.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Wussername
-
Posts
1,914 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Wussername
-
-
8 minutes ago, Vaughan said:
I suggest that, in my case, a life-time's experience of safety on inland waterways is not negativity, nor is it "kill joy".
I would rather call it common sense, in the wish not to endanger life.
Has anybody mentioned the obvious message which will be given that if it is OK to swim in the Waveney then surely it is OK to swim in the Bure, the Ant and what about a nice dip in the Yare.
Andrew
-
1
-
-
Public and free. Holds about 15 vehicles at a guess. So if the weather is good gets full fairly early
Andrew.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Sadly you will have to be satisfied with my last contribution on this matter.
It is neither fishing or mending nets.
I'm off to bed.
I shall wind the cat up and put the clock out.
Tootle pip!
-
6 minutes ago, Philosophical said:
Finally a party who had been given insufficient instruction from a boatyard who employed an individual who was unable to offer a suitable or meaningful introduction as to the basic skills and methods required.
So please detail the training and evaluation that would be required to satisfy a court or investigation that a boatyard or individual had given sufficient instruction to prevent ???, and then maybe consider the cost implications to the boatyard and the reaction of potential hirers who will now fear a test and evaluation before they are allowed to take the boat from the yard..
But again, my point is where is the evidence that instruction from the boatyard or lack thereof is the root cause of actually anything "bad"
I think that I might be able to detail the training and evaluation that is required.
There would be little cost to the boatyard.
There would be no test or evaluation other than that which already exists.
Not sure about the bad bit though! Don't understand that.
Andrew
-
21 minutes ago, Philosophical said:
Sorry but again it is the detail that I cannot see; someone??? has a duty of care to??? and we??? have addressed our duty of care by??? as evidenced by ???
Are you on the right thread old chap? May I refer you to:
I would like to refer to a post made by JohnK on Feb 12th:
I wonder if it’s partly down to the indemnity insurance of the boat yard.
Since we seem do have now adopted US litigation laws could someone who had an accident sue the boatyard because they hired a boat to an unsuitable party?What is an unsuitable party? Someone with mobility issues, someone who is considered not old enough – a minor? Someone on their own, a solo helm, who, challenged by weather and tidal conditions is unable to handle a given situation. Finally a party who had been given insufficient instruction from a boatyard who employed an individual who was unable to offer a suitable or meaningful introduction as to the basic skills and methods required.
Andrew
-
The requirements of an audit trail might well be seen to be important in a court of law where a duty of care needs to be established or that a company has not only been seen to have taken reasonable care but has taken reasonable care.
-
7 minutes ago, Philosophical said:
Agreed and for what; but for now there is still no link between the hire restrictions and some deficiency in the trial run.
As for the future if some new legislation is applied unless the hirer can can pass the whatever I guess they get told that they cannot take the boat out of the boatyard. At least they will have convenient water and pumpout on site.
As far as I am aware nobody has stated that there should be a test. Just an audit trail of experience.
Andrew
-
31 minutes ago, JanetAnne said:
Boiling water is risk on a boat especially one underway. So, having identified the risk it must be time to remove all the kettles or nail them down!
Am I the only one on here fed up with having other people think for me
Please do not worry. during the years 1993 to 2016 there were 20 reported Burns/Scalds. This equals 0.83 incidents per year. Annual Marine Incident Statistics 19th May 2017.
Andrew
-
29 minutes ago, Philosophical said:
I agree there is always room for improvement but at what cost to the boatyard who will have to employ more staff to perform this enhanced trial run and induction. Statistics show that more people are injured getting on and off the boats than in "navigational or boat handling incidents"
Clearly an enhanced trial run and induction is not an instant fix, and will take time to implement and provide a historical audit trail. I fail to see how this would contribute towards a boatyards financial disadvantage.
As for people getting injured getting on and off boats, yes a concern, and what we understand is that which has been reported and those who have been hospitalised. There must be many who limp about long after the holiday. We must also take into consideration that many are are of a vintage who do not recover as quickly as the eighteen year old. It needs to be addressed. A solution is not insurmountable.
Andrew
-
21 hours ago, Philosophical said:
My main point is that until we know what the issue causing these new policy decisions is, it is too easy to jump to conclusions and attribute the fix to be the "trial run".
I do not think that we will ever know why Hoseasones have gone this route and why Richardsons have followed. Statistics show that the industry has a very good safety record. As for the trial run I feel that many trial run employees have contributed to this safety achievement and yet there is still room for improvement.
Andrew
-
3 minutes ago, Philosophical said:
If the skipper says it is OK to get off the boat and I don't think it is, I'm not going to jump or step, Do we now need to give those who have been the trial instruction "train the trainer" instruction so they are qualified to train the remainder of the crew?
I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning. I certainly would not expect a crew member to get off the boat if he or she felt unsure.
Andrew
-
3 minutes ago, Philosophical said:
Most injuries are caused by people getting on and off the boat, they are not usually the ones driving and may not have been the recipient of the trial run instruction.
But the helm will have been given instruction and it is his responsibility to inform the crew that it is safe to get off the boat.
-
On 11/03/2018 at 12:12, marshman said:
I think you have to rely on Clive's explanation which was that it was done to primarily to bring it into line with Hoseasons - I do not think there was any event in particular that brought it about as I believe everyone would have heard about it.
It would be difficult to impose the professional qualification bit at this stage - but you are likely, probably , see increasing pressure to see an evidenced handover or at least some record that it has been done - but even that is flawed as you cannot make them listen!!
But if you yourself had personal accident insurance then you could claim on that - does normal Travel Insurance cover that sort of problem? Everyone going on holiday, even the Broads should be well advised to cover themselves - attempting to sue the yard would be a waste of everyones time.
John - I suppose RYA level 2 is not that expensive - depends if you are a banker or not!! And its a two day course nowadays - that too has been tightened up and now probably about £250 - a non starter methinks!!
Why would Richardsons wish to bring themselves into line with Hoseasones. Surely Richardsons is the principle and Hoseasones the agent. Does that lead to Tort Liability? That a principle is held vicariously liable and must pay damages to an injured third party does not excuse the agent who actually committed the tortious acts. A person is always liable for his or her own torts. Why therefore would Richardsons and their agent Hoseasones be so united in this matter. Could it be that their legal advisers consider that they could find themselves exposed in the litigation climate that exists today.
I am not a legal eagle, not even a legal sparrow so my thinking could well be dismissed and probably will.
"I do not think there was any event in particular that brought it about as I believe everyone would have heard about it."
You may be right but serious accidents do happen.
03 August 2017
A woman has by flown to hospital by air ambulance with serious injuries after falling from a boat and sustaining injuries from a propeller.
The East of England Ambulance Service Trust was called at 12.32pm today to Acle Bridge, Acle, in Norwich, to reports of an incident involving a casualty who was in the river.
Two ambulances
An ambulance officer
Volunteers from Suffolk Accident and Rescue Service (SARS),
A specialist hazardous area response team (HART)
East Anglian Air Ambulance attended.
A woman had fallen from a boat into the river. She was out of the river when ambulance staff arrived and they worked with fire and rescue staff to safely get her to land.
The patient was flown by air ambulance to Norfolk and Norwich Hospital with serious leg injuries. With life changing injuries.
Accidents do happen and as far as I'm aware the above incident is not related to Richardsons or Hoseasones in any shape or form. But I bet that they know about it.
I do not see how it would be difficult to introduce a professional qualification for the trial run drivers, indeed I think that there is a certain inevitability that this will come about.
Finally I cannot see the insurance companies rushing to insure inexperienced holiday makers driving about in boats worth several tens of thousand of pounds or indeed pursuing holiday makers for damages, far easier to challenge the hire company for failing to give adequate instruction.
Andrew
-
I feel that mandatory qualifications for boat hirers would be difficult if not impossible to implement.
However I do believe that an important step forward and one which would be relatively easy to implement is for the trial run driver/instructor to have a recognised qualification, a mandatory qualification. One which not only recognises his ability to handle a boat but is knowledgeable about the broads in general both North and South and the different conditions which may be experienced.
Together with the qualification there must also include the ability to teach and instruct this knowledge. So in simple terms the instructor will be able to “walk the walk and talk the talk”
All instruction from whatever boat yard should conform to a certain established format, therefore this would ensure, in the fullness of time, that the majority of helmsman would have the same basic knowledge and understanding or at least would be aware of what is expected.
Finally, no exam required but each holiday maker who receives formal instruction would have a log book, a record dated and signed by the boat yard on each holiday which would give at least an indication of experience.
Andrew
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, troutman62 said:
I realise of course that we are living in a wonderful politically correct world nowadays, but would it be inconsidorate of me to request that a " Boring " icon be included in the post response comments icons ?
Yes it would be inconsiderate.
Andrew
-
6
-
-
35 minutes ago, Londonlad1985 said:
I am aware of an incident whereby 1st time hirers (a couple) collided with a moored holiday boat in the yard allegedly causing pain to the solo occupant (a seasoned hirer awaiting crew). The injured party contacted a no win no fee solicitor, who I believe are persuing the hire company.
A practice I feel may well be copied by others.
Andrew
-
27 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:
So what about the Stag/Hen party who arrive with boxes of beer
on trolleys from Roys/Lathams and may already have had a few
whilst awaiting the boat's readiness? Dancing on the cabin roofs
as soon as they arrive and causing mayhem because they can't
moor outside the pub due to the moorings being full already. One
guy walked out the rear door of their hire boat for a 'jimmy riddle'
and went straight into the river and couldn't get out because he was
so pi**ed. If it hadn't been for friends of ours being on their boat, he
would have drowned. He did stop breathing after he was rescued but
fortunately the paramedics had arrived by then. This is not an isolated
incidence either, having witnessed several of those over the last few
years, but it is OK to hire to these people? I know which I think are safer.
"Dancing on the roof as soon as they have arrived" should and could have been dealt with by the hire company and to my mind their behaviour was an indication as to what was likely to be expected in the future. However some save their antics for later and is outside the remit of the boatyard.
Andrew
-
The cancellation of confirmed bookings by Richardsons together with Hoseasones regarding solo helmsman and single parent families stating in their catalogue that they are unable to accept bookings in this category has caused not only disappointment but a departure from that which has been considered the norm up until the present day.
This decision does not seem to be have made on the statistics which were referred to earlier on a previous thread or indeed on data has been updated by the latest Annual Marine Incident Statistics dated April 2016 to March 2017
Notable issues are:
• Boat fires continue to remain at a low level demonstrated in previous years. All boats involved in fires held current Boat Safety Scheme Certificates
• The fire boating related statistics suggest that when viewed over several years, the statistics continue to demonstrate a fairly static position
• It should be noted that there were five fatalities relating to incidents from boat use, two from Carbon Monoxide poisoning from a petrol engine exhaust and the remaining deaths were primarily natural causes
• The majority of incidents where hospital treatment was required continue to be attributed to embarkation and disembarkation with an increase in numbers in comparison with the previous year
It is also interesting to note that the number of persons reported as requiring hospital treatment for the period stood at 30. A number last seen in 2010. Other years being considerably lower.
One can expect the figures for the period April 2017 to March 2018 to be published in May 2018.
I would like to refer to a post made by JohnK on Feb 12th:
I wonder if it’s partly down to the indemnity insurance of the boat yard.
Since we seem do have now adopted US litigation laws could someone who had an accident sue the boatyard because they hired a boat to an unsuitable party?What is an unsuitable party? Someone with mobility issues, someone who is considered not old enough – a minor? Someone on their own, a solo helm, who, challenged by weather and tidal conditions is unable to handle a given situation. Finally a party who had been given insufficient instruction from a boatyard who employed an individual who was unable to offer a suitable or meaningful introduction as to the basic skills and methods required.
If you, or your party suffered life changing injuries from the actions of an individual at the helm of a hire boat primarily brought about by inexperience, who would you pursue? The hirer who more than likely has limited financial means, or perhaps the hire boat company, or even the agent who sold you the holiday.
What has been witnessed is the recognition of accountability. That by the actions of Richardsons and Hoseasones in this particular matter would seem to be a reaction to circumstances experienced by themselves or other hire boat companies not necessarily limited to the Broads. There may well have been an incident in another part of the UK.
A reaction which not only affected future bookings but bookings which had been confirmed. A course of action unheard of within the Broads hireboat industry with the exception of that which we have currently experienced with regard to adverse weather conditions . Even so there is always the exception and even during the hard weather which we have experienced over the last few days boats are still being hired out.
Historically over the years single parents and their children have enjoyed the holiday, as indeed has the loan hirer.
Like many of you I have been on these rivers for many years. I cannot remember during all these years a specific incident specifically involving these two seemingly innocuous parties where they caused concern to their selves or others.
One can speculate as to the motivation, the reasoning behind the decisions made not only by Richardsons and Hoseasones but by other boat yards as well.
There were two points that Richardsons made which in my opinion were very relevant. That of providing a duty of care towards their customers and staff and in this respect one might like to look at so called trial run.
In itself the trial run is a misnomer. It is not a trial, it is not an evaluation of an individual’s ability to handle a boat and that individual either fails or passes, it is primarily instruction.
Several years ago this instruction was somewhat limited; it was quite literally “Have you got a minute George. Can you show Mr Smith round his boat and take him up river for a couple of minutes” and ten minutes later with a cheery wave Mr Smith was on his way. Health and Safety, was unheard of as indeed the compensation culture which has become a part of our lives.
When you consider that the average time that could be spent on the “Trial Run” may well be in excess of 45 minutes. With shall we say 50 boats on a turn around that amounts to 2250 minutes – just over 37 hours, man hours of instruction. All of which has to take place in a limited period of time. In general the hirers start to arrive at midday up to 5pm or just after so it is not unreasonable to say that the yard has five hours to complete the instruction. That equates, if I have done my sums correctly, to 7 or 8 instructors or trial run drivers working at capacity all afternoon. A difficult ask!
Of course it does not work quite like that. The first question the trial run driver asks is “have you been on the broads before”. If the answer is yes then that will be followed by “do you need me to take you up river “ and if the answer is no then all that is required is a quick run through the boat to acquaint the hirer with that particular craft, two minutes to do the paper work, help cast the boat off and then move onto the next trial run.
Would that stand up in a court of law, in the event of a fatality, of an incident of life changing injury?
There is no audit trail. No substantive documentation. It is simply word of mouth. Is that sufficient to satisfy a court that reasonable care been demonstrated?
Another factor which could be considered relevant is that of the other members of the party. For example six adults and only one receives instruction. It is impossible or rather unreasonable to expect that each crew member receives the same. It would therefore suggest that the tradition of “see one, do one, teach one” takes precedence over the official instruction.
How does this relate to the single helm or indeed the one parent helm? I find this difficult to understand when it could be explained that the single helm, the single parent is a person of considerable experience. But how do they convince a representative of the hire company based on the relatively calm waters seen on the northern rivers compared with that which may be experienced elsewhere.
It would seem that there are companies who are comfortable with the procedures and disciplines which they have put in place and are pleased to welcome the solo helm and single parent up until that time where circumstances or pressure from an authority dictates otherwise.
Indeed it may not happen, or they may be obliged to introduce additional procedures and safeguards to be put in place. If that is the case it may be the opportunity for the other companies to revisit their position on disallowing the single parent and loan helmsman.
It is supposition on my part to suggest that there has been an incident on the broads or indeed elsewhere which has prompted a reaction but if this proves subsequently to be the case then we may expect a substantial change in the manner in which the trial run is carried out and documented. A procedure which may well be applied to the private sector as well.
Andrew
-
3
-
2
-
-
Beware of the Chinese my dear chap. The Chinese Gybe and his old mate Lee Ho!
How did that all come about.?
-
2
-
-
On 06/03/2018 at 10:25, Wussername said:
Vaughan do you know the bishop of Norwich?
Andrew
At one time the nobility sat at the 'high table' and their commoner servants at lower trestle tables. Salt was placed in the centre of the high table and only those of rank had access to it. Those less favoured on the lower tables were below (or beneath) the salt.
For those above the salt it was common to take port and in doing so it was imperative to pass the port to the left, pouring a glass for your neighbour on your right before you do so.
Ideally, the decanter (vintage port is always decanted because of the extreme level of sediment in the bottle) should never stop its clockwise progress around the table until it is finished.
If the decanter should ever stall it is considered very bad form to ask for it. Instead, you ask the person hogging the decanter: "Do you know the Bishop of Norwich?". If they are au fait with port etiquette they will immediately realise their faux pas and pass along the decanter with an apology. If not, and they answer in the negative, you should say: "He's a terribly good chap, but he always forgets to pass the port."
It is unclear which forgetful and inebriated Bishop of Norwich is responsible for inspiring this particularly part of the etiquette.
Andrew
-
3
-
1
-
-
Vaughan do you know the bishop of Norwich?
Andrew
-
Thank you Speedtriple and Morning Swan. I write loads of stuff but never post it. I find it difficult sometimes to deal with the adverse comments.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, stumpy said:
Good point,well made Wussername. That's exactly what could happen on No Worries - Bounty 27. We've made it a chiselled in stone rule not to open the water fill until all blackwater operations are done and the deck has had a good sluice down. One thing that really grinds my gears is the dog walkers who stand proudly by while their pampered pooch cocks his leg on the nicely coiled hose! Words have been had on occasion!
With regards to dogs it should be an unwritten rule that they should not be off lead anywhere on BA moorings or indeed wild moorings for a whole raft of reasons. If you are not aware of these reasons you should not have a pet dog.
-
1
-
-
I can fully understand peoples concern with regard to the contamination of flexible pipes for the delivery of drinking water from the point of supply on the river bank to the inboard tank.
There is another source of contamination which may or may not affect you and that relates to the layout of the service points on your private or hire boat.
If your deck fitted water inlet point is situated on the opposite side to your toilet pump outlet you have nothing to worry about. However on some craft these two inlets and outlets are both situated on the deck, on the same side.
It is not unknown for the toilet pump outlet to be situated near the bows of the boat and for the water inlet situated near the stern. The latter may well be lower, albeit marginally than the other, to aid the flow of water in inclement weather from the boat.
Whilst servicing a boat it is not unusual for both tasks to be carried out together at the same time. I am sure that many people have experienced the time it can take to fill the water tank especially where low water pressure comes into play.
Whilst detaching the toilet pump out equipment from the boat it has been known for a minor spillage to occur which whilst seems hardly significant has been known to be flushed away from the deck fitting by using river water. This combination of river water and effluent flows past the deck fitting still being used to replenish the water tank. There is a very real possibility that contamination could take place in the event of the liquid entering into the system.
To the best of my knowledge this event or occurrence is only likely on older boats and possibly rarely experienced, but is in my opinion worthy of concern and awareness.
Andrew
-
1
-
2
-
So You Can Go Swimming!
in Broads Chat
Posted
May I counter your reply Smellyloo that to the best of my knowledge the Mersey does not attract thousands of holiday makers, young and old, throughout the year.
Andrew