The Lulworth Cove "cowboy"

[Simon Hawkins]

What an interesting thread. I operate a commercial operationand insist on anyone I have on my boat wearing a lifejacket, to releive any claim of negligence against me.

In respect of the coding requirements of a small commercial vessel that planes then a kill cord must be worn at all times. Richard you may want to go beack to your contact at the MCA !!

7.5 Engine Starting and Stopping

7.5.1 An engine should be provided with either mechanical, hand starting or electric starting with independent batteries, or other means of starting acceptable to the Certifying Authority.

7.5.2 When the sole means of starting is by battery, the battery should be in duplicate and connected to the starter motor via a ‘change over switch’ so that either battery can be used for starting the engine. Charging facilities for the batteries should be available. Under normal circumstances it is not recommended to discharge both batteries in parallel.

7.5.3 All internal combustion machinery should have a secure means of remote stopping from outside the engine space.

7.5.4 All inflatable boats, boats fitted with a buoyant collar, and open boats that achieve planing speed, when fitted with remote throttle controls, should be fitted with a kill-cord, to be used at all times during navigation.

Simon

[Nauti Buoy]

Originally Posted by Simon Hawkins

In respect of the coding requirements of a small commercial vessel that planes then a kill cord must be worn at all times. Richard you may want to go beack to your contact at the MCA !!Simon

I have emailed him with the points you state and will copy and paste his comments. I agree with you that is what I thought and how I understood the rules.

[Andre]

This has for sure developed into an interesting thread with 1000 view and 44 posts in the space of 24 hours

If, as it has been pointed out , the operator has the blessing of the MCA and they are happy with his operations then I can only apologise to him for my opening comment. At the same time we have all learnt something new and that is what RibNet brings to the ribbing community.
Saying this there are however many long established companies in the Solent and beyond who make a living from taking people out on rib rides and I cannot imagine anyone of them even contemplating taking a full load of people out without lifejackets.

[Alan]

Whilst he may be complying with the letter of the law with respect the MCGA and coding, Id've thought that any investigation following an accident would look dimly on the practice of not ensuring pax wear lifejackets and the that might have real consequences in terms of 'duty of care' and compensation claims.

[JIY]

Originally Posted by Dunc

JIY
Read more carefully mate! I said 'As far as I am aware...' I thought it might be as you stated that they had to be carried but not necessarrily worn and for the record I was not judging anyone. People are free to run their business how they choose. However in my opinion it is a skippers responsibility to ensure his paying passengers are correctly equipped. I wonder if some peoples opinions would alter if an non swimmer not wearing a lifejacket was plunged into 11 degrees centigrade water and drowned. I also wonder what an insurance company would say if this accident occured. I would imagine they would not pay out. Not having read everyones small print on their insurance I am just imagining. Finally I also wonder how bad publicity would affect the rib charter industry as a whole if an accident ended in tragedy because lifejackets were not worn?
Dunc

Emm, I did indeed read carefully Dunc. Your comment was not correct, so I corrected it...I hope that either you or other members of Ribnet will do the same for me when I'm wrong!

My own stance on this is very clear, I have not and will not take anyone out on any RIB unless they are wearing a lifejacket. Neither would I drive an open RIB without wearing a killcord.

[Phil Chitty]

Originally Posted by Andre

This has for sure developed into an interesting thread with 1000 view and 44 posts in the space of 24 hours

If, as it has been pointed out , the operator has the blessing of the MCA and they are happy with his operations then I can only apologise to him for my opening comment. At the same time we have all learnt something new and that is what RibNet brings to the ribbing community.
Saying this there are however many long established companies in the Solent and beyond who make a living from taking people out on rib rides and I cannot imagine anyone of them even contemplating taking a full load of people out without lifejackets.

Do ya know what mate, I don't think you should apologise at all.
Each of us on this forum that own/skipper any form of water craft, RIB or not, have a responsibility to the safety and wellbeing of all who travel with us or are affected by what we do. This is the case in the workplace and should be at other times.

I don't know who this outfit is but, personally I look down on them from a great height for the way they conduct their business. Given the speeds that this RIB is undoubtedly capable of there is no excuse for not insisting that all on board wear a life jacket.

I would also question whether this is a stipulation of his public liability insurance.

The additional risk created by passengers and crew not wearing life jackets, to me, is unacceptable. This company have a duty to carry out risk assessments on the full extent of their operation. I bet they make interesting reading when compared to the photos at the beginning of this thread. This said, all the risk assessments in the world do not cover up for the moral argument of ensuring the safety of people you have a responsibility for.

This situation would never occur on my RIB and, please forgive me for speaking for others, but I know plenty of others on this forum who do exactly the same.

Where safety is concerned, there is no option or compromise.

[timw]

Originally Posted by Phil Chitty

I don't know who this outfit is but, personally I look down on them from a great height for the way they conduct their business.

extraordinary outburst...from 3 grainy photographs.

I'm sure prosecuting council would love you on the jury. You haven't even heard the defence argument yet!

Jimbo has said he will telephone this operator to see if we can get his responses to the various comments... perhaps reserving your judgement till then maybe more appropriate?

[Phil Chitty]

Originally Posted by timw

extraordinary outburst...from 3 grainy photographs.

I'm sure prosecuting council would love you on the jury. You haven't even heard the defence argument yet!

Jimbo has said he will telephone this operator to see if we can get his responses to the various comments... perhaps reserving your judgement till then maybe more appropriate?

Extraordinary outburst?
Hmm..bit pot - kettle Tim eh?

As far as I'm concerned there is no defence against doing what ever is necessary to ensure the safety of those you are responsible for.

I appreciate there seems to be some confussion at the moment as to the MCGA requirement but the legislation / legal requirement is set as the lowest standard that should be achieved. This does not give good reason why low standards should be accepted.

The debate of whether to wear life jackets or not has been discussed many times on RIBnet and the answer that has come back from the majority has always been that there is no excuse for not wearing one.

I take it you're not saying this is wrong?

[timw]

No, I've not commented on the rights and wrongs of lifejacket wearing and the use of kill-cords. Personally I and all crew/passengers wear life jackets as well as the kill cord being in use all the time on my RIB.

What I have a problem with is simply that a huge amount of criticism that has been thown on this man and his business when really the true facts and circumstances surrounding these photographs have not been revealed.

I am very much hoping that one of his accusers will allow him the chance to respond to this criticism by advising him of this thread.

[Jimbo]

I called at Lunchtime today, and the line was engaged. Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to call back since.

I will keep you posted when I get through - however unlikely to be until Friday as I am on the water for the next 2 days.

[Nauti Buoy]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your e-mail. The guidelines you have quoted are absolutely correct and great best practice. Unfortunately the paragraphs you have quoted are taken from Marine Guidance Note 280 which currently does not have any supporting legislation. This means that we are unable to enforce them until such time the supporting legislation in the form of a Statutory Instrument comes into force.

The vessel in question I believe is coded under the NDP Code (red code) which is supported by a Statutory Instrument. Therefore those rules apply to it. Within that Code of Practice the wearing of a killcord is not required (although we obviously recommend it) so I am unable to require him to do so.

Next time I am down in that area I will approach that vessel and see what he is up to, and pass on the good advice you mentioned about lifejackets and kill cords.

Best regards,

Mark

Mark Towl
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Southampton Marine Office

[Phil Chitty]

Hi Richard

Thanks for getting the info.

A big concern that a commercial person carrrying operation is not bound by legislation based on the common sense actions taken by sensible people every day.

Within Health and Safety "Best Practice" is based on an approved code. Althjough you don't have to abide by its requirements, it can be used in evidence against you in the event of an incident.

By the sound of it Marine Guide 280 is weightless without that legislation.

Doesn't change my opinion on the safety issues concerning this operation though.

[havener]

Phil,

You are, I suspect, right in drawing a parallel with the HSE approach to guidance. Unfortunately, as the MCA state, an MGN is not a legal instrument, however, should an accident occur, the person concerned could expect a severe comment from the MAIB (or even worse a coroner) should an accident occur.

As the skipper / operator, the buck stops there. Anyone can simply refuse to carry any passenger not wearing a lifejacket, and in my opinion they should do so.

For many, their first taste of boating is on a pleasure trip. Commercial operators are seen as being professionals and should work in ways that the boating public would be safe emulating.

Also, a simple risk assessment for the operator's business should show something like :

Risk - Passenger falls overboard and drowns
Mitigation - Insist passengers wear lifejackets.

I have to do a risk assesment before we deploy the RIB, or before I take a vessel in tow, or before we do almost anything. Deck crew wear lifejackets - full stop. Doesn't matter if its flat calm in harbour, or F9 off Ushant - they are worn.

The operator in the picture may well be within the law, but the letter of the law and safe professional operation are often not the same thing.

If you're really worried about his safety, drop a note to James Weld who's family own the Lulworth Estate, my bet would be they've had to give him consent to operate at some point....

[rickuk3]

Out of interest I have just had a look at my commercial policy and one of the clauses for Fast Vessels (RIB's) states 'All passengers and crew are to wear life jackets at all times'
Richard

[timw]

Originally Posted by havener

Phil,


If you're really worried about his safety, drop a note to James Weld who's family own the Lulworth Estate, my bet would be they've had to give him consent to operate at some point....

For gods sake, please contact him first to get his side of the story.

I can't believe whats going on here...reporting him to the MCA, contacting the land owners from where he operates...all from a couple of long distance photos.

Are you determined to put him out of business and possibly wreck his livelyhood without giving the guy a chance to respond? Unbelievable.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by timw

For gods sake, please contact him first to get his side of the story.

I can't believe whats going on here...reporting him to the MCA, contacting the land owners from where he operates...all from a couple of long distance photos.

Are you determined to put him out of business and possibly wreck his livelyhood without giving the guy a chance to respond? Unbelievable.

Tim, if he is within the law, he will not suffer as a result of this. If he is outside the law, he has generated the situation all by himself.

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by timw

I can't believe whats going on here...reporting him to the MCA, contacting the land owners from where he operates...all from a couple of long distance photos.

Are you determined to put him out of business and possibly wreck his livelyhood without giving the guy a chance to respond? Unbelievable.

1) The kind of person who takes a 'fast rib ride to Durdle Door' doesn't visit here.
2)If he's doing nothing wrong he's got nothing to worry about...right?

[John Kennett]

Originally Posted by timw

For gods sake, please contact him first to get his side of the story.

3) If you're really that concerned, why don't you ring him?

John

[timw]

All I'm saying is contact him first.

[timw]

I'm not the one making accusations...The proper thing do do is for them to contact him to explain what they have been saying and ask him for his response.