Originally Posted by atoll
sounds like this is a case for maib(marine accident
investigation bureau),not a civil court who know nothing about sailing!
I think will find that as a commercial
operation that the Skipper is held to higher standards than a recreational sailor is (IMO quite correctly).
Likely what helped cross the line into prosecution (and brought the corporate Owner / Director in) was piss poor paperwork, both to support the decision made and for the dull end of day to day operations (which no one checks until the SHTF - and then picks holes in!).
Doesn't seem the skipper is being done for the boat being unsuitable or unlicenced for those conditions (the boat would have been coded for it's use, albeit I believe that is more around distance from shore than sea conditions (inshore requirements less than offshore) - the presumption being I guess that few would set sail into a F10!).
But certainly the term Dickhead does seem to apply to the Skipper - including for simple commercial
reasons (even with no incidents how many would be repeat customers?
) as well as setting sail with untested crew on a voyage that would have needed at least some reliable crew.
Having said that, I suggest that those crew who clearly had doubts were also dickheads for getting onboard
. Perhaps says much about certification
they already had (not clear in the reports - but sounds like some sort of low level RYA course -"inshore sunny day sailing Yachtmaster
)....would have thought that would at least have taught them a Force 10 is not a fun place to be. and that most of us don't choose one!....or simply common sense
My bet is that once onboard and the predicted unpleasant became unpleasant (no ****!) that a group think also overcame the crew as well as the seasickness.....adding to the Skippers problems.