Seriously scary moment at Hillmorton - And another volunteer lock-keeper concern.

[alan_fincher]

What to me stands out was the actual cause of the incident. Hanging up a full size historic in a lock. Twice.

If I was in the place of the lock-keeper, I would probably have taken the same view as he did, that I had never ever seen or heard of that before so assume the boat will pop down any second.

If I was the steerer, I would probably have been just as embarrassed as Alan, and wanted to have a jolly good rant.

 

I haven't seen any suggestion by anybody else who has posted in the thread that I have ranted at all, (although many have suggested I would have been reasonable to do so at the time).

 

Nobody has at any point suggested I or any member of my crew did anything wrong at all, nor suggested how the incident might have been avoided. From my view our operation was "text book", and what happened could not be predicted.

 

I can only assume that as a local you have a fair idea who the volunteer was, and are defending how he acted when told of the danger. He opened the paddle, and should have dropped it immediately as soon as it was apparent the boat (and those on board) were in danger, and certainly immediately he was told to do so. End of.

 

This isn't meant to be a cheap jibe, but perhaps if you regularly took your full length historic boats anywhere rather than have them more or less permanently moored outside your premises, you might find you start to have the occasional scary moment as well ? Shit happens, but someone volunteering in this role should make the safety of boaters his priority.

[Machpoint005]

So when I enter a lock where there's a volocky on duty, what do I do?

 

How about if I establish person-to-person contact with the volocky first. If he/she starts winding paddles without reference to me (on the stern of the boat), shout "Hold it!" very loudly and await a reaction.

 

Once I have his/her attention, I'll say "OK, just making sure you can hear me" (or just "OK") and allow the process to proceed along normal lines?

 

If the initial "Hold it" gets no reaction, that's the time to make a fuss. Woe betide the volocky if the Memsahib is anywhere near, though -- and she would be! She never touches a paddle without my say-so, although the uninitiated wouldn't notice the eye contact and mutual agreement at all. That's what becomes of being a team for so long

 

I haven't seen any suggestion by anybody else who has posted in the thread that I have ranted at all, (although many have suggested I would have been reasonable to do so at the time).

 

Nobody has at any point suggested I or any member of my crew did anything wrong at all, nor suggested how the incident might have been avoided. From my view our operation was "text book", and what happened could not be predicted.

 

I can only assume that as a local you have a fair idea who the volunteer was, and are defending how he acted when told of the danger. He opened the paddle, and should have dropped it immediately as soon as it was apparent the boat (and those on board) were in danger, and certainly immediately he was told to do so. End of.

 

This isn't meant to be a cheap jibe, but perhaps if you regularly took your full length historic boats anywhere rather than have them more or less permanently moored outside your premises, you might find you start to have the occasional scary moment as well ? Shit happens, but someone volunteering in this role should make the safety of boaters his priority.

 

This is far too well written and cogently put to be a rant - as was the OP.

[lydfordcastle]

What to me stands out was the actual cause of the incident. Hanging up a full size historic in a lock. Twice.

If I was in the place of the lock-keeper, I would probably have taken the same view as he did, that I had never ever seen or heard of that before so assume the boat will pop down any second.

If I was the steerer, I would probably have been just as embarrassed as Alan, and wanted to have a jolly good rant.

 

Don't give up your day job.

[churchward]

 

I haven't seen any suggestion by anybody else who has posted in the thread that I have ranted at all, (although many have suggested I would have been reasonable to do so at the time).

 

Nobody has at any point suggested I or any member of my crew did anything wrong at all, nor suggested how the incident might have been avoided. From my view our operation was "text book", and what happened could not be predicted.

 

I can only assume that as a local you have a fair idea who the volunteer was, and are defending how he acted when told of the danger. He opened the paddle, and should have dropped it immediately as soon as it was apparent the boat (and those on board) were in danger, and certainly immediately he was told to do so. End of.

 

This isn't meant to be a cheap jibe, but perhaps if you regularly took your full length historic boats anywhere rather than have them more or less permanently moored outside your premises, you might find you start to have the occasional scary moment as well ? Shit happens, but someone volunteering in this role should make the safety of boaters his priority.

From your description I did not take it that you did something wrong just that as you say the lock assistant should have dropped the paddle as soon as it was requested and that it should be reported to help with training and for CRT to check the lock for faults.

 

I will pick up on something though, you say that someone volunteering should make safety of boaters the priority. I doubt you mean that if you weren't a volunteer you need not care for safety so why differentiate with the word volunteer? Anyone operating the lock should operate with a safety first mentality paid or unpaid. When training and being tested and retested for Railway Signalling this is the case. The top priority is always safety, not speed or doing it the easy way so when asked to do something quickly my usual answer is, I will do it safely.

[c c]

 

 

This isn't meant to be a cheap jibe, but perhaps if you regularly took your full length historic boats anywhere rather than have them more or less permanently moored outside your premises, you might find you start to have the occasional scary moment as well ?

But it is just that, considering we have taken Badsey out every year for the last ten years for an average of two solid months each time.

And yes we have of course lost it a number of times.

Difference is that we didn't then get on this forum to call in the wolf pack to get a man sacked.

[alan_fincher]

Difference is that we didn't then get on this forum to call in the wolf pack to get a man sacked.

Can you explain that remark in the light of the question I actually asked for an opinion on?

 

So what do people think we should do,please ? Do we just accept this as an unfortunate set of circumstances, or do we report the near miss to CRT, explaining that the volunteer locky had become convinced "it would sort itself out".

 

I thought I had been remarkably calm and considered, in the circumstances.

[Machpoint005]

If he's a volunteer, can he be sacked?

Just don't give him anything to do ...

[mayalld]

What to me stands out was the actual cause of the incident. Hanging up a full size historic in a lock. Twice.

If I was in the place of the lock-keeper, I would probably have taken the same view as he did, that I had never ever seen or heard of that before so assume the boat will pop down any second.

If I was the steerer, I would probably have been just as embarrassed as Alan, and wanted to have a jolly good rant.

 

In that case, you should never place yourself in a position of operating paddles for somebody else.

 

Something unusual happens, and you ASSUME that it will sort itself out, ignoring a direct instruction as to what you should do,

 

Totally unacceptable

[Tam & Di]

What to me stands out was the actual cause of the incident. Hanging up a full size historic in a lock. Twice.

If I was in the place of the lock-keeper, I would probably have taken the same view as he did, that I had never ever seen or heard of that before so assume the boat will pop down any second.

If I was the steerer, I would probably have been just as embarrassed as Alan, and wanted to have a jolly good rant.

 

Others have already answered, including Alan, but what grounds would the volockie have for assuming the boat would pop down at any second, especially if he had never seen or heard of it before? I've had a loaded motor hang up in a narrow lock simply because a piece of expanded polystyrene wedged between the hull and the lockside. I'd never seen it before but I certainly did not wait in the vague expectation that the boat would drop down. Significantly though, I did not have some third party in control of the paddle gear who did not close it immediately at my command.

 

As is said, shit happens. The important thing is to take appropriate action to counter it. In this case the volockie did not do that. Has it been an inexperienced boater whose boat had got hung up in some manner the consequences could have been yet another sunk boat enquiry at the very least, and possibly something even worse.

 

I don't think it necessary to resurrect the Spanish inquisition, but certainly there are lessons to be learned if volockies are allowed to continue, and their role needs to be made very clear to them. Most importantly it needs to be experienced boaters who are consulted when the volockie role is discussed, not dreamed up by someone in an office.

 

Edit to add: I cannot for the life of me see anything whatsoever for Alan to be embarrassed about - if anything it should be you who is embarrassed for writing such nonsense and saying you would have done exactly the same as the volunteer. I gather that you have an ex-working boat, which makes your post even more ridiculous.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Tam & Di

[magpie patrick]

But it is just that, considering we have taken Badsey out every year for the last ten years for an average of two solid months each time.

And yes we have of course lost it a number of times.

Difference is that we didn't then get on this forum to call in the wolf pack to get a man sacked.

 

In the debate between Alan Fincher and yourself one person is being very reasonable and very measured.

 

It isn't you

 

Given Alan and Catrin were involved in an incident that could very easily have sunk their prized boat and caused serious harm if not fatalities, I think Alan has been far calmer than I would have been.

 

Other posters have hardly called for the lynch mob either, generally we have just stated that CRT need to take a firm line that the boat crew are in charge and Volockies must respect a request to drop paddles immediately.

[mayalld]

So, we have the usual forum behaviour of "you can't possibly judge", and "we don't know the whole story, there might be another side to this"

 

Based upon what has been reported, the following would appear to be factual, rather than interpretation;

 

• The volunteer was told to drop the paddles
• He heard the instruction
• He declined to follow the instruction.

That is quite simply unacceptable. No matter what else can be said, if the volunteer thinks that the time to discuss whether closing a paddle in an emergency is whilst the paddle is open, he needs to be removed until such time as he understands that this isn't the case.

[MtB]

But it is just that, considering we have taken Badsey out every year for the last ten years for an average of two solid months each time.

And yes we have of course lost it a number of times.

Difference is that we didn't then get on this forum to call in the wolf pack to get a man sacked.

 

 

Sacked from what, exaclty?

[Catrin]

Given Alan and Catrin were involved in an incident that could very easily have sunk their prized boat and caused serious harm if not fatalities, I think Alan has been far calmer than I would have been.

 

Other posters have hardly called for the lynch mob either, generally we have just stated that CRT need to take a firm line that the boat crew are in charge and Volockies must respect a request to drop paddles immediately.

Thank you. Both our son and our much loved dog were on board, you don't think "the boat is sinking", you think "my family is inside".

[Guest]

But it is just that, considering we have taken Badsey out every year for the last ten years for an average of two solid months each time.

And yes we have of course lost it a number of times.

Difference is that we didn't then get on this forum to call in the wolf pack to get a man sacked.

 

You are starting to look a little foolish now.

 

Making stuff up about peoples motives for posting is just nonsensical.If I were you I would stop digging a hole for yourself.

 

Ed.- More - however if this was an incident that had occurred in other work type settings it is highly likely that if reported to the employer they would, whilst not necessarily be dismissed be extremely likely suspended pending some sort of investigation. In turn they would likely receive some sort of (deserved in my opinion) warning, if that sort of sanction is not available to CRT for it's volunteers then they have a problem.

 

I still don't however believe that was the motive for the OP.

Edited August 27, 2015 by MJG

[churchward]

 

You are starting to look a little foolish now.

 

Making stuff up about peoples motives for posting is just nonsensical.If I were you I would stop digging a hole for yourself.

 

Ed.- More - however if this was an incident that had occurred in other work type settings it is highly likely that if reported to the employer they would, whilst not necessarily be dismissed be extremely likely suspended pending some sort of investigation. In turn they would likely receive some sort of (deserved in my opinion) warning, if that sort of sanction is not available to CRT for it's volunteers then they have a problem.

 

I still don't however believe that was the motive for the OP.

I think your punishment regime would be a little harsh unless I have misunderstood.

 

In my view it warrants the person being spoken to and it made clear what the priorities in these circumstances are ie drop the paddles then find out what's wrong and put everyone's safety first no matter the delay. The thing is although the outcome could have been more serious it was OK in the end and you cannot prosecute for what might have happened as this is not known to us for sure. I would though ,make sure he understood the potential seriousness of the situation and how serious lapses are taken in a safety first attitude. If this was in line with your warning then I guess we could be agreeing.

 

I would then make sure that he was taking this into constant practice in the future

[Bettie Boo]

 

In the debate between Alan Fincher and yourself one person is being very reasonable and very measured.

 

It isn't you

 

Given Alan and Catrin were involved in an incident that could very easily have sunk their prized boat and caused serious harm if not fatalities, I think Alan has been far calmer than I would have been.

 

Other posters have hardly called for the lynch mob either, generally we have just stated that CRT need to take a firm line that the boat crew are in charge and Volockies must respect a request to drop paddles immediately.

 

sorry - out of greenies, but +1 IMO

[Guest]

I think your punishment regime would be a little harsh unless I have misunderstood.

 

In my view it warrants the person being spoken to and it made clear what the priorities in these circumstances are ie drop the paddles then find out what's wrong and put everyone's safety first no matter the delay. The thing is although the outcome could have been more serious it was OK in the end and you cannot prosecute for what might have happened as this is not known to us for sure. I would though ,make sure he understood the potential seriousness of the situation and how serious lapses are taken in a safety first attitude. If this was in line with your warning then I guess we could be agreeing.

 

I would then make sure that he was taking this into constant practice in the future

 

I guess it would hang on (Definitely no pun intended) what he has been taught already and if he has deliberately flouted his training/previous instructions/procedures about what to do in an emergency situation with a hung up boat. If he has acted against that or flouted it that would be potential gross negligence in my opinion and would warrant the actions I outlined. If an employee such a suspension is normally on full pay and is always without prejudice towards the final outcome. The person would be given an opportunity to state their case, up to the point of the decision of any action taken nobody has actually been 'punished' for anything. (Though I accept it might not feel like that for the person concerned)

 

If he hasn't been adequately instructed (worrying if that's the case) then yes a different matter I would agree. However that then raises a question about the competence of their trainers and supervisors.

 

However as he is not an employee none of this is particularly relevant really, I was really just outlining how serious it should be taken.

Edited August 27, 2015 by MJG

[churchward]

 

I guess it would hang on (Definitely no pun intended) what he has been taught already and if he has deliberately flouted his training/previous instructions/procedures about what to do in an emergency situation with a hung up boat. If he has acted against that or flouted it that would be potential gross negligence in my opinion and would warrant the actions I outlined.

 

If he hasn't been adequately instructed (worrying if that's the case) then yes a different matter I would agree. However that then raises a question about the competence of their trainers and supervisors.

Punishment is not always the way to get the best results in my experience and the person made a mistake he needs to know this and receive again or otherwise the instructions to operate correctly and be encouraged to do so and if necessary supervise them to see that they have taken it onboard. I doubt it could be shown as gross negligence, negligent perhaps or a mistaken or slow reaction to a situation. I have seen other boaters do worse.

 

people make mistakes, I know it may not seem that way with all the perfect people on here but we all would like to be treated fairly and with proportion if we make a mistake.

Edited August 27, 2015 by churchward

[Guest]

Punishment is not always the way to get the best results in my experience and the person made a mistake he needs to know this and receive again or otherwise the instructions to operate correctly and be encouraged to do so and if necessary supervise them to see that they have taken it onboard. I doubt it could be shown as gross negligence, negligent perhaps or a mistaken or slow reaction to a situation. I have seen other boaters do worse.

 

people make mistakes, I know it may not seem that way with all the perfect people on here but we all would like to be treated fairly and with proportion if we make a mistake.

 

However the consequences of that mistake could have been catastrophic, at the risk of sounding over dramatic he did at the end of the day put lives in danger, and that needs to be factored in as to how it's dealt with. I personally think that takes it beyond your proposed method of dealing with it so I guess we will need to simply disagree.

[Machpoint005]

>> people make mistakes, <<

 

...which is exactly why they need to be trained. Preferably before they start, but certainly after a near-miss, and regardless of whether or not they are being paid to do the work.

[churchward]

 

However the consequences of that mistake could have been catastrophic, at the risk of sounding over dramatic he did at the end of the day put lives in danger, and that needs to be factored in as to how it's dealt with. I personally think that takes it beyond your proposed method of dealing with it so I guess we will need to simply disagree.

Yes they could but they weren't and that does make a difference too. One isn't prosecuted for what could have happened in a car crash just what did happen.

I am not saying what might have been should be ignored as it helps to underline any re education or reorientation of attitude.

 

We will indeed have to disagree and leave it at that as it is pointless to go round in circles on a hypothetical point.

 

...which is exactly why they need to be trained. Preferably before they start, but certainly after a near-miss, and regardless of whether or not they are being paid to do the work.

I agree.

[FadeToScarlet]

So, we have the usual forum behaviour of "you can't possibly judge", and "we don't know the whole story, there might be another side to this"

 

Based upon what has been reported, the following would appear to be factual, rather than interpretation;

 

• The volunteer was told to drop the paddles
• He heard the instruction
• He declined to follow the instruction.

That is quite simply unacceptable. No matter what else can be said, if the volunteer thinks that the time to discuss whether closing a paddle in an emergency is whilst the paddle is open, he needs to be removed until such time as he understands that this isn't the case.

This is exactly it.

 

Regardless of the volockies' training and experience, they were given a clear instruction by the boater in charge of the boat, and ignored it.

 

Even if the volocky is 100% convinced ((wrongly in this case) that there's no danger, they are still not in charge of the lock- and it's not their boat!- and instructions like that need to be followed instantly.

 

I don't think it needs punishment because this wasn't malicious, just misguided- which means they need to be retrained, and have their role reiterated to them.

[Mike Tee]

This is exactly it.

Regardless of the volockies' training and experience, they were given a clear instruction by the boater in charge of the boat, and ignored it.

Even if the volocky is 100% convinced ((wrongly in this case) that there's no danger, they are still not in charge of the lock- and it's not their boat!- and instructions like that need to be followed instantly.

I don't think it needs punishment because this wasn't malicious, just misguided- which means they need to be retrained, and have their role reiterated to them.

 

Well put, but above all, the volocky needs to admit that he was in the wrong, and understand why - if he can't do that then he has no place helping at a lock.

[Dharl]

This is exactly it.

 

Regardless of the volockies' training and experience, they were given a clear instruction by the boater in charge of the boat, and ignored it.

 

Even if the volocky is 100% convinced ((wrongly in this case) that there's no danger, they are still not in charge of the lock- and it's not their boat!- and instructions like that need to be followed instantly.

 

I don't think it needs punishment because this wasn't malicious, just misguided- which means they need to be retrained, and have their role reiterated to them.

100% agree this was a "Near Miss", happily avoided being worse by the quick actions of Alan and his crew!

[Guest]

 

...which is exactly why they need to be trained. Preferably before they start, but certainly after a near-miss, and regardless of whether or not they are being paid to do the work.

 

I would say not preferably at all TBH. But definitely.

 

If the trust really are letting volunteers loose on the system without any training at all then that is very worrying. If a vol locky sinks a boat in a lock and people are harmed or worse die as a result the H&SE will be all over them like a rash, if it emerges then that they receive no training what so ever then they can expect a pretty hefty fine I would say, at the very least. A good litigation lawyer would also take them to the cleaners.

 

I too was one of the people who gave DaveMayall a hard time when he raised the issue it looks like I owe him an apology aswell