nb flamingo. The other side?

[dmr]

I have now read the linked documents and, not surprisigly, the CaRT report is not nearly as bad as the NBW article suggests.

I generally like the VLKs and appreciate their help but I can easily appreciate how this incident could happen, believe the Fincher account, and see potential dangers with the VLKs.

As I approach a paddle many many VLks will say "its ok we will take care of this, you get back on the boat". I then point out that there are a lot of potential things to go wrong, especially with a full length boat, that I am happy for them to work the lock but that I want to keep an eye on things.

Whilst I approach a lock with a "need to take care attitude" many VLks appear to have a "we are the experts, we know what we are doing" attitude which is not the way to do it.

 

...............Dave

[Alan de Enfield]

Seeing Matty's photo's, even if they wont admit to a lock problem why have they used different coach bolts on the slam plate I suppose one draws one's own conclusion if it's not a problem why does it need fixing /modifying

 

Have you read the report and the recommendations / conclusions ?

 

C&RT state that the bolt heads should be replaced and a review of the other locks conducted to see if the same needs doing elsewhere.

[CDS]

Your first sentence was my first thought. CRT being mischievous?

Anyone being mischievous here,I think its you,under the guise of giving the forum "the other side"

as you quaintly put it. All I can see is CRT have seized on two issues,the length of the boat and the actions

of the Finchers son,these will no doubt be debated here for a day or two but its hardly a smoking gun.

With the exception of the dome headed bolts I don't think Alan had a chance of proving culpability of

CRT or their volunteers.What I find interesting is the references made about historic craft and how they use

the locks,you wonder if we are going to end up with situation similar to steam trains on the railway.

Edited December 3, 2015 by CDS

[Graham.m]

I can only give my view and thoughts as someone who uses the locks frequently and who has read the report and attachment and what the report say to me.

 

 

First re the VLK statement - I think there are two things here

 

 

1. As the statement is apparently contradictory to the boater's report there is the possibility of libel if published by CRT

 

 

2. It could be that the report was given by the VLK in confidence, if it was it should not have been, but that could have affected publication as well.

 

 

The incident:

 

 

1. The boat was a tight fit in the lock, but I suspect that if we look back in history the boat had been through that lock many times over its lifetime. Therefore any arguments regarding length, with bow fender lift, are non sequitur. The cause of the hang-up was a bolt on the gate with raised head that caught the bow of the boat.

 

 

2 There is an argument over how many times the VLK was asked to drop the paddle. Suffice to say that the boat got to a difficult angle, which could have endangered the boat, and apparently someone on the boat had sufficient time to find a windlass, decamp from the boat and apparently raise the top paddle before the bottom paddle was closed. That suggests to me that the VLK was very slow in reacting and dropping the paddle. AS the only officially trained lock person on the lock was the VLK I would suggest the VLK should have been alert and keeping the boat under observation regardless of any theoretical responsibilities. In fact I would suggest he had a duty of care to the boater that was failed.

 

 

3. I do not know what the level of training of the boater's son has, I do gather from the papers he is an adult. I do not find it surprising that as a reasonable man under the circumstances his reaction was to leave the boat as fast as possible and let water back into the lock. There were all ready two people at the bottom gates and one already requesting the VLK to drop the paddle, and the son's presence at the bottom gate should have made no difference, the VLK was already aware of a problem or should have been. We have to remember that the son was probably panic stricken; his father's pride and joy were in danger, when he opened the paddle. So is it a surprise that a person, unlike the VLK, not highly trained in the emergency operation of locks should panic and do things slightly wrong.

 

 

4. I would conclude: In my opinion from the papers and other publicly available information, the cause was a badly maintained gate, the bolt should always have been a round headed bolt so that it did not catch anything. The incident could have been minimised by what should have been an alert VLK. I believe the son did just what the Man on the Clapham Omnibus would have done under the circumstances. To me it is apparent that by replacing the bolts with round-headed bolts CRT have the opinion that the bolt was prime cause of the incident. That is my opinion and had I been on a jury I suspect it is not difficult to see where my vote would have gone.

 

 

AS always this is my opinion based on the information available to me at this time.

[jenlyn]

All I can see is CRT have seized on two issues,the length of the boat and the actions

of the Finchers son,these will no doubt be debated here for a day or two but its hardly a smoking gun.

With the exception of the dome headed bolts I don't think Alan had a chance of proving culpability of

CRT or their volunteers.What I find interesting is the references made about historic craft and how they use

the locks,you wonder if we are going to end up with situation similar to steam trains on the railway.

Edited for you. So you don't get warned about "play the post, not the poster".

[David Schweizer]

Just a couple of point to add to Graham's observatiions. I know the Finchers well, and yes David is an adult. He has been crewing with his parents for something like ten years, possibly longer, and is not the type of person who would panic. He has a very precise approach towards situations, and from what i know of him, his getting off the boat with a windlass ready to operate the top gate paddle would have been a typical respone to an emergency.

Edited December 3, 2015 by David Schweizer

[dmr]

The thing about the boat length is nothing but a CaRT smokescreen, and I don't see why they have quoted Nicholson (notoriously inaccurate on these things) or their own dodgy published figures. The only figure we might believe is the one they measured, which shows about 2 feet of space. This is NOT a tight fit. Owners of fullish length boats go through much much tighter locks many many times.

 

..................Dave

[CDS]

Edited for you. So you don't get warned about "play the post, not the poster".

Posts are easy played especially ones that put a question mark

over a much respected boaters version of events

[jenlyn]

Posts are easy played especially ones that put a question mark

over a much respected boaters version of events

Could you show me the post you are referring to?

[Graham.m]

Just a couple of point to add to Graham's observatiions. I know the Finchers well, and yes David is an adult. He has been crewing with his parents for something like ten years, possibly longer, and is not the type of person who would panic. He has a very precise approach towards situations, and from what i know of him, his getting off the boat with a windlass ready to operate the top gate paddle would have been a typical respone to an emergency.

 

As you will appreciate I do not know the state of mind of the son. I do know my state of mind when a similar type event happened to my own boat in a lock, not panic but a very high level of urgency and total concentration on how to sort the problem. But then I have been trained to deal with emergencies I do not know if the son has and prefer to assume without evidence to contrary that his reactions were those likely in the Man on the Clapham Omnibus in the circumstances. No disrespect to either son or father.

[CDS]

Could you show me the post you are referring to?

Well for a start there is the title of the thread

with its question mark added.What are you

calling into question?

[David Schweizer]

 

As you will appreciate I do not know the state of mind of the son. I do know my state of mind when a similar type event happened to my own boat in a lock, not panic but a very high level of urgency and total concentration on how to sort the problem. But then I have been trained to deal with emergencies I do not know if the son has and prefer to assume without evidence to contrary that his reactions were those likely in the Man on the Clapham Omnibus in the circumstances. No disrespect to either son or father.

 

I find it difficult to understand why you are prepared to make a judgement on David's response based upon a assumption that, unlike you who is a trained person, the average person would panic, rather than take the word of someone who knows how he responds to situations.

Edited December 3, 2015 by David Schweizer

[jenlyn]

Well for a start there is the title of the thread

with its question mark added.What are you

calling into question?

Obviously you have missed the irony, or perhaps just looking to derail the thread.

 

Allan r in my view has made this issue very personal, and I believe it should be on the forum for Alan f to have the opportunity of reply.

 

I also think you need to think and count to ten before posting.

[David Mack]

Allan r in my view has made this issue very personal, and I believe it should be on the forum for Alan f to have the opportunity of reply.

Alan F has already posted that he wishes to say no more about the incident on here. If I were in his position I would do the same. There is no mileage for him in dragging out the who-did-what arguments, particularly since it involves family members.

[Graham.m]

 

OK, so you are prepared to make a judgement on David's response based upon a assumption that the average (untrained) person would panic, rather than take the word of someone who knows how he responds to situations. That in my mind is verging upon demonstating a lack of respect.

 

Sorry I am not going to argue with you, I have written what I believe to be a reasonable reaction to the reports and other published evidence. Whilst you may think I am being disrespectful to the son that is an opinion you are entitled to and I respect it. I do not believe that the family see it that way. Shalom

 

Ed I have spent a many years dealing with emergencies and seeing the reactions of those not train to deal with them, so believe my assessment is reasonable and very likely.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Graham.m

[jenlyn]

Alan F has already posted that he wishes to say no more about the incident on here. If I were in his position I would do the same. There is no mileage for him in dragging out the who-did-what arguments, particularly since it involves family members.

Well that would be his choice of course. However, I still believe he and others should have the opportunity to express their views on what I consider a very personal, and poorly written article.

[CDS]

Obviously you have missed the irony, or perhaps just looking to derail the thread.

 

Allan r in my view has made this issue very personal, and I believe it should be on the forum for Alan f to have the opportunity of reply.

 

I also think you need to think and count to ten before posting.

There is no irony,Alan has already stated his position,maybe you want to take your own advice regarding the counting.

I am sure Alan would be overcome regarding you giving him a chance to express his opinions,however lets not derail

the thread with your petulance irony?

Edited December 3, 2015 by CDS

[jenlyn]

There is no irony,Alan has already stated his position,maybe you want to take your own advice regarding the counting.

Petulance??? Lol. Really.

Edited December 3, 2015 by jenlyn

[Tam & Di]

 

As you will appreciate I do not know the state of mind of the son. I do know my state of mind when a similar type event happened to my own boat in a lock, not panic but a very high level of urgency and total concentration on how to sort the problem. But then I have been trained to deal with emergencies I do not know if the son has and prefer to assume without evidence to contrary that his reactions were those likely in the Man on the Clapham Omnibus in the circumstances. No disrespect to either son or father.

 

No disrespect????? This is extraordinarily patronising. I do not know Alan or his son, but have known Alan's brothers and their experience as canal boaters from the 70s and have no problem with assuming Alan's to be of the same calibre. What is this training you have that makes you so superior to a possibly untrained boater with hundreds of boating hours under his belt and demonstrable interest in the skills of boating?

 

 

Tam

[ChimneyChain]

No disrespect????? This is extraordinarily patronising. I do not know Alan or his son, but have known Alan's brothers and their experience as canal boaters from the 70s and have no problem with assuming Alan's to be of the same calibre. What is this training you have that makes you so superior to a possibly untrained boater with hundreds of boating hours under his belt and demonstrable interest in the skills of boating?

 

 

Tam

Because he's got a certificate that says so........ Silly

[gazza]

Because he's got a certificate that says so........ Silly

Or certified for short

[David Schweizer]

 

Sorry I am not going to argue with you, I have written what I believe to be a reasonable reaction to the reports and other published evidence. Whilst you may think I am being disrespectful to the son that is an opinion you are entitled to and I respect it. I do not believe that the family see it that way. Shalom

 

Ed I have spent a many years dealing with emergencies and seeing the reactions of those not train to deal with them, so believe my assessment is reasonable and very likely.

 

But you are, although continually repeating the same uninformed assumptions does not really constitute a valid contribution.

 

No disrespect????? This is extraordinarily patronising. I do not know Alan or his son, but have known Alan's brothers and their experience as canal boaters from the 70s and have no problem with assuming Alan's to be of the same calibre. What is this training you have that makes you so superior to a possibly untrained boater with hundreds of boating hours under his belt and demonstrable interest in the skills of boating?

 

 

Tam

 

He's a retired Engineer, where emergencies requiring specialist training occur with alarming frequency.

[Barry]

Obviously you have missed the irony, or perhaps just looking to derail the thread.

 

Allan r in my view has made this issue very personal, and I believe it should be on the forum for Alan f to have the opportunity of reply.

 

I also think you need to think and count to ten before posting.

 

Allan R has indeed made this issue very personal and it may well be for precisely this reason that Alan and Cath said that they did not want to discuss it further.

 

I think you know that - so your decision to dangle this "article" inviting Alan F to reply makes it look like you are in cahoots with Allan R in trying to stir up trouble.

 

I see Allan R's slant on this as quite vindictive and I think your action in starting this thread is also vindictive.

[Guest]

Allan R has indeed made this issue very personal and it may well be for precisely this reason that Alan and Cath said that they did not want to discuss it further.

 

I think you know that - so your decision to dangle this "article" inviting Alan F to reply makes it look like you are in cahoots with Allan R in trying to stir up trouble.

 

I see Allan R's slant on this as quite vindictive and I think your action in starting this thread is also vindictive.

Totally agree.....and not untypical.

[jenlyn]

 

Allan R has indeed made this issue very personal and it may well be for precisely this reason that Alan and Cath said that they did not want to discuss it further.

 

I think you know that - so your decision to dangle this "article" inviting Alan F to reply makes it look like you are in cahoots with Allan R in trying to stir up trouble.

 

I see Allan R's slant on this as quite vindictive and I think your action in starting this thread is also vindictive.

Well, your views on why I brought this to the forum are very very wrong.