Narrow Boat World Article About Our Incident at Hillmorton on 25th August

[MtB]

Refusal of the VLK to act on the request indicates that his training was deficient or possibly that he was unsuitable for the role (in which case he should have been rejected during the selection process).

 

However, with some Regions including S.E. having RA's and method statements that are deficient it is a strong indicator that many VLK's are not trained properly to deal with this type of emergency.

 

 

They don't need training to deal with this type of emergency, they need training to follow boaters' instructions. It's the boater who is dealing with their emergency.

If the boater is lost as to what to do, then the VLK may step in.

[Jerra]

 

 

They don't need training to deal with this type of emergency, they need training to follow boaters' instructions. It's the boater who is dealing with their emergency.

If the boater is lost as to what to do, then the VLK may step in.

But for the VLK to step in if the boater is "lost" they need training to know what to do. Surely?

[Athy]

 

 

They don't need training to deal with this type of emergency, they need training to follow boaters' instructions. It's the boater who is dealing with their emergency.

"I see that the boat in the lock is about to capsize with possible loss of life, but as I have not been trained to deal with this eventuality I shall stand here and do nowt".

 

Whatever happened to common sense?

[Tuscan]

Apart from almost requiring a 'personal researcher' funded by us licence holders - I don't see any problem with the question as asked.

. Seems reasonable and might indeed prompt CRT to also respond to Alan's communications to them.

They don't need training to deal with this type of emergency, they need training to follow boaters' instructions. It's the boater who is dealing with their emergency.If the boater is lost as to what to do, then the VLK may step in.

This indeed seems the whole point

[nicknorman]

They don't need training to deal with this type of emergency, they need training to follow boaters' instructions. It's the boater who is dealing with their emergency.

 

If the boater is lost as to what to do, then the VLK may step in.

I think it would be fair to say that generally, unexpected hang-ups occur with very long boats, or those a bit wider than normal, = historic-type boats. And generally, the operators of historic boats have more experience of boating than say a holiday hire boater. For the latter, the main hazard is probably cilling, something which the volockies are probably trained about. For other weird and wonderful hang-ups, there is a good chance that the boat's operator will not be "lost as to what to do".

[Tuscan]

"I see that the boat in the lock is about to capsize with possible loss of life, but as I have not been trained to deal with this eventuality I shall stand here and do nowt".

 

Whatever happened to common sense?

I think that's why the EA is withdrawing the availability of fire extinguishers on the Thames Locks as their employees have not been trained in their use

[nicknorman]

I think that's why the EA is withdrawing the availability of fire extinguishers on the Thames Locks as their employees have not been trained in their use

I doubt that is the stated reason though. More likely these extinguishers sit there for years on end never needing to be used, and in the mean time there is a significant cost to having them regularly checked. A few probably get nicked too, or let off by vandals.

[Paul C]

Trying to eliminate the dangers by putting it into a RA, and having several separate RAs (which Allan doesn't seem to be able to grasp); and the requirement for training, it basically a load of rubbish. The fact remains, that no amount of training is going to encompass all situations; and the situation Alan found himself in was unusual enough to not be covered in the training.

 

If someone comes along and wants to be a VLK, but needs detailed training on how to operate a lock safely, I'd suggest they aren't suited to the job. If this spoils CRTs plans for 1000+ volunteer lock keepers, so be it. Boaters should know how to do locks safely, and 99% do. Yes, there's an issue with newbie hirers and hire boat handovers, but that issue shouldn't be transferred onto the (seemingly not much better in some cases) VLKs. Its not their job to teach someone how to go boating - a case of the blind leading the blind, a bit.

 

By all means CRT can take on VLKs who have prior EXPERIENCE, if that needs a short amount of admin/paperwork/whatever, to make sure there's reasonably consistency with their roles and responsibilities, then by all means deliver this, but don't take on relatively inexperienced people and expect training to be a substitute for experience, or common sense.

 

Regarding the article, I think Allan has showed he's got a no-quite-full grasp of the situation and/or he's chosen to go down a path of sensationalism, rather than stand up as a saviour for boaters, in this one. Yes he's publicised it, but for what benefit? Will owners of 71'6" historic boats have gained anything from the article? Will other VLKs? Nope, didn't think so. In doing so, he's once again interefered with the general running of CRT in making them find some paperwork for him at great admin cost (how many locks could they have fixed with all his FOI request money again?) and used this forum and its members to provide a good portion of the substance of the article. Yeah he's got a right to do so but its barrel-scraping stuff and morally wrong.

 

Allan, I think you need to think long and hard about what you are doing.

 

 

 

 

Indeed, I am having some difficulty understanding why, when Alan and his family have posted their experiences on this forum, he feels that his permission is needed to include his experiences in an article based largely on my own research.

 

This is the key point for me, I think you need to stop writing articles, until you've figured the above out.

[bassplayer]

... and the requirement for training, it basically a load of rubbish. The fact remains, that no amount of training is going to encompass all situations;

 

If someone comes along and wants to be a VLK, but needs detailed training on how to operate a lock safely, I'd suggest they aren't suited to the job.

I think you need to have a good hard long think about these two points you have made.

 

Any training is better than no training and it's wrong to make out that CRT staff don't know much about boating.

 

How do expect anyone to learn in the first place if they aren't given a chance? We all make mistakes (hopefully small ones) but it's the hit we all have to take in the learning process.

 

I mean, even very experienced skippers make errors sometimes!

[mayalld]

 

Bad day?

 

When we go through a lock no one touches a paddle without approval from the Helm. I could go on and explain more but I am sure it is all common ground. It was plain wrong for someone to ignore the call to drop a paddle when a boat was hung up. I am glad that Alan is raising the issue with CRT and I hope they look at what lessons can and should be learnt. I am sure that is also common ground.

 

You may not want Volunteers to help you, fine that is your choice but this works both ways - don't foist your wishes on others, don't stop others from getting that help if they want it.

 

Where have I tried to stop anybody getting help.

 

If people want to donate their boats as part of the big CRT playset for VLKs, who am I to stop them?

 

I don't, and at present, my wish is not respected, because volunteers ASSUME that you will consent unless you tell them otherwise. That assumption means that when passing through a lock with a VLK hovering, I habitually find that the VLK will position himself at the far end of the lock poised to open paddles without saying a word.

 

So, I either have to shout out to the person who couldn't be bothered to ask that I don't want help, or I have to leave the gates, walk to the other end of the lock, tell him, walk back, close the gates, then walk back again.

[Paul C]

I know exactly what you mean, and I have thought long and hard about it (before I posted - you'll notice I haven't posted prolifically on this thread). Some situations can be "taught" with the appropriate training. Some need experience too. Its well known that when employers recruit, they prefer experience over training. Yes there's a place for risk assessments, yes they can enhance safety but its all to easy to generate a mountain of paperwork/admin then hide behind it. At the end of the day, someone needs to know what they're doing.

 

Mistakes - I'm quite happy to acknowledge these occur, but if the underlying process is approached with a bit of common sense and if its not one person acting alone, mistakes can be rectified without massive danger. Lets not get too carried away by Alan's incident, yes it obviously was distressing but at the end of the day, nobody died - and also Alan's specific incident was generated by it seems a lone VLK misunderstanding (I'm giving some credit here) who was in charge and not knowing to immediately shut paddles when asked to do so - we won't know why he didn't, unless he comes on and posts (and that is covered a few pages ago - he won't be posting). The thread is now 18 pages and has moved on to a more general discussion of how things can be done better.

 

A blend of experience and training is obviously the best approach, I'd say the emphasis needs to be on experience though - and that training is rarely a substitute for experience.

[RLWP]

 

Where have I tried to stop anybody getting help.

 

If people want to donate their boats as part of the big CRT playset for VLKs, who am I to stop them?

 

I don't, and at present, my wish is not respected, because volunteers ASSUME that you will consent unless you tell them otherwise. That assumption means that when passing through a lock with a VLK hovering, I habitually find that the VLK will position himself at the far end of the lock poised to open paddles without saying a word.

 

So, I either have to shout out to the person who couldn't be bothered to ask that I don't want help, or I have to leave the gates, walk to the other end of the lock, tell him, walk back, close the gates, then walk back again.

 

Our local VLKs always ask if we want help before doing anything. The usually offer to set ahead too, rather than work the lock we are in

 

Richard

[Tecka]

 

Is the RA a risk assessment for the 'lock', for the 'boat in the lock' or for the 'lock keeper' (voluntary or otherwise) ?

I would suggest that these would result in 3 totally different RA's.

 

Just examples :

For the Lock - Boat hitting and damaging bottom gates.

For the boat - Getting hung-up on a projecting bolt.

For the VLK - Slipping and falling in the lock

 

If the RA is a RA on behalf of the VLK then there is no risk when he is not in attendance.

 

I'm a little unsure here whether you have understood the point I've been making from the start or you have proved my point unintentionally?

[alan_fincher]

 

Our local VLKs always ask if we want help before doing anything. The usually offer to set ahead too, rather than work the lock we are in

 

Richard

 

This is good, and it is my understanding is that they are supposed to always ask if you want assistance.

 

However whilst that may be your experience at Hatton, I can honestly say that in our own experience it has almost never happened.

 

The canals where we have most experience of VLKs I would say are the Southern Grand Union, the Northern Oxford and the Coventry, and almost invariably the VLKs have just mucked in without asking first if we would like that.

 

That said, until now I have never particularly had a problem with that, but it is my clear understanding that they are supposed to ask. I would suggest far more don't than do, although maybe it is a local issue about whether this is emphasised in their training or not.

 

I should stress that we have had some very good experiences of VLKs. The ones at Stoke Hammond Three Locks usually do a good job and one (a boater!) does an excellent job and is totally on the ball despite considerable challenges being thrown at him by people hiring from the local hire fleet. We have also had VLKs quietly set ahead down flights like Stoke Bruerne without asking, and I'm absolutely fine with that.

Edited November 3, 2015 by alan_fincher

[RLWP]

 

This is good, and it is my understanding is that they are supposed to always ask if you want assistance.

 

However whilst that may be your experience at Hatton, I can honestly say that in our own experience it has almost never happened.

 

Lapworth

 

Richard

[bassplayer]

 

Where have I tried to stop anybody getting help.

 

If people want to donate their boats as part of the big CRT playset for VLKs, who am I to stop them?

 

I don't, and at present, my wish is not respected, because volunteers ASSUME that you will consent unless you tell them otherwise. That assumption means that when passing through a lock with a VLK hovering, I habitually find that the VLK will position himself at the far end of the lock poised to open paddles without saying a word.

 

So, I either have to shout out to the person who couldn't be bothered to ask that I don't want help, or I have to leave the gates, walk to the other end of the lock, tell him, walk back, close the gates, then walk back again.

That's strange...I assume the lockie is there to help me and I'm grateful for that help. Not to say I'm keeping a good look out at all times for any potential problem.

 

We were taken through a lock by some handicapped children a while back. They were supervised by a CRT worker. We had a lovely experience and so did they. Again, my eyes were peeled for any potential danger.

 

I know this thread was more about the NBW article but I can't read something I don't agree with and let it go.

 

I think some of these arguments occur because some of us are more risk tolerant than others. I've seen many areas over the years where the joy is being sucked out of life by the H&S brigade. Of course we should try to be safe but the answer is usually in the middle.

[RLWP]

Of course we should try to be safe but the answer is usually in the middle.

 

Nicely put

 

Richard

[billS]

Questioning and challenging CRTs risk assessments could result in knee-jerk behaviours from the organisation that none of us wish to see.

 

My risk assessment for my boat in any lock includes an assumption that any random stranger wielding a windlass is not competent to lock my boat through, unless I can see evidence to the contrary.

[alan_fincher]

 

Lapworth

 

Richard

 

OK, we have never, I think, done Lapworth with any evidence of a VLK anywhere.

 

We regularly find on major flights where it is claimed VLKs are widely used that non are present even at peak times. Long Buckby is such an example - it's far more likely for there not to be anyone visible than to actually encounter one. No idea why - it is one of the tougher flights, but nothing like as well frequented by gongoozlers, so perhaps part of the appeal of being a VLK is being one where there are large numbers of the public at large about.

 

Certainly we tend to find VLKs at the end of a flight where the crowds are, but never very prominent on the less well frequented parts. Buckby spreads across maybe nearly 2 miles, and I'm not sure I have ever seen a VLK except at the very top lock. It would be nice having someone further down Buckby trying to top up pounds that can sometimes be at least a foot down, but I've never seen anybody doing water control there.

[alan_fincher]

Questioning and challenging CRTs risk assessments could result in knee-jerk behaviours from the organisation that none of us wish to see.

 

My risk assessment for my boat in any lock includes an assumption that any random stranger wielding a windlass is not competent to lock my boat through, unless I can see evidence to the contrary.

 

Fair comment.

 

I do think many people in this prolonged discussion may still have failed to grasp one basic.

 

I want to know that if the person wielding the windlass is dressed in a CRT uniform, and acting with their authority, and things start to go wrong, (even if they did not foresee it as a possibility), that they will never block any request from the crew of the boat involved to correct what is going wrong before the situation becomes more dangerous, and potentially very serious indeed.

 

This does not seem to me to be an unreasonable thing to want, and I would be interested how anybody taking part could defend a situation where someone acting on behalf CRT, (whether permanent staff, contractor or volunteer), is able to decline a request where the boat crew recognises an incident and a potential emergency situation, and hence puts the boat and maybe its crew at greater risk than they already are.

[bassplayer]

 

Fair comment.

 

I do think many people in this prolonged discussion may still have failed to grasp one basic.

 

I want to know that if the person wielding the windlass is dressed in a CRT uniform, and acting with their authority, and things start to go wrong, (even if they did not foresee it as a possibility), that they will never block any request from the crew of the boat involved to correct what is going wrong before the situation becomes more dangerous, and potentially very serious indeed.

 

This does not seem to me to be an unreasonable thing to want, and I would be interested how anybody taking part could defend a situation where someone acting on behalf CRT, (whether permanent staff, contractor or volunteer), is able to decline a request where the boat crew recognises an incident and a potential emergency situation, and hence puts the boat and maybe its crew at greater risk than they already are.

Maybe you fail to grasp that you had a responsibility too. What was your role in this incident? Did you give the instruction to shut the paddles? Were you watching the bow?

 

As I said. I nearly hung my boat on a gate once and glad it wasn't serious. I like to think I learnt from the incident. I made a mistake!

 

Sorry Alan, but just saying what I think. Feel free to shoot me down in flames....

[Paul C]

 

 

This does not seem to me to be an unreasonable thing to want, and I would be interested how anybody taking part could defend a situation where someone acting on behalf CRT, (whether permanent staff, contractor or volunteer), is able to decline a request where the boat crew recognises an incident and a potential emergency situation, and hence puts the boat and maybe its crew at greater risk than they already are.

 

In your situation, their declining a request put the boat/crew at greater risk.

 

However, in a more general situation, there's probably many scenarios where a lockeeper declining a request, reduces risk. The thing is, every situation is slightly different. Let's assume a properly experienced lockeeper, not a newbie one day in, or someone temporarily covering a lock they're not familiar with. Judging by the number of boat movements per day through the busier locks (where the lockeepers tend to be) they're soon going to rack up more experience at that particular lock, with average length/design/age boats than the average boater through that particular lock. How and who is to determine who has the more experience here? Yes the boater could always say its their lock - the lock keeper could say "I saved 4 hireboats from sinking in a single day" equally well. The point is, its not as black and white as first seems.

 

I'll ask again, what, for you personally, is a successful outcome to this incident?

[mayalld]

That's strange...I assume the lockie is there to help me and I'm grateful for that help. Not to say I'm keeping a good look out at all times for any potential problem.

 

We were taken through a lock by some handicapped children a while back. They were supervised by a CRT worker. We had a lovely experience and so did they. Again, my eyes were peeled for any potential danger.

 

I make no assumptions whatsoever about why somebody seeking to operate a paddle wishes to do so.

 

Whether VLK or other boater, some are seeking to help you. Others are seeking to help themselves, others are there to do what they enjoy, and you are simply there to facilitate that.

 

I am not ungrateful where a VLK offers their help. If they offer, I will decline politely.

 

However, it is my choice to not have somebody else operating the lock, and I object to ANYBODY doing so without asking, or ANYBODY instructing me as to what I will do (like the idiot last year who waved like a lunatic at us as Bev set me ashore, and bellowed at me "stay on board, we are operating the lock").

 

My eyes are peeled for potential danger, and I mitigate against one identified danger by not allowing outsiders to interfere.

[Catrin]

Maybe you fail to grasp that you had a responsibility too. What was your role in this incident? Did you give the instruction to shut the paddles? Were you watching the bow?

 

As I said. I nearly hung my boat on a gate once and glad it wasn't serious. I like to think I learnt from the incident. I made a mistake!

 

Sorry Alan, but just saying what I think. Feel free to shoot me down in flames....

I was at the bottom gate, Alan was steering the boat, and making sure that it was clear of the cill.

 

I was watching the bow, since it is not easy to see it from the back of the boat. I twice told the VLK to drop the paddles because the boat was hung, which he declined to do, because he appeared to think that the boat would 'sort itself out'.

 

He finally wound the paddles down, not dropped, wound, when our son emerged from the boat, and shouted loudly to put the paddles down, while rushing to the top gate to open a paddle.

 

The fact that the VLK did not act immediately on my instructions, is the key point to us.

[alan_fincher]

I made a mistake!

 

I did, however, not make any mistake on this occasion.

 

The volunteer lock keeper at the time did not suggest I, or any member of my crew, had make a mistake, and indicated he was happy we had done nothing wrong. If he had thought we were doing anything at all wrong, why on earth would he reach agreement with us that we should try and do exactly the same operation with no modification?

 

Nobody at the time has suggested we made a mistake, nor has any response from CRT in more than two months following the incident has anybody suggested we made any mistake.

 

So, do you as someone who didn't witness this incident have something that suggests that there was any mistake made on our part? No you do not, of course!

 

I really do not know why I am bothering to engage you, because it is clearly getting me nowhere, but actually you are making me feel really rather angry. If I cock up I am usually willing to put my hands up and admit it, but on this occasion neither I nor any member of my crew cocked up in any way at all, and it is unhelpful for you to suggest there is anything we could have done to mitigate what happened.

Edited November 3, 2015 by alan_fincher