0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nick Flint

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #30 on: Jul 29, 2018, 1:38 pm »
As EVER I tend to agree with most aspects shared regarding the issues debated---. ::)
What IS VERY IMPORTANT (IMHO) is we are discussing, and self assessing, and that is Fantastic MUCH better than comparing paint finishes or not reading and writing on the forum.
It is (indeed) a shame a craft was recently lost,
BUT----- out of adversity - we improve.
I owned a boat in Spain (uneventfully for the first 6 years) - learnt little. (perhaps I knew it all or there was little to actually learn?) ;)
Only go out when perfect conditions--- what can POSSIBLY GO WRONG-----! :o
 "Sea state 2-3" turned into 567---->8 and gradually I was "trying not to die"
Did nothing wrong, it was ALL unavoidable- I was after all only 12 miles away from my base.
AFTERWARDS-- I wrote 40 things down, that I had learnt under extreme distress.
IE I learnt masses from adversity, and potentially fatal circumstances
SOME PEOPLE --- learn VERY slowly listening to others, (CERTAINLY- if THEY don't hear/dont agree)
BEING part of the recovery team, certainly concentrates ones experience and then its good to pass on.
It won't be long before I am again confronted with craft that is perhaps "not fit for purpose".

The Medway HCGB 50 year anniversary two years ago was run under the "strict" HCGB  regs" in that ALL craft HAD to float (for about 10 timed mins i think). Kingfisher (with perhaps tons of positive buoyancy) was NOT exempted from this.

Whilst I PERSONALLY believe that the strictness of HCGB regs could be "perhaps OTT"   ------  THEY are  certainly NOT WRONG.

MY view harping back to my thread reply No14 ( end of---

From now on I believe the MINIMUM REQUIREMENT to go croozin guys ---- is-----HERE WE GO------------


IN THIS WAY WE HAVE LEARNT, and improved safety, and decreased "load/danger to- an attending helping hovercraft"!
My reply 14 perhaps suggests correctly that the above is ESSENTIAL and NO-ONE can take issue?
THIS (at a stroke) safeguards the broken down craft/owner AND the attending "saving" hovercraft and ITS owner
YOUR Cruising pals will be more happy to help WHEN help will be needed for some reason (WHILST you float safety and don't endanger them.)
RULE No 1 of life saving is "YOU Don't let THEM drag YOU under".
ANY one who refuses is unlikely to even attend / go out / expect recovery?
Perhaps this could be "self assessed" at the start of the event? thus releasing us from possible liability in law?
Conversely----- WHY NOT DO THIS? ??? ??
Anyone who feels this is sev based bias or refuses------
1 Silly/wrong
2 Clearly hasn't found their drainage bung leaked and needed an "O" ring upgrade! ;)  (like me)
3 They reserve the right to sink-------->?

Please note this is simply a way to gauge the membership preferences and or general views.
I believe the fine detail of how/if it can be "lawfully" implemented can be assessed later.

« Last Edit: Jul 29, 2018, 2:08 pm by Nick Flint »
Memories are BETTER than Dreams---"Capn" FLINT

Gary Firth (Gazza)

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #31 on: Jul 29, 2018, 3:46 pm »
Common sense must pay a part. Without it weíre all doomed.

Ronnie L

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #32 on: Jul 29, 2018, 4:45 pm »
I really dislike regulation.
When you introduce regulation, someone has to organise it, check logbooks and police it, with all the associated cost and paperwork.
Then rules have to apply.
What if someone wants to modify things, do they have to apply for approval, if so, to whom.
We then go down the same route as aircraft where innovation is stifled.
Itís starting to get into a very difficult argument.
Safety is everything.
Common sense, unbiased advice, knowledge and help for people that need it.
I canít see a way to stop someone from using an unsafe craft, if that is what they are determined to do.
Itís a minefield.

John Robertson

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #33 on: Jul 29, 2018, 5:02 pm »
The public right of navigation on tidal waters (where we operate) nullifies any potential regulation in any case (i.e. we can't prevent anyone operating there thus making it unenforceable).
A float test is a good idea in theory -  BUT not the ten minute version (I suspect the craft in question would having easily passed this anyway).  Unless the craft is swamped AND fully loaded, any float test is pretty near useless.  I've participated in and witnessed the 10min test - along with craft that were being continually bailed out and others that swamped if the occupants moved from their normal position, etc. - and all of them passed!   As I said in an earlier post, owners should carry out a proper test themselves for their own safety.  Safe floatation has to be designed in and tested - just assuming it's OK isn't really a good idea.

Nick Flint

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #34 on: Jul 29, 2018, 6:58 pm »
I am ALSO dead against "regulation increase" )  but re-iterate
I am NOT asking for This club to regulate, never HAVE------------------ never will advocate that.

Make AGREEMENT  to FLOAT TEST self certification a part of the cruise. Agreement.......
A float test IS better than useless---- because at present thats what we have -ABSOLUTELY  NOTHING which IS pretty useless, and unfit and dangerous and consequentially---- overbearing for---- the craft / drivers that are being EXPECTED to HELP/ RECOVER? SAVE.

We already tell people "they are NOT part of an organised cruise"
Lets tell them they are required to Float test self certificate.
It is an extension, and concentrates their mind.

Or are we to say
"We don't want a repeat,----------------------------------------- ::) but are against change!!!! and thus won't do anything.

I also wish to avoid on ENFORCEMENT.  because---WHO---- and we can't enforce!
Don't like being a school master,
Nor actually "International rescue" !  :-[

WHO would wish to modify bouyancy??? which is ALL I'm trying to have discussed. Nothing else, NO real person would try to reduce the chance of NOT dying.
If they increase buoyancy, fine.
If they lie to us/  themselves, - pathetic and again WE HAVE LOST NOTHING by trying to get safety improved.
OR we've all wasted our breathe all week pretending to want matters to improve.
I havent!

« Last Edit: Jul 30, 2018, 12:03 pm by Nick Flint »
Memories are BETTER than Dreams---"Capn" FLINT


Re: Liverpool
« Reply #35 on: Jul 29, 2018, 10:46 pm »
I think there is a glitch in our poll questions.  Any vessel is legally obliged to go to the assistance of another in distress if it can do so without getting into danger itself.  Thus anyone in trouble will expect - and hopefully receive - assistance from anyone able to give it.  We all know we would do this anyway, so it is a bit academic.

Without introducing formal scrutineering I can see no way to have anything other than a self certification for float testing, while for floor mounted engines, a swamp test isn't possible.   I did a full float test very early on when I bought both  BBV craft and subsequently added ( unnecessary ) extra floatation. Both floated high and dry, but finding somewhere to do that was almost impossible in controlled and safe circumstances, so for many people the only way will be to go to sea and try it.

Further,  the old issue that if we test and 'pass' a craft and it then has a problem, we could be held responsible.

...and like Nick, I don't like prescriptive rules.

I think in most cases people who don't maintain a craft or have an eye on safety find that others won't go out with them and solo operation gets a bit lonely, especially once you have had a fright. They tend not to be in the sport for long as the damn things need so much tlc that they soon become unusable if not maintained, so it is a sort of mechanical Darwinism.

Thus my feeling is to carry on as we are with informal comments and advice.  A couple of experienced operators having a quiet word at the launch point will do more good than all the rules we can muster, and if someone is Hell bent on ignoring basic safety issues you won't stop them.  When you hear of the number of lemmings at Weston and Brean each hot weekend you realise that our safety record is fairly good.

I just hope I don't have to eat my words on the next outing .......... !!!!!!

Nick Flint

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #36 on: Jul 30, 2018, 1:38 pm »
LAST comment as Ive grown fairly fed up. :-[
I WAS in very considerable danger due to much petrol spilt during refuel attempt, and the Mersey ferry patiently driving around US
AS per almost ALL rescues----- the danger GRADUALLY ramps up. Eventually the rescuer finds he is in unacceptable danger but STAYS because he has grown accustomed, and does not wish to disengage leaving the stricken craft and occupants to fend for them selves.
THIS WAS the case.

IN SHORT guys,

YOU HAD TO BE THERE                :o

If you weren't, then with respect my grave concerns should (just perhaps) be taken as carrying a little weight????
It appears "the leave it and it may go away will be carried"!
So be it.

I will leave the poll to run.

Have a good week everyone.

Memories are BETTER than Dreams---"Capn" FLINT

Ian Brooks

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #37 on: Jul 30, 2018, 6:43 pm »
I think we all sympathise with Nick, his selfless actions prevented a much worse issue - possible tragedy - at not inconsiderable risk to himself.

The way forward is type testing - as Ross points out, a swamped test is not trivial as it often involves the removal (or sacrafice) of engines  & replacement with dummy mass, but it is essential. Type testing is carried out by manufacturers not users, so I would expect all series manufactured craft to have been tested, and the evidence to be published. Our role is to inform the users of this, and encourage them to apply pressure to the manufacturers.

I am happy to update the buyers guide to reflect this stronger guidance if we think it a good idea?

Ian Brooks
Gloucester, UK

John Robertson

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #38 on: Aug 01, 2018, 2:14 pm »
All agreed!
Just a reminder that anyone organising an event using this web site (HERE) is free to add whatever conditions they wish in the event registration options (the default conditions are a general disclaimer - you can remove/edit/replace as you wish).  General event and operating advice can be found  HERE, HERE and HERE

Nick Flint

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #39 on: Aug 02, 2018, 9:41 am »
Dear Members,

Following on from the recent difficulties experienced on the Mersey when  a new member to this club (and his passenger), hovercraft sank
--------It is essential to gauge members general feelings-----------
PLEASE NOTE- voting on this important issue closes in 3 days. Your OWN safety may depend on it.
Scroll up to the top of this thread and vote please.
1 Safety starts HERE by talking.--->
2 THEN Plan--->
3 THEN---DO it!

Memories are BETTER than Dreams---"Capn" FLINT

Nick Flint

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #40 on: Aug 05, 2018, 2:10 pm »
Thanks to everyone who voted, and-- scrolling to the top of this thread------- one can see---
16 people voted-
37 % voted for the present status quo, purely trusting owners to " police themselves"
63% voted for increased "activity" to reflect rising safety concerns.

Committee is working hard to work out how best to reflect these concerns
whilst trying hard to not "regulate",( or "over regulate" depending on ones feelings.)!
Memories are BETTER than Dreams---"Capn" FLINT

Ronnie L

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #41 on: Aug 05, 2018, 4:49 pm »
As I understand it.....the Commitee can do no more than advise.
Advice is needed though on many things it seems, floatation being the principle one.
Types of craft and their risk element 1 to 10. Might be a possibility

But I think what the outcome will be is that ďthere is non so blind as they that donít wish to seeĒ.
Iím sad to say.

Weíll be back to the Sev, not Sev debate, donít you think.

John Robertson

Re: Liverpool
« Reply #42 on: Aug 06, 2018, 12:36 pm »
We already publish a load of safety advice and provide easy-to-use tools.   Does anyone actually look at any of it?   Probably not  - it's easier just to pass the responsibility onto someone else to say everything is OK.

Incident video from Ronnie L

John Robertson