes can still happen. But I am also sure that their WILL have been a disclaimer and some explanation of the risk.

The MAIB job will I expect include, as well as a fine tooth comb over the actions and risks taken by both the helm and operating company, but also the system implace for the briefings and disclosures in place.

These sort of 'live' experiences will always carry more risk than say a theme park ride. And even those can, and have, gone horribly wrong on occasion.

Crossing the road or passengering in a car in the public highway is dangerous af as well, so it's also about perspective!


Daniel

Daniel

[anonymous-user]

dhutch said:

And that is a huge part of the picture.

I compete in autotesting events, threshing a car around a carpark full of cones/markers/curbs against the clock. However I sign a declaration beforehand, the the place is also littered with 'motor sport is dangerous ' signs and everyone has a briefing.

When we do demonstration days at the NEC, taking passengers, (non-paying) members of the public out. Then they also get disclaimers and declarations, but we also dial the risks right back. It's not a race, it's not against the clock, the distance to the cones goes up five fold, the speed comes down to maybe 60%, and what we give is an experience of what what a race is like, a warm sighting lap, not a hot lap in a live race. However the risk is still there.

I am sure that is what this was, certainly should have been, and mistakes can still happen. But I am also sure that their WILL have been a disclaimer and some explanation of the risk.

The MAIB job will I expect include, as well as a fine tooth comb over the actions and risks taken by both the helm and operating company, but also the system implace for the briefings and disclosures in place.

These sort of 'live' experiences will always carry more risk than say a theme park ride. And even those can, and have, gone horribly wrong on occasion.

Crossing the road or passengering in a car in the public highway is dangerous af as well, so it's also about perspective!


Daniel

Daniel

But if you drive like a dick and kill your passenger , it doesn’t matter what the disclaimer says ?

[Stick Legs]

MOTORVATOR said:

There will be much more to come from this no doubt including whether the mandatory, which appears to have been satisfied, not voluntary COP is up to the job or not and also possibly further harbour conditions being implemented.

My point is we have absolutely no commentary from MAIB as to the cause of the allision itself and I suspect that is for good reason.

It's also maybe worthy of note that MAIB spend far more time investigating commercial incidents than pleasure due to the higher number of them. We could well have similar discussions no doubt about negligence etc in those cases, including this mornings update from MAIB, but again I would leave that for the appropriate agencies to determine 'Manslaughter' or not.

Well noted. But I am still entitled to my opinion, regardless of the ongoing investigation.

e.g. I think Martin Bashir is guilty of a criminal breach of standards. It doesn't matter what investigation is set up or what other steps are in place. I just voiced my opinion, as I did over this case. My use of the word manslaughter is my considered opinion, not a judgement. I'm sure the MAIB will look at this deeply and will come to sound judgment in the fulness of time which may or may not align with my view.

No offence taken or intended.

[MOTORVATOR]

Stick Legs said:

MOTORVATOR said:

There will be much more to come from this no doubt including whether the mandatory, which appears to have been satisfied, not voluntary COP is up to the job or not and also possibly further harbour conditions being implemented.

My point is we have absolutely no commentary from MAIB as to the cause of the allision itself and I suspect that is for good reason.

It's also maybe worthy of note that MAIB spend far more time investigating commercial incidents than pleasure due to the higher number of them. We could well have similar discussions no doubt about negligence etc in those cases, including this mornings update from MAIB, but again I would leave that for the appropriate agencies to determine 'Manslaughter' or not.

Well noted. But I am still entitled to my opinion, regardless of the ongoing investigation.

e.g. I think Martin Bashir is guilty of a criminal breach of standards. It doesn't matter what investigation is set up or what other steps are in place. I just voiced my opinion, as I did over this case. My use of the word manslaughter is my considered opinion, not a judgement. I'm sure the MAIB will look at this deeply and will come to sound judgment in the fulness of time which may or may not align with my view.

No offence taken or intended.

None this side either.

It's just that Manslaughter being Homocide carries quite a high requirement in that it has to result from an intentional act, an act of gross negligence, or the carrying out of an unlawful or dangerous act. The latter two usually referred to as involuntary. On the basis of what we have seen I don't believe we could fairly come to that conclusion.

Not to say it won't end up there.

[dangerousB]

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

dangerousB said:

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

or that the boat was fired out of the water enough to deteriorate the function of the rudder(s)

Pardon??!!!

.

If the boat gets airborne, the steering won’t work. It’s a bit like a car flying off a bridge, the steering won’t have any effect if the wheels are off the ground. It’s possible ( given the conditions / sea state ) that he couldn’t steer out of the way / avoid the buoy, because the boat was sufficiently out of the water to render any steering attempts futile, at exactly the point where it didn’t want to be.

I appreciate what you were trying to say, but a) thought your terminology rather odd (with reference to a RIB) and b) thought your explanation was about as probable as the buoy being "camouflaged by chop".

MOTORVATOR said:

there is a video record showing the boat well planted and clearly being driven by the motors for an extended period after crossing the wake.

Quite.

There was somewhere in the region of ¾ tonne of people on board - I'd suggest you'd be needing an enormous ramp/speed to get airborne for any significant time and if you did manage it, your passengers would be very fortunate to be uninjured after you landed.

[Pastie Bloater]

Stick Legs said:

The conduct of the vessel prior to the incident suggests strongly to me that that the rib was being driven in a cavalier manner and reliance was placed wholly on the power and manoeuvrability of the rib and the judgement of the cox to avoid a collision situation which he deliberately created in order to excite and wow the passengers. When either mechanical systems or judgment failed, and the rib contacted the Weston Shelf Buoy the allision was the fault of the cox of the rib who set the chain of events in motion.

In my considered opinion, with all due regard for caveats and ongoing investigations which are privy to information that I am not aware of, it would appear that the incident was wholly avoidable, furthermore the goal of wowing and exciting passengers on a fast rib ride could be conducted by carving high speed turns and wake jumping without resorting to the practice of approaching large static objects at high speed.
It is this last point where the accident crossed from 'unforeseeable accident with tragic consequences' to 'negligent handling of vessel without due regard for the safety of life of those on board' hence my use of the word 'Manslaughter'.

Are you saying it's possible they were driving on a collision course and swerving away late for the thrills? As a routine part of the ride?
This thought had crossed my mind but I kind of dismissed it as too ridiculous.
In the video you can see where they were passing buoys closely at speed multiple times, but not on a collision course (that is until the collision).

[Stick Legs]

Pastie Bloater said:

Stick Legs said:

The conduct of the vessel prior to the incident suggests strongly to me that that the rib was being driven in a cavalier manner and reliance was placed wholly on the power and manoeuvrability of the rib and the judgement of the cox to avoid a collision situation which he deliberately created in order to excite and wow the passengers. When either mechanical systems or judgment failed, and the rib contacted the Weston Shelf Buoy the allision was the fault of the cox of the rib who set the chain of events in motion.

In my considered opinion, with all due regard for caveats and ongoing investigations which are privy to information that I am not aware of, it would appear that the incident was wholly avoidable, furthermore the goal of wowing and exciting passengers on a fast rib ride could be conducted by carving high speed turns and wake jumping without resorting to the practice of approaching large static objects at high speed.
It is this last point where the accident crossed from 'unforeseeable accident with tragic consequences' to 'negligent handling of vessel without due regard for the safety of life of those on board' hence my use of the word 'Manslaughter'.

Are you saying it's possible they were driving on a collision course and swerving away late for the thrills? As a routine part of the ride?
This thought had crossed my mind but I kind of dismissed it as too ridiculous.
In the video you can see where they were passing buoys closely at speed multiple times, but not on a collision course (that is until the collision).

In the circumstance where you pass close by a vessel or object a risk of collision exists.
The set of the tide or the yaw of the boat would have been enough to turn a close quarters situation into a collision situation.
So I am using the term 'collision situation' is used in the sense that a close quarters situation with attendant risk of collision exists.

[Pastie Bloater]

Stick Legs said:

In the circumstance where you pass close by a vessel or object a risk of collision exists.
The set of the tide or the yaw of the boat would have been enough to turn a close quarters situation into a collision situation.
So I am using the term 'collision situation' is used in the sense that a close quarters situation with attendant risk of collision exists.

Ah ok thanks SL that makes sense.

[Jaguar steve]

Pastie Bloater said:

Ah ok thanks SL that makes sense.

Not really.

The RIB was doing 38kn when the collision occurred. At that speed tidal set and drift would make little if any difference to the RIB's position relative to the buoy and notwithstanding that if the skipper was determined to get as close as possible to that buoy he'd be paying careful attention on his approach for any signs of wake around the buoy caused by water flowing past and factor in a saftey margin by planing to go downstream so the flow carried him away from it and not upstream allowing the flow to carry him closer to it.

All this random speculation about the whys and wherefores and presentation of highly improbable scenarios attempting to understand how the collision occurred does nothing to detract from the tragedy and the fact the skipper himself has a whole lot of explaining to do.

[Stick Legs]

Jaguar steve said:

Not really.

The RIB was doing 38kn when the collision occurred. At that speed tidal set and drift would make little if any difference to the RIB's position relative to the buoy and notwithstanding that if the skipper was determined to get as close as possible to that buoy he'd be paying careful attention on his approach for any signs of wake around the buoy caused by water flowing past and factor in a saftey margin by planing to go downstream so the flow carried him away from it and not upstream allowing the flow to carry him closer to it.

All this random speculation about the whys and wherefores and presentation of highly improbable scenarios attempting to understand how the collision occurred does nothing to detract from the tragedy and the fact the skipper himself has a whole lot of explaining to do.

I wasn't implying the tide set him onto the buoy (some tide!)
I was defining the concept of 'risk of collision' as opposed to 'collision course' (as in driving straight at the buoy) to a non mariner.
At 38 kts yaw would plat a part. But as I have previously stated I believe this incident is best explained by the over confidence and lack of awareness of the rib driver.

[Maximus_Meridius101]

Stick Legs said:

I wasn't implying the tide set him onto the buoy (some tide!)

.

I doubt that too, but the tides are extremely odd ( almost unique ) there, due to the effect of the Isle of Wight.

[Stick Legs]

Maximus_Meridius101 said:

...but the tides are extremely odd ( almost unique ) there, due to the effect of the Isle of Wight.

This has nothing to do with the accident but for the benefit of those interested:

The tidal cycle in Southampton has a few features that are distinctive but not unique.
The young flood stand is 2 hours after low water and is a slackening of tidal effect during the flood, more pronounced on spring tides.
Early Westward turn of the flood tide at Calshot is a result of the high water at Southampton being later and higher than at Portsmouth.
The double high water is caused not as popularly thought by the island but instead by the position of Southampton at the mid point of the English Channel, when it is high water at Dover it is low water at Plymouth and vice versa.
If you imagine the channel to be a 300 mile long box with oscillating tides from East to West then in theory there should be no tidal effect at all at Portsmouth, Southampton, Le Harve and Cherbourg. However the channel is not a rectangular box and as the tide is funnelled and accelerated around the irregular shape oscillations are set up, which cause the double high water effect.

The double high water phenomena is also a feature of tides at Portland, Poole, Cherbourg, Littlehampton & Le Havre.

Additionally the tidal range in Southampton is about 2 meters on neaps and 4 meters on springs, the tidal flow is benign and is a maximum if about 2kts. Contrast this with London which has a 6 meter tidal range and tidal flow of up to 6 knots, or Avonmouth with a range of up to 12 meters and a flow of up to 8 kts.

[Arnie Cunningham]

4.7M today and lovely weather for it too

[Stick Legs]

Arnie Cunningham said:

4.7M today and lovely weather for it too

Don't confuse height with range.

[Arnie Cunningham]

I'm not. But thanks anyway, it's much appreciated.

[Jaguar steve]

Stick Legs said:

But as I have previously stated I believe this incident is best explained by the over confidence and lack of awareness of the rib driver.

Very much the case it would seem.

Those wouldn't be my first choice of attributes to assign to anybody driving a high speed craft in the manner he was though.

Edited by Jaguar steve on Friday 28th May 07:02

[Supercilious Sid]

Sadly nearly the same spot as the Catalina crash.http://sussexhistoryforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=18014.0

Not being and expert (and not going to pretend to be), I'm not going to comment on this crash (I missed it as it happened a couple of minutes after I left Hythe promenade after picking up my paper) but a Red Jet didn't spot the next buoy upstream from this one in 2013 and wrote the buoy off completely.

[Arnie Cunningham]

Funnily enough I was out boating (doing my PB2 Direct Access so I can hire stuff) a couple of weeks back with the chap who picked many of the people out of the water on that crash.
He's now an instructor based from Southampton Dry Stack - very knowledgeable and an excellent teacher : https://www.technical-recreational-coaching.co.uk/