nb flamingo. The other side?

[Starcoaster]

David Fincher would not have panicked, and anyone who wants to say otherwise or conjecture so without even knowing him needs to check themselves pronto.

There is so much bullcrap flying around about this incident thanks to Allan Richard's general abysmal clickbait falsehood it is unreal.

 

I suggest that Richards has single-handedly done boaters as a whole as massive disservice, as next time, people simply won't bother to try to give others a heads up of problems as a result, and I hope that everyone realises this.

The Finchers said all they're going to, and frankly I am surprised they even bothered with reporting back at all, giving the amount of shit NBW and Richards has caused for them, and seems determined to continue to do so.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Starcoaster

[Laurence Hogg]

 

Talk about sh*t stirring!!

 

What Allan Richards has failed to appreciate is that CRT requires that you licence your boat for the overall length, including fenders and projecting rudders. So it is quite reasonable for a boat with a bare hull length of 71' 8" to have a length of 72' 8" for licencing purposes.

 

How can a GU built motor suddenly stretch to 72ft 8", when it was built to 71ft 6" ? ? ? Fenders do not count the vessel length is the length of the hull. CRT are wrong in using those figures.

[Tuscan]

I think we need to look beyond the Boater it's not about the personalities. If the lock keeper had not been there what would have been the outcome ? If a similar situation occurred to a hire boat or an inexperienced boater what would be their reasonable expectation of the volunteer lock keeper in CRTs uniform. Do the results of CRTs investigation make this clearer?

[Laurence Hogg]

 

I can see email discussion between CRT and Allan Richards in relation to this incident, but I can't see the actual report referred to.

 

Ditto, cannot find it.

[Starcoaster]

Length with and without fenders accounts for the difference. You are supposed to pay your licence by length with normal fenders deployed.

As the Finchers said previously, they took their fenders up before doing the flight, and there is even an image taken shortly beforehand showing this.

GodIdontknowwhyImbotheringtryingtoexplaininnacuraciesinaNBWpieceImayaswellpissintothewind.

[Tuscan]

Ditto, cannot find it.

The link is in my post 21 above

[Laurence Hogg]

 

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

 

Well put Tam, totally agree. Bits of paper = little experience imho.

[dmr]

And as for doing the wrong thing by opening the paddle at the wrong end.......

I have been in a not disimilar situation (but going up) . The boat is close to sinking and a lot of things run thru your head very quickly, the correct CaRT procedure probably not the most important. In my case I was thinking "top and bottom paddles have gearboxes, I know I should close the top paddle but getting a bottom paddle a bit open will be quicker than getting a top paddle fully closed...and will shift more water".

In Davids case he might just have thought "I need to close that bottom paddle quickly but there's a stroppy VLK in the way who might try to stop me". Who knows?, it might even have been a subconcious decision. Emergency procedures are good, but its hard to have a general procedure that fits every emergency.

 

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

[Tisinca]

Length with and without fenders accounts for the difference. You are supposed to pay your licence by length with normal fenders deployed.

As the Finchers said previously, they took their fenders up before doing the flight, and there is even an image taken shortly beforehand showing this.

GodIdontknowwhyImbotheringtryingtoexplaininnacuraciesinaNBWpieceImayaswellpissintothewind.

just wondering , how many people on the forum pay for the length of their boat including fenders. ??

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Ditto, cannot find it.

 

Step 1 = click this link, https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/canal_river_trust

 

Step 2 = let the link open the "What do they know page, scroll down to the title in Blue "Flamingo Incident Report"

 

Step 3 = click on the 'blue' writing "Flamingo Incident report"

 

Step 4 = scroll down until you get 4 options (Original report / Final report / Emails / Photos)

 

Step 5 = Click on option 2 Final report "Download"

 

Job done.

[dmr]

just wondering , how many people on the forum pay for the length of their boat including fenders. ??

 

or how many people actualy know how long their boat is?

I had mine for a few years before I had a need to check the length.

 

and hypothetically only, if my boat is longer than it should be should I tell CaRT now that they are inferring that If I have a lock accident it might be partly my fault because my boat is too long?

 

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

[Derek Porteous]

I had the privilege of sharing locks with Alan, Cath and David this year on the Wigan Flight. I have no doubt about the veracity of Alan's statements in previous threads or the competency of David having seen at first hand the way he helped out an inexperienced crew on the boat in front of us. I suspect that the whole family will be very sad about the way this incident has been spun. Hopefully they will put it behind them and I look forward to meeting them on the cut again.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Derek Porteous

[Allan(nb Albert)]

you can read CRTs review and recommendations below and draw your own conclusions, credit to them for taking the Finchers complaint seriously

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/flamingo_incident_report?nocache=incoming-738929#incoming-738929

 

Where I do agree with NBW is that conclusion should have been :

 

1. In all cases immediately drop all panels to stop the flow of water.

2. Refill lock, slowly if safe and appropriate to do so.

3. Always put personal safety over property.

It was actually an incident report rather than a complaint. This gave CaRT the freedom to deal with it how they wished.

 

I suspect if a complaint had been made along the lines of -

 

 

I wish to complain that a lock does not meet CaRT's minimum safety standards. This resulted in my boat hanging up. I further wish to complain that a VLK twice refused to lower a paddle when requested to do so despite this being this being the recommended action in the boaters handbook to deal with this situation.

 

- the outcome would have been completely different.

 

It is rather a pity that CaRT's report did not acknowledge that the lock failed to meet its own safety standards or accept that the approved procedure was not adopted for dealing with the emergency by both VLK and David Fincher ...

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Barry]

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

 

Would you explain why you brought it to the forum then please? I don't like misunderstanding something.

 

Perhaps it would have have been helpful if you had explained why in your OP

[CDS]

 

Would you explain why you brought it to the forum then please? I don't like misunderstanding something.

 

Perhaps it would have have been helpful if you had explained why in your OP

You have the motive right already Barry,perhaps like me you haven't spotted the " irony"

[Laurence Hogg]

Going back to the dimensions CRT states, looking back at the old BWB cruising booklet No9 published in the 60's the stated length for a boat Hawkesbury to Braunston is 72ft. I doubt Nicholsons have been out with a tape measure but I bet old BWB knew the correct size. If CRT bothered to look into their own archives they might get things correct.

[Barry]

You have the motive right already Barry,perhaps like me you haven't spotted the " irony"

 

 

The irony is that I have now invited Jenlyn to explain himself in much the same way that he has "invited" Alan F to explain.

[jenlyn]

 

Would you explain why you brought it to the forum then please? I don't like misunderstanding something.

 

Perhaps it would have have been helpful if you had explained why in your OP

I have already explained several posts back. I don't see the need to repeat it merely to appease your rather wayward thoughts.

Frankly, I am happy with the reason I posted it, (but naturally did not expect everyone to feel the same).

 

CWDF is I am often reminded, a forum for debate.

Edited December 3, 2015 by jenlyn

[CDS]

It was actually an incident report rather than a complaint. This gave CaRT the freedom to deal with it how they wished.

 

I suspect if a complaint had been made along the lines of -

 

 

- the outcome would have been completely different.

 

It is rather a pity that CaRT's report did not acknowledge that the lock failed to meet its own safety standards or accept that the approved procedure was not adopted for dealing with the emergency by both VLK and David Fincher ...

 

I think you are drilling into the detail now,when you speak of accident or incident.Its a personal opinion

but I believe Alan was if anything,to gentlemanly in his dealings with CRT regarding the incident.

Some may say "well it concerned him so its his call" and I understand that.Would it have gone better

with all guns blazing?

[Starcoaster]

It was actually an incident report rather than a complaint. This gave CaRT the freedom to deal with it how they wished.

 

I suspect if a complaint had been made along the lines of -

 

 

- the outcome would have been completely different.

 

It is rather a pity that CaRT's report did not acknowledge that the lock failed to meet its own safety standards or accept that the approved procedure was not adopted for dealing with the emergency by both VLK and David Fincher ...

 

 

I'm amazed you have the gall to post here. I stand by what I said earlier in this thread, you have singlehandedly ensured that a huge number of boaters will no longer share information publicly for fear of falling prey to your particular style of personal vendetta, and its publication via falsehood on the vanity blog that you are associated with.

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of libel any more than you do the meaning of journalism.

 

You're a disgrace.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Starcoaster

[AMModels]

Going back to the dimensions CRT states, looking back at the old BWB cruising booklet No9 published in the 60's the stated length for a boat Hawkesbury to Braunston is 72ft. I doubt Nicholsons have been out with a tape measure but I bet old BWB knew the correct size. If CRT bothered to look into their own archives they might get things correct.

Couldnt agree more, I was shocked to read CRT try and say these locks arent of a size suitable for full length working boats. Theyve only been using them since the canal was first built. In the case of Flamingo 80 years of using those locks would suggest size had nothing to do with the matter at all.

 

 

I'm amazed you have the gall to post here. I stand by what I said earlier in this thread, you have singlehandedly ensured that a huge number of boaters will no longer share information publicly for fear of falling prey to your particular style of personal vendetta and falsehoods and its publication on the vanity blog you are associated with.

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of libel any more than you do the meaning of journalism.

 

You're a disgrace.

Virtual greenie

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Going back to the dimensions CRT states, looking back at the old BWB cruising booklet No9 published in the 60's the stated length for a boat Hawkesbury to Braunston is 72ft. I doubt Nicholsons have been out with a tape measure but I bet old BWB knew the correct size. If CRT bothered to look into their own archives they might get things correct.

As I posted earlier in another thread, CaRT do not actually give a length for Hillmorton Locks in the dimensions guide (see bottom of page 29).

 

However, this did not stop CaRT from suggesting that Flamingo was over length ...

 

[Barry]

I have already explained several posts back. I don't see the need to repeat it merely to appease your rather wayward thoughts.

Frankly, I am happy with the reason I posted it, (but naturally did not expect everyone to feel the same).

 

CWDF is I am often reminded, a forum for debate.

 

I presume you mean your post 41

 

That being so...Knowing that Alan F has already clearly stated that he will not discuss it further your decision that he should do so is what? disrespectful at best - supreme arrogance at worst in that you have decided that Alan's wishes are irrelevant

[nicknorman]

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.[/size]

Panic implies a degree of dysfunctionality. Whilst no-one knows anyone else's state of mind, I do know David or at least have "seen him around" and know how he operates. I would say that in an emergency situation he would act with urgency, both mentally and physically, in order to resolve the situation expeditiously. I can't see him as the type to panic, because he is a logical chap and knows that panic causes dysfunctionality and is thus unproductive.

[jenlyn]

 

I presume you mean your post 41

 

That being so...Knowing that Alan F has already clearly stated that he will not discuss it further your decision that he should do so is what? disrespectful at best - supreme arrogance at worst in that you have decided that Alan's wishes are irrelevant

I feel it needs discussion. I am not happy at the way Crt or Allan r have addressed it. This is a boating forum, where discussion on boating issues are relevant. This particular issue is in my view worthy of debate.

I appreciate your views, but find your "arrogance" remark needless and quite frankly rude.

I am sorry to say, you do not own the right to decide who starts what topic, you do however own the right to decide if you wish to participate.