Another triumph for bureaucracy

[hobbit]

Royal Marines were banned from giving people a trip on a landing craft during a military show because of health and safety regulations.

The boat, which can carry 35 men or two light trucks, was taking people out for a tour of supply ship RFA Mounts Bay.

It had been used several times at the show in Bournemouth, Dorset, until Maritime and Coastguard Agency officials learned of it.

They ruled the craft did not have a certificate allowing boats to carry people.

The commandos had to charter a fishing boat instead. Charlie Hobson, chief executive of the Royal Marine Association, branded it a “triumph of bureaucracy over common sense”.

[Boggert]

AAAAaaaggghhhh, God this drives me mad... has common sence totally gone from the country!

[crazymac]

AAAAaaaggghhhh, God this drives me mad... has common sence totally gone from the country!

Certainly has with the MCA!! They have allsorts of idiots in head office in Southampton who's job is to cover arses!!

[hobbit]

Just imagine it

"Come lads load up lets go on that raid"

"Sorry Sarge, no can do, is not got a certificate for carrying people, looks like we will have to walk" :?

[waveydavey]

Sorry to be the Killjoy but I can see the point here.

Marines all carry their own assult lifejackets and are trained etc. The Landing craft crew are not really trained for evacuating as all the 'passengers' already know what to do.

Had the Landing craft had a major incident and people got hurt or even died then the first people the media and the public would be attacking would be the MCA - "Why did they let people on an uncertificated craft?"

I work with the MCA a lot and know some of their very senior people - they are good guys and their interest is only to look after people.

[crazymac]

I work with the MCA a lot and know some of their very senior people - they are good guys and their interest is only to look after people.

Sorry waveydavey but I really must disagree! (I can feel myself about to go off topic, so for that I apologise)

1. The Marines (and the forces in general) are used by the government in many situations including disaster relief, flood relief and massive evacuations, so to say that they are not able to evacute one of their craft is nonsense!

2. The MCA and in particular the senior bods are only interested in one thing, protecting their own backsides and salaries!! Trust me when I say this, because I come from personal experience! There has been a case lately on the Isle of Lewis where one of the rescue team got injured, he has lost his job, walks with a stick and his smashed up foot is not repairable! what do the MCA do? they leave him with NO FINANCIAL HELP AT ALL and when it all kicks off in a dispute last year he was threatened and bullied into accepting an out of court settlement for £20,000 of which he got £10,000 while the lawyers argued about who was paying for the MCA lawyers!! The Station officer for that team was sacked because he stood up in support of his injured team mate! Although the senior management claimed it was because of a H&S breach. The entire team have resigned because of this treatment!

I myself was injured on service 6 years ago, I was left with no financial assistance for 18 months until I kicked up a massive media stink last year and they have now established loss off earnings for me. I am recovering at the moment from the twelfth operation on my knee with another one due in 5 months, I have lost my career, nearly had my house reposessed and racked up huge debts, due to my pain and inability to sleep properly I have to sleep separate to my wife and I have an 8 yearold daughter that I can't play with properly because of all this! I will in the future need a total knee replacement and all this is before they look at my other knee which took the same impact!

So please don't try and tell me that the senior management want to look after people!!

[waveydavey]

Crazymac
I sympathise but I stick by what I said; by stopping people going on an uncertified boat they are trying to prevent people getting hurt - I don't know the details of either accident so can't comment but can you honestly say that everybody involved was following their guidelines? That is why they put the guidelines - just to stop people getting hurt - that was why they stopped use of an unlicenced boat.

That said I work more with the Marine side, by the sound of t you are on the Coastguard side; despite the wonderful idea of the government to combine them they really are very differnet.

Basically though you seem to be comparing the guys on the ground who have to make a call, often unpopular, for the best of reasons with a bunch of lawyers in an office.

[mike142sl]

This is just another case of people thinking they are doing a risk assessment and all along just identifying a hazard. The two are very different and unfortunately the easy route is just to stop it - whatever IT might be. Partly because there are so many individuals keen on taking anything that moves to court when they stub their little toe.

Just because a boat isn't licenced doesn't mean it is dangerous. The fact it was a Navy boat would suggest it was probably more sea worthy than the fishing boat they eventually used. If someone had looked at the situation and assesed the risk then in all probability the ferrying could have continued as the RISK would have been suitably LOW enough.

We don't seem to have risk assessors anymore - just Hazard Identifiers.

[waveydavey]

This is just another case of people thinking they are doing a risk assessment and all along just identifying a hazard. The two are very different and unfortunately the easy route is just to stop it - whatever IT might be. Partly because there are so many individuals keen on taking anything that moves to court when they stub their little toe.

Just because a boat isn't licenced doesn't mean it is dangerous. The fact it was a Navy boat would suggest it was probably more sea worthy than the fishing boat they eventually used. If someone had looked at the situation and assesed the risk then in all probability the ferrying could have continued as the RISK would have been suitably LOW enough.

We don't seem to have risk assessors anymore - just Hazard Identifiers.

Very true - the problem as you hinted at is that until the legal profession get a serious dose of common sense that is what people need to do in order to keep out of court.
I don't agree with it but it is the reality now, mainly thanks to our freinds from across the pond.

[crazymac]

Waveydavey, I think mike142sl has hit the nail on the head, they identify hazards and stop it rather than risk assess it!

Yes, I am (or was ) on the cliff rescue side of things and I can catagorically state that everyone did what they were trained to do, the fact that the MCA has changed proceedures and equipment since my accident speaks volumes!

The lawyers that the MCA have access to are treasury soliciters, not maritime experts, the inherant problem wih the MCA is they hire people for the high up positions that have very little (if any) maritime experience. When it was HM Coastguard the majority of personnel were ex Royal and Merchant navy, now they have degrees from colleges etc, very little life experience and absolutely sod all experience or knowledge about the marine environment! they know about business models, computers, etc, not how to survey a vessel or conduct a rescue!

I have talked to a marine surveyer lately who said that his seior manager believed it took an hour to survey a ship regardless of the size or role it has to undertake! Interestingly they have brought in new coding for vessels that has meant that they have had to take a lot of their own boats off the water as they don't conform to their own code!
 

[Mareng]

Up until July this year I was a Marine Engineer in the Army (not the royal marines) and worked on vessels identical to those used by the Marines.

We regularly used the boats that it sounds like the Marines were using for taking civilians on boat trips without any interference from the MCA or anyone else.

The Skippers were responsible for carrying out risk assessments and all the associated paper work, all passengers were issued with a board of trade lifejacket and were given a full safety brief before they were even allowed on board and there was insurance in place to cover any injuries that may have occured (fortunately there were none).  Without all of these things in place we would not have been able to conduct the trips.

What may have happened is that the Marines did not have the correct paperwork in place and had over looked it, had there been an accident then it would have been the skipper that was held responsible for any compensation claims...

And for what its worth, I've been on the Mounts Bay several times.....there's not all that much to see..