Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 06 October 2009, 08:59   #21
Member
 
biffer's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: swanwick/hamble
Boat name: stormchaser
Make: custom rib
Length: 8m +
Engine: inboard/diesel
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,848
again if the boat is under 6m there is no code of practice, bit of a grey area, the harbour launches are commercial and they aren't coded
__________________

__________________
biffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06 October 2009, 09:19   #22
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Boat name: llyn raider
Make: xs
Length: 7m +
Engine: 1 200hp merc
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 211
just a question then, were their 3 people in the one rib? or did the children get split up and sent to other ribs? as if they were sent to other ribs as "second men" then they would have a good case, but if for instance i was safty boating with me an crew X provided by club and i bring my smaller cousin or nephew as he shouldnt be left to his own devices should the club expect to pay all 3 of u in the boat. 1 5.5m rib dos not need 3 ppl to operate efficeintly. granted the club may find it easier just to pay this one off and sort it out rather than have their dirty laundry splashed all over the place.
I am not a fan of this kind of posting, and if i was the other side i wouldnt bother coming online.
__________________

__________________
andyxs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06 October 2009, 09:32   #23
Member
 
Channel Ribs's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Channel Islands
Town: Alderney
Length: no boat
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jono Garton View Post
I receive a request from a friend who works at the local Sailing Club asking for RIBs to hire for a week @ 150 and drivers + crew for the week @ 100 each.
It sounds to me like the club have been bitten by their own lack of planning and organisation for the event. Safety boats, drivers and crew should all be detailed... Who they are and what their abilities/training are.

NB The minimum age for RYA Safety Boat certificate is 16, I suspect that all the club's boats on the event were supposed to be manned by qualified individuals and hence over 16.

Jono, I do not think you should feel bad. You made the introduction and it was up to the parties to make sure they were happy with the arrangements.
__________________
Channel Ribs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06 October 2009, 10:27   #24
RIBnet admin team
 
Poly's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Boat name: imposter
Make: FunYak
Length: 3m +
Engine: 2 stroke YAM 20 HP
MMSI: 235089819
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by biffer View Post
again if the boat is under 6m there is no code of practice, bit of a grey area, the harbour launches are commercial and they aren't coded
Biffer, not sure where you got that from - perhaps in the past there was a "size threshold" but my understanding is that all vessels <24m (and 12 pax) which opperate commercially and go to sea are required to be coded.

But that the key words were go to sea which have a different meaning from most of us would use normally. I was lead to believe that in this "legal" sense "go to sea" meant proceed beyond catergorised waters.
__________________
Poly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06 October 2009, 12:23   #25
Member
 
biffer's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: swanwick/hamble
Boat name: stormchaser
Make: custom rib
Length: 8m +
Engine: inboard/diesel
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,848
i will stand corrected but my understanding is that they don't code boats under 6m, can you imagine trying to get all that kit on a 4.5/5m boat, it'll sink, going through cat 2 codeing as we speak, it's a minefield
__________________
biffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06 October 2009, 12:39   #26
Member
 
Bigmuz7's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Town: Glasgow
Boat name: stramash
Make: Tornado
Length: 5m +
Engine: Etec 90
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,068
I put it to the court that the children are an irrelevance .. the club got the use of the safety boat as requested and that side of the contract verbal or otherwise was honoured. The kids went along for the ride, and probably gained very useful experiance in doing so. As the obligations to the club were fulfilled, the stingy club should get their cheque book out, and if they dont, time to cut 'em loose m'lud and sue 'em
__________________
Bigmuz7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06 October 2009, 13:13   #27
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: Pwllheli-North Wales
Boat name: Delta 1
Make: Delta
Length: 6m +
Engine: Mariner 90hp Optimax
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyxs View Post
just a question then, were their 3 people in the one rib?
Hi Andy

Dad + Kid in 1 rib

other kid crewing in another RIB

J
__________________
JG Marine Services Ltd Specialist Safety Boat Services

Bodfuan Shoot Ltd Traditional British Game Shooting
Jono Garton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06 October 2009, 13:16   #28
RIBnet admin team
 
Poly's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Boat name: imposter
Make: FunYak
Length: 3m +
Engine: 2 stroke YAM 20 HP
MMSI: 235089819
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigmuz7 View Post
I put it to the court that the children are an irrelevance .. the club got the use of the safety boat as requested and that side of the contract verbal or otherwise was honoured. The kids went along for the ride, and probably gained very useful experiance in doing so. As the obligations to the club were fulfilled, the stingy club should get their cheque book out, and if they dont, time to cut 'em loose m'lud and sue 'em
The honourable genetleman is of course correct that the club gained provision of a safety boat and skipper, however it is my understanding that payment was made for this at the rate originally agreed in the contract. The evidence presented here would suggest that this matter is not under dispute. It would appear that the club required additional personnel on board a vessel to be "qualified safety boat crews" (or over 16 depending upon the evidence - but since the age restriction is implicit in the former the net effect is the same) to entitle them to the additional payment. By your own admission "the kids went along for the ride". Is it reasonable, m'lud, to expect the club to pay them for the pleasure?

Put differently -
Boat A + 2 Fully Qualified Safety Boat Crew/Helm = 350.
Boat B + 1 Safety Boat Crew/Helm and 2 kids = 450?

How would you feel as the owner of Boat A? Would you bring your boat next year? Would you bother to bring your second safety boat qualified crew or just drag your kids along ?

Given that no evidence has been presented to suggest that the club directly enterred into a "contract" with the owner of the vessel (i.e. that the club agreed the terms of the arrangement directly with the owner) then it appears that either Mr Garton or Mr S enterred into that contract as unauthorised agents on behalf of the club - and therefore perhaps responsibility for paying for the kids falls to one of those parties?

PS I think the club are very niave calling it "wages" in their email.
PPS I can think of no better way to stop it "snowballing out of control" than posting it on the web!
__________________
Poly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06 October 2009, 13:28   #29
RIBnet admin team
 
Poly's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Boat name: imposter
Make: FunYak
Length: 3m +
Engine: 2 stroke YAM 20 HP
MMSI: 235089819
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by biffer View Post
i will stand corrected but my understanding is that they don't code boats under 6m, can you imagine trying to get all that kit on a 4.5/5m boat, it'll sink, going through cat 2 codeing as we speak, it's a minefield
I think that is down to the practicalities / ecconomics of coding (and recovering the costs of coding / equipment through charter) with very small boats; rather than an absolute rule. In reality most smaller boats don't leave categorised waters and so either don't need coded or possibly are regulated under some different set of rules?
__________________
Poly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06 October 2009, 13:31   #30
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Wilmslow
Boat name: Serotonin
Make: Quicksilver
Length: 3m +
Engine: Mariner 15
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 712
Surely the onus is on the Club to ensure that all safety boats meet the required regulations whatever they maybe. The club should have ensured that no under 16s were on any of the safety boats as their rules don't permit this, therefore they can't have it both ways ie allowed on the boat and then not be paid. The other question is what are the requirements for safety boats ie Helm and X Crew? Were the kids excess crew?.
I would have thought a great British compromise of 50/50 should apply in this case and each party learn from this years mistakes and look forward to having willing help next year
__________________

__________________
fred bolton is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:40.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.