Cheeki Rafiki boss GUILTY!

[transmitterdan]

In my opinion the original design bears a significant part of the blame.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

In my opinion the original design bears a significant part of the blame.

The original design was to build a relatively cheep, fast, production boat for sailors who were keen on racing. For private pleasure use.
Some were used for local chartering. Which is within the design limits.
It met the European design requirment for unlimited use as a pleasure boat.
The design met the UK requirments for Cat 2 commercial use. I
There is a lot of them about.


It was not designed to carry paying passengers on a race or voyage across the North Atlantic. Cat 0
The boat was used for a purpose it was not fit for.

The UK requires a boat to be designed, built, equipped and certified to Cat 0

There is a loop hole, The boat could enter and organised race as a commercial voyage provided it met the race requirments.
The boat entered the ARC and sailed across the Atlantic with paying customers.
It made it.

It sailed around in the caribean doing races with paying customers
It made it.

2 employes of the charter company and 2 paying customers who had "vollentered"
were sailing the boat back to the UK Via the N Atlantic.
It didn't make it.
4 people died. On a boat which was not fit for purpose it was used for.

Doug Innes and his company were found Guilty of the lesser charge.

He was also charged with 4 counts of manslaughter.
It must be pretty unusual for a Jury to find a person guilty on a lesser charge but get hung on the more serious charge.
Usually the jury would have found not guilty on the more serious charge.
At least a couple of them must have been hold outs.

This guy.
Was a very well known operator of one of the best know sailing schools in the UK.
He was very involved with the RYA. who act for the MCA regulating commercial sailing in the UK.
Did he know the rules?
He should have, he was training other people to follow them.
He was active in the governing body the RYA.

He chose to use a boat for commercial purpose without checking it after it had been grounded.
He Chose to send it on a race, Which it was not certified or equipped for the category of the voyage, but was for the race rules. The ARC.
Even though he knew its commercial certification was expiring.

He contacted the MCA to arrange an inspection in the Caribean. It was going to cost to much and or they don't do the inspections there.
The MCA asked him how the boat was getting to the Caribean and said it was not certified.
Innes did not listen.
Lots of other UK RYA recognised sailing schools use the same race loop hole to enter the ARC even after this loss in 2015 and 2016 with boats which do not meet Cat 0. And take paying customers on a commercial voyage across the Atlantic.
Most make it back.

Its was not the design. The boat was not designed to be used the way D Innes and Storm Force used it.
4 people who had put their trust in this guy and his company died.

[a64pilot]

What your saying was, it was the design.
Just the boat was not used as designed.
I understand the difference, likely many do not, they either buy into the boat is over-designed for its intended use, or maybe that the codes don't mean much, are for older less modern boats etc.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

What your saying was, it was the design.
Just the boat was not used as designed.
I understand the difference, likely many do not, they either buy into the boat is over-designed for its intended use, or maybe that the codes don't mean much, are for older less modern boats etc.

Sort of, The design played a part.
Add in some age heavy use and some knocks as a sailing school boat.
Then put it to as use it was never intended for.
On top of this even its restriced certification had expired.

There does seam to be a problem with the codes.
Particularly the commercial codes.

[transmitterdan]

Yet many will argue that this boat and others similarly designed are just fine for trans-ocean passages.

I understand the nuance about not using the boat in a manner consistent with its limitations. But still the design of the keel and the way that attachment is hidden from view is a flaw. Even 60 miles off shore it will still be a problem. Heck, if that boat lost its keel in 20+ meter deep water 1kM from shore several crew could have died. When the keel falls off the boat flips mast down in a second or three. There will be no time to deploy a raft or send a mayday.

[sailorboy1]

I don't think it was design. I think it was just being a stupid cheapskate.

[JPA Cate]

Two of the crew's personal PLB's went off for a while, I remember wondering whether they succumbed to hypothermia before the PLBs quit. Perhaps, within the magic 60 mi of shore, they might have been rescued nearer the UK. Idle speculation at this point.

Ann

[estarzinger]

The thing is . . . There is a lot of "blame" to go around on this incident.

The school owner obviously, but also the yards who looked at the boat (the keel was dropped after one of the groundings and just put back on with more 5200), the skipper (the keel was leaking in the canaries and he did not insist on proper solution), various surveyors who missed the detached grid, bendy for not being absolutely clear this was not a design suited for hard commercial use, and even the U.K. Authorities who have know for a long while about the various dodges these schools have been using.

They all bear some fault.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

The thing is . . . There is a lot of "blame" to go around on this incident.

The school owner obviously, but also the yards who looked at the boat (the keel was dropped after one of the groundings and just put back on with more 5200), the skipper (the keel was leaking in the canaries and he did not insist on proper solution), various surveyors who missed the detached grid, bendy for not being absolutely clear this was not a design suited for hard commercial use, and even the U.K. Authorities who have know for a long while about the various dodges these schools have been using.

They all bear some fault.

And no shortage of shame either!

A sad, shameful and sorry tale and unfortunately it won't be the last incident whenever money, loopholes, carelessness and self interest collide with best practice.

[JPA Cate]

In this case, maybe the juror(s) who didn't vote guilty, did not want to see all the others get off, and Innes the sole scapegoat.

[transmitterdan]

Ya gotta start somewhere...

[Factor]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I read in one account that 10 of 11 jurors had decided guilty on negligence. .

Reference. In British law it is not usual for a Criminal trial jury to be polled after the verdict and the jurors take an oath to keep all deliberations secret?

[transmitterdan]

The count of juror votes was on the negligence conviction. Since it was not unanimous the count was revealed but not how each juror voted. Obviously the vote count of the jury will be known publicly else how could any trial be decided?

[Kudu]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I believe the case is (or at least bbc says so) of bolts known to be broken before they departed the UK for their trip to the other side.

A short reply to "how" is you make the bolts so that the NEVER EVER get even close to 99% in foreseeable use of the boat (say 100 years or so). Quite easy and inexpensive as the bolts are made of steel rater than gold.

Look at some 50 years old grp boats - their keels are still on. If building like that was possible before (before we had CAD and computer assisted stress calculations) it is clearly still viable today.

And it is not so much a designer or boatbuilder problem as it is the problem of the person who selects a tool for a job. That's you and me.

Here - 11 pairs of 12mm bolts, ballast slab 3000 pounds. Boat designed in Sweden 1967. These bolts live in keel pockets and can be easily accessed and replaced at any haulout.

So, this is the short and the long of it. There are many ways to build a boat. Nobody force feeds flimsy keels into our throats. We choose our boats.

Very sad lives were lost while the tragedy could have been avoided.

Big hug,
b.

Easily replaced keel bolts would be wonderful. Most are cast in, so a major expensive job on an old boat.

Could you please explain the keel bolt pocket design, and how many boat designs you know of with this feature? Is it an external recess in the keel, which is backfilled with an easily removeable material?

[Factor]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

T Obviously the vote count of the jury will be known publicly else how could any trial be decided?

In criminal Trials in Australia a guilty or not guilty verdict requires a unanimous decision. There is provision for a majority vote but that is rare, normally no unanimity means mistrial