French Lifeboat Skipper Cleared of All Charges in Trial Over Failed Rescue

Daibheid

Disturbing for a volunteer based group of selfless people and I feel for this skipper, the crew and the ordeal they went through.

But aside from that event I'll stick my neck out here and say I've seen rescue skippers here make bad calls - first hand in a couple of cases- in situations that have proved very costly in terms of expensive assets and worse.

There's a culture evolving now in some quarters that people don't excercise in challenging conditions. Understandable in the light of some recent events and no-one wants to see people put at unnecessary risk in training. But I know a number of people who've resigned from the Coastguard because of being prevented from training above certain limits which may fall short of what they know is typical reality.

I personally feel it is detrimental to anyone's ability to make good judgements, and even to be as safe as practicably possible, on a shout not to have trained, within reason, in challenging conditions. Zero risk in training is not reality and IMHO actually may increase risk when it really matters.

Thoughts?

https://maritime-executive.com/article/french-lifeboat-skipper-cleared-of-all-charges-in-trial-over-failed-rescue

Mick Tator

Two separate issues – the trial and rescue training.

Looking at French media the accident and subsequent trials there was no reference to any lack of training for the rescuers. The combined trials were high profile in Normandy, great support for the lifeboatmen and big sympathy for the parents of the three lost young crew (the father of one committed suicide in his grief). The public prosecutor was a bit of a showman, calling the case a "hot potato where everyone passes the buck and everyone runs away from their responsibilities". He went for the jugular, looking for suspended prison sentences, bans and fines, and said "everyone failed in their job", particularly the two (fired) civil servants for the “serious error” of registering the skipper of the trawler when he was not qualified. He also went after the co-owner and the marine surveyor demanding a €30,000 fine for the latter's company, shouting at him in court that "You knew very well that the major problem on this trawler was “the weight and that the waterline mark was systematically underwater". The case against the lifeboat skipper was that the towline was too short, the towing speed excessive, a lack of exchanges with the trawler and a sudden change of course. The judge in summing up disagreed, saying that the speed was not excessive, that even if the radio calls from the trawler had been answered within the 41 second delay before the capsize, a course change would not have prevented it The only person who was found culpable was the trawler’s co-owner, who received a suspended sentence.

Training – I fully agree with you that training in adverse conditions is critical. However, rescue organisers must now be loath to do this. Think back a few years to a few incidents – the juniors with several ribs/rescue boats sailing at the back of the W Pier in DL when hit by a squall, some capsized and were righted, others put in ribs, all in a day’s sailing. But there were angry mammies on the radio and a witch-hunt by the media on the organisers, with the usual ‘woke’ commentaries; the level of media knowledge was pitiable, Moncrieff did not even know what a regatta was! Then a couple of years ago highly qualified young dinghy sailors with advanced level instructors were out training in moderate winds (Scotsmans Bay DL I think?) and the same s#1tstorm happens. But, when a successful rescue occurs its ‘Weren’t they great, clever to stay with their rubber duck/Lidl inflatable/paddleboard’ instead of being pilloried for being complete idiots to go out on a windy evening. Add to all that the legal situation, like the Fethard tragedy (where several drowned) the fisherman who hauled one out of water was sued by him for damage to his shoulder/arm. Another case was the Bulloch canoe/kayak lady and IMO a farcical marine accident report.

I cannot see how heavy weather training can be provided to rescue crew without considerable difficulty. The onus always was/is on skippers to have seaworthy boats and crew. I’ve posted here a few years ago at my horror of the number of boats that retired after starting the DL to Dingle race following gear and crew failure off Dalkey Island. That onus of responsibility is increasingly on the skipper. The sea can be as dangerous as it is wet, people need to get real and realise and accept responsibility for their actions.

Mick Tator

Link to the marine accident report https://www.bea-mer.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/beamer-fr_breiz_2021.pdf

Daibheid

I appreciate the constraints that come with being responsible for others safety, whether you're skippering a pleasure craft or responsible for training first responders at sea. But the idea that people accept responsibility for their own safety is key here. If I'm willing to sign that I will take responsibility for myself and my boat to participate in some SAR activity in challenging but not clearly stupid conditions then that option should exist. Similarly, if I'm a voluntary responder I should have the option to sign that i accept certain risks so I can train with like minded crew in making a challenging landing, tow, etc. in a force 5 or whatever. Traditionally that level of experience was " brought in" by experienced fishermen, commercial sailors, experienced boat owners/ operators, etc. But the culture now is trying to make everything 100% safe with zero risk. That has a double edged negative effect. People who are experienced are so constricted now they know training is bordering on insufficient to form a crew you can trust and are competent in serious conditions - which is when the real rescues are needed. So they get frustrated and/or don't want to put to sea with crews that have not been sufficiently tested and they leave. Then who's left to train the new crews to a realistic level? The result is you get people being called on to perform in conditions far more severe than the text book prescribed favorable conditions they've been permitted to train in and they may come up short with potentially sub-optimal outcomes for themselves and or casualties.

I'm not advocating cavalier approaches to assessing whether a rescue is feasible or not or training in very dangerous conditions, far from it. But I think we're tending toward a level of conservatism in training that cannot be good overall and that actually may increase risk to all concerned. Because there is no substitute for experience in harsh - but not outright dangerous- conditions and if off the shelf experience is suppressed and discretion heavily restricted, combine that with training restrictions that mean crews don't experience much "white water", we're heading for a scenario where only the Helo can go in much of the time. But you can't have enough Helos for the number of harsh condition incidents we will see every year.

It's a concern.