I got hurt

[mayalld]

I fail to see how your perceptions of me are relevant, are you upset that I have mates or that I've been to sea (rhetorical don't bother answering)

 

It's a free country, and frankly those who throw in cheap jibes and instruct other people not to respond don't impress.

 

I am no remotely upset that you have been to sea. You are the one with a chip on your shoulder about it. You are the one who waves it around as if it were some kind of talisman that makes you right all the time.

 

You've just reached stardom as the first person on my ignore list.

 

OK, if that is what you wish to do.

 

It is rather the electronic equivalent of sticking fingers in ears and shouting "LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU", but it rather fits my perception of you.

[Machpoint005]

snip>> Many laws are contradictory especially within sovereign or privately owned waterways <<

 

I can't see that Dave is disagreeing with this. He has quoted chapter and verse for his authority, and has also admitted that he wouldn't necessarily try to exploit the powers he has.

 

If Chieftiff wants to tek 'is bat 'ome, that's up to him, but the fact remains that s104 and s105 of the MSA 1995 are applicable, and that BW byelaw 52 says that the master of any vessel using any canal shall be responsible for the safety and security of the vessel and its mooring.

 

I'm not one for taking sides, but I prefer these views to the secondhand opinion of what amounts to 'some bloke down the pub'.

[howardang]

I fail to see how your perceptions of me are relevant, are you upset that I have mates or that I've been to sea (rhetorical don't bother answering)

 

You've just reached stardom as the first person on my ignore list.

Why should he be upset about whether either you or your friend have been to sea when he hasn't?

Like David, I have been trying to point out that the word master has a significance in the rules which govern the inland waterways which is relevant whether you mave marine qualifications, sea going experience or whatever.

Incidentally, you may like to consider that there are many canal users who have also been to sea; it's not such an exclusive club as you might think.

 

Howard

[chieftiff]

Why should he be upset about whether either you or your friend have been to sea when he hasn't?

Like David, I have been trying to point out that the word master has a significance in the rules which govern the inland waterways which is relevant whether you mave marine qualifications, sea going experience or whatever.

Incidentally, you may like to consider that there are many canal users who have also been to sea; it's not such an exclusive club as you might think.

 

Howard

 

It's the fact I have mates then isn't it?

 

Who says's I've run off and taken my bat? I'm just ignoring the dross.

 

The thread deviated and it was probably my fault, I offered to take it to pm but the guy thought it better to stick with it on here; it's a narcissistic trait which much to my embarressment (because I understand the P -> A dynamic of it and should know better as I'm dragging it into a "game" by purposely not moving up an ego state) I'm also now demonstrating. The only reason I thought to bring up the fact I'd served at sea is that I thought it might demonstrate that I have some experience of the reality of how a vessels master acts out the powers he has - in the real world where consequences can actually bite you in the arse - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with taking responsibility for your wife/ partner/ friends* (delete as appropriate) mistakes when operating a lock paddle. Which is the point of the thread is it not?

 

You don't seem to have expressed an opinion, who do you think is responsible for the paddle operation, or more precisely who do you think would be held responsible by the establishment should they kill someone in its operation. It's all well and good yapping around the edges but either express an opinion or start another thread about the superpowers awarded to you on purchase of your boat - I promoise not to get involved.

 

And incidentally, I'm more than aware that there are plenty of canal users who have experience of serving at sea; a few on here but plenty who aren't, I know a fair few of them. I'd be amazed if more than a few of the 100,000 or so people who would have served in my time weren't out there worrying about more relevant crap than whether some guy can actually order his family around on his narrowboat because he is recognised as a master and I'll be honest I'm growing weary of it myself.

 

I'll be genuinely interested in your reply but might take a couple of days to get back, I'm off to a Summer Ball this evening and planning on having a two day hangover, I've started on the rum already in fine naval tradition.

[Chertsey]

The trouble with falling back on rules and laws is that they then have a tendency to displace common sense.

 

All these technical legal discussions are fascinating, but what relevance do they have in a real life situation? Most of us simply do not have the ability in practice to make (or prevent) anyone else do anything.

 

Therefore whatever the law says, de facto we can really only be responsible for our own behaviour.

[nb Innisfree]

Seems a lot of bother over glorified skips floating around on a glorified puddle

[Smelly]

"52. The master of any vessel using any canal shall be responsible for

the safety and security of the vessel and its mooring and shall be

answerable to the Board for any damage done by such vessel or

by any person employed about the same to the canal, vessels,

goods and property of the Board in or on any part of the canal"

 

That doesn't seem to impart any liability if someone gets hurt...

[sociable_hermit]

"52. The master of any vessel using any canal shall be responsible for

the safety and security of the vessel and its mooring and shall be

answerable to the Board for any damage done by such vessel or

by any person employed about the same to the canal, vessels,

goods and property of the Board in or on any part of the canal"

 

That doesn't seem to impart any liability if someone gets hurt...

See, it always happens.

 

You have a perfectly reasonable debate going on and them some pedant comes along and spoils all of it.

[RLWP]

(because I understand the P -> A dynamic of it and should know better as I'm dragging it into a "game" by purposely not moving up an ego state)

 

Transactional analysis?

 

Richard

[Tillerman]

Nope.

 

Whilst the lock operator may well be responsible to the steerer, the buck stops with the steerer.

 

Try arguing that with some of the lock keepers on the Thames and they'll tell you who is in charge in their locks!

You may well be responsible for your vessel but you aint in charge of the lock!

 

And even if you are on the canal network the idea that as the "skipper" you can weild power over all and sundry when you're at the bottom of a deep lock with the engine running, kids swarming around all over the place and limited visability of the paddles, is frankly, laughable.

You are not responsible for the actions of someone operating the lock paddles. They are.

[Smelly]

See, it always happens.

 

You have a perfectly reasonable debate going on and them some pedant comes along and spoils all of it.

 

Call me a pedant again and i'll have to buy you a pint!

[saltysplash]

Well I think Dave is ahead on points so far.

 

Its was a captivating debate while it lasted. Seems a shame to spoil it with ignore lists.

 

I served at sea once. I served all the crew full english breakfast but managed to throw most of it on the galley floor as we rounded North Foreland running for Ramsgate

[carlt]

I served at sea once. I served all the crew full english breakfast but managed to throw most of it on the galley floor as we rounded North Foreland running for Ramsgate

How long did you have to stay in the barrel?

[jactomtroub]

OK, did you make clear that what you were asking for was for them to review their training? If not, the natural assumption will be that you want them to "do something" about these particular offenders.

 

You say that they can't have that many crews from Stockholm in a week. Sorry, but yes they can. Many hire firms do a lot of overseas business.

 

You say that you want them to "do something", but what are they to do? Unless they can identify a reason why their customers didn't take on board all that they were told, anything they do would just be a knee jerk reaction.

 

I understand what you are saying. I did make it clear to them why I felt I had to complain to them. I work for a large organisation and we take any complaint seriously even more so if it is a safety issue. Surely it was not too much to ask if they could at least mention this to the trainers. I think perhaps what really upset me is the short email reply I got, if it had perhaps said we are sorry you had this experience and hope you have got over it or some such, it would not have felt like they really do not give a dam.

I was able to give them the base the boat came from and they do not have that many there to trace.

As far as I am concerned the issue is now closed. They have made it clear they wont do anything. I do not want to go down the 'injury lawers for you route' that was never my intention. All i wanted was for them to say to thier trainers 'look we have had this happen with one of our hire crews lets make sure our hirers do understand dangers of locks'. I made that clear in my complaint to them I still do not think it was too much to ask and far from a knee jerk reaction.

[mayalld]

It's the fact I have mates then isn't it?

 

Who says's I've run off and taken my bat? I'm just ignoring the dross.

 

The thread deviated and it was probably my fault, I offered to take it to pm but the guy thought it better to stick with it on here; it's a narcissistic trait which much to my embarressment (because I understand the P -> A dynamic of it and should know better as I'm dragging it into a "game" by purposely not moving up an ego state) I'm also now demonstrating. The only reason I thought to bring up the fact I'd served at sea is that I thought it might demonstrate that I have some experience of the reality of how a vessels master acts out the powers he has

 

Odd, it looked distinctly like a bit of one-upmanship to me. "I've been to sea, so I know more than you"

 

Your repeated personal abuse just adds to the impression that this is all about your disdain for lesser mortals.

 

I choose not to take it to pm for a simple reason. If you PM me something, you can say "I proved it in a PM", and I can't even refute your claim by quoting that message.

 

It all reminds me of a case nearly 20 years ago. I was newly arrived at Royal Mail, and a wet-behind-the-ears payroll clerk, just back from a 4 week course on our payroll system (homegrown cobol/algol thing on a burroughs B93). All input to the system had to be prepared on a coding sheet, with each possible change having a 3 digit code.

 

Each clerk prepared his input, and we swapped input sheets to validate that the proposed input was correct. I had the task of checking the coding sheet for a guy with 10 years experience on the system. Having read it 3 times, and compared it to the manual, I was sure it was wrong. It didn't match what I learned on the course, and it was exactly the opposite of what the manual said.

 

So, with some trepidation, I returned the coding sheet to my colleague, and told him that it was in error. I was met with the immediate response "and just how long have you been working in payroll?", before he snatched the sheet back, tossed it to another colleague, making some remark about young upstarts daring to question his coding, and the other colleague signed it off without a glance.

 

Two days later, after the payroll run, guess who had a problem, and had to do a manual payslip for one of his people?

 

Experience is always useful, but it does not provide a certain way of being right every time!

[Nightwatch]

I've been to sea, once or trice.

 

My experience of 'cheif tiffs' are that in no time at all they become CPOs' and some suddenly know all there is know about everything. I have had many a debate in the mess on the ins and outs of such and such.

 

They just don't give up. If they are incorrect, rarely in their view, they just say it was a wind up.

 

Only my opinion. All in all the tiffs were a minority and always got shot down and told to behave, get a wet in.

 

Martyn

[mikevye]

I've been to sea, once or trice.

 

My experience of 'cheif tiffs' are that in no time at all they become CPOs' and some suddenly know all there is know about everything. I have had many a debate in the mess on the ins and outs of such and such.

 

Martyn

 

A Chief Tiff is a Chief Petty Officer!

[Machpoint005]

A Chief Tiff is a Chief Petty Officer!

I thought it was short for 'Chief Artificer' but what do I know? I've never been in the Grey Funnel Line.

[mikevye]

I thought it was short for 'Chief Artificer' but what do I know? I've never been in the Grey Funnel Line.

 

Correct and as such is a CPO. The subtle difference between an Artificer as opposed to a Mechanician is that an artificer joined with qualifications and received accelerated advancement whereas a mechanician was trained from within the service and worked his way up the rating levels. However they would ultimately become Chief Tiff or Chief Mech but Both would be CPOs until they progressed further.

[howardang]

It's the fact I have mates then isn't it?

 

Who says's I've run off and taken my bat? I'm just ignoring the dross.

 

The thread deviated and it was probably my fault, I offered to take it to pm but the guy thought it better to stick with it on here; it's a narcissistic trait which much to my embarressment (because I understand the P -> A dynamic of it and should know better as I'm dragging it into a "game" by purposely not moving up an ego state) I'm also now demonstrating. The only reason I thought to bring up the fact I'd served at sea is that I thought it might demonstrate that I have some experience of the reality of how a vessels master acts out the powers he has - in the real world where consequences can actually bite you in the arse - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with taking responsibility for your wife/ partner/ friends* (delete as appropriate) mistakes when operating a lock paddle. Which is the point of the thread is it not?

 

You don't seem to have expressed an opinion, who do you think is responsible for the paddle operation, or more precisely who do you think would be held responsible by the establishment should they kill someone in its operation. It's all well and good yapping around the edges but either express an opinion or start another thread about the superpowers awarded to you on purchase of your boat - I promoise not to get involved.

 

 

And incidentally, I'm more than aware that there are plenty of canal users who have experience of serving at sea; a few on here but plenty who aren't, I know a fair few of them. I'd be amazed if more than a few of the 100,000 or so people who would have served in my time weren't out there worrying about more relevant crap than whether some guy can actually order his family around on his narrowboat because he is recognised as a master and I'll be honest I'm growing weary of it myself.

 

I'll be genuinely interested in your reply but might take a couple of days to get back, I'm off to a Summer Ball this evening and planning on having a two day hangover, I've started on the rum already in fine naval tradition.

 

I would have thought that my opinion was obvious but seeing you need for it to be spelt out:-

 

If I am on board in charge of a boat, I would make it clear what I wanted to happen with the paddles, whether it is the boats crew or casual helpers. If someone operated them in a way which I didn't want I would make it very clear for them to stop what they are doing.

 

If there was an accident involving injury or worse the incident would be investigated by the MCA and blame apportioned appropriately together with any recommendations.

 

I acknowledge your sea going experience with the RN (I presume as an engineer) but it has very little relevance in this discussion. I also fail to see where I have said that I have super powers as a result of purchasing a boat. I think I am aware of my responsibilities, however, when using a boat.

 

I hope you enjoyed your summer ball and that the hangover has not reached the critical stage!

 

Howard

Edited July 6, 2009 by howardang

[Sir Nibble]

Post deleted 'cos I spoke too soon.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Sir Nibble

[Brummage]

'cos I spoke too soon.

 

Happens to me all the time. Especially with the missus.

[Nightwatch]

A Chief Tiff is a Chief Petty Officer!

I know that. If you read correctly you will see I refer to the fact that they become CPO rather soon. They may gain advancement soon as they have the knowledge of what they do with the 'normal' grease monkeys, but don't have all the experience of the RN, only from the classroom. We others gain experience of the RN by being in the RN.That was the point of my post.

 

Martyn

[Doorman]

Well I think Dave is ahead on points so far.

 

Its was a captivating debate while it lasted. Seems a shame to spoil it with ignore lists.

 

I served at sea once. I served all the crew full english breakfast but managed to throw most of it on the galley floor as we rounded North Foreland running for Ramsgate

 

It's humour like that which keeps me so interested in this great forum

[Guzziman]

We had something similar happen to us a couple of years ago as we were coming up through Brighouse basin. I was on the boat, and R.J. was on lock duty. As I left the lock from the river, I could see that the gates to the next one were open, so I cruised in to wait for him whilst he remained to shut the gates on the previous lock, which is only about 100 yards away.

 

Without any warning, a crew from another boat above the lock suddenly closed the gates behind me and then proceeded to fully open the paddles, despite my yelling at them to stop. We were on Devon, hired from Shire Cruisers - a tiddly little 32' boat in a BIG lock. I can't tell you how scary it was! I was getting tossed around and bashed from side to side, and I could hear things crashing around below deck.

 

I was shaking when I finally exited the lock - and what did I find? A boat full of inexperienced hirers? No - a liveaboard family in a hurry who ought to have known better, and seemed to think that because it was a hire boat, they could do as they pleased.

 

Although we don't own our own boat, we hire at least once a year and have done for several years, and like to think that we know what we're doing, and are pretty clued up about how to behave. Our rule has always been that whoever is steering the boat is in full charge, and no paddles are opened until they give the signal that they are ready.

 

I don't mind "helpers" at locks, but only the ones who know what they are doing!

 

Janet

 

 

Quite agree, we had a boat owner open a paddle in a broad lock which threw our seventy footer across the lock into the wall without a second look he was a complete idiot (I hope he is reading this!) never ever operate a lock for someone else without having the decency to wait for the signal to carry on, next time I will loose my cool and let rip, these people wind me up beyond belief... sorry but I do feel very strongly about this, maybe they want the bill for the damage.

 

He probably thought he was some sort of professional with his windlass holster and all - can't say what I thought he was!!!!

 

Guzziman