nb flamingo. The other side?

[CDS]

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.

Surely in an emergency situation, people can and will do all sorts of things and anything else is supposition.

Painting David as James Bond serves no purpose,though to be fair you are on record as saying that most of

your posts are supposition.Its a blame culture and CRT have put some his way,I think the replacing of the bolts

does more for the Finchers case than anything else.Alan has been the victim of shoddy maintenance of a lock,

is he happy about the report? I guess not. Would it have been better processed as an accident rather than incident?

I guess that depends on what Alan wanted to achieve.I must agree with Jenlyn that he had a right to post as he did,

its his motives I question and I think the thread is poorer for Alan Finchers absence.

Edited December 3, 2015 by CDS

[adam1uk]

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 ...

 

It does not say the boat was over length. It says length was a factor -- which it was, as it explains why the Finchers put the boat on the gate. But it goes on to note that the lock is around 2ft longer than the boat.

 

You really should read what's actually there, not what you want to be there.

[Graham.m]

 

 

 

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

 

There are things one does outside of one's profession voluntarily that require specialist training with a frequent use of that training,

[jenlyn]

 

There are things one does outside of one's profession voluntarily that require specialist training with a frequent use of that training,

Are you a volunteer lockie?

[nicknorman]

Surely in an emergency situation, people can and will do all sorts of things and anything else is supposition.

Painting David as James Bond serves no purpose,though to be fair you are on record as saying that most of

your posts are supposition.

Yes it is supposition, and presented as a counterpoint to graham.m's presumption that he likely panicked. However one can often gain a sense of whether someone is a probable panicker, or cool and functional in a crisis. I saw it all the time in the simulator so I have some "history" in the matter. So supposition yes, but based on years of exposure to different people's reaction to a crisis and so not completely lacking in any information on which to make the supposition.

[CDS]

 

There are things one does outside of one's profession voluntarily that require specialist training with a frequent use of that training,

Your turning into a hero of mine,was that you at the storming of the Iranian Embassy swinging on the curtains?

Yes it is supposition, and presented as a counterpoint to graham.m's presumption that he likely panicked. However one can often gain a sense of whether someone is a probable panicker, or cool and functional in a crisis. I saw it all the time in the simulator so I have some "history" in the matter. So supposition yes, but based on years of exposure to different people's reaction to a crisis and so not completely lacking in any information on which to make the supposition.

Oh I see,simulated supposition.Is that the best kind?

Edited December 3, 2015 by CDS

[Barry]

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.

 

Then perhaps your OP would not have attracted so much criticism if you had plainly stated that you were not happy at the way Allan R or CRT had addressed it

 

Then there would have been no misunderstanding.

 

I was not protesting that you were wrong to start the topic (just for clarity even I don't give myself that right). I was criticising the way you started it

[Graham.m]

Attached are copies of the CRT files

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am glad that some of you have decided to attack me rather than either Allan or CRT. Shalom

Edited December 3, 2015 by Graham.m

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It does not say the boat was over length. It says length was a factor -- which it was, as it explains why the Finchers put the boat on the gate. But it goes on to note that the lock is around 2ft longer than the boat.

 

You really should read what's actually there, not what you want to be there.

The report clearly states that the boat is 2'8" longer than Nicholsons and 8" longer than stated on CaRT's website. I have pointed out that this is incorrect as CaRt's dimension guide does not give a figure for these locks.

 

Perhaps it is you that should read what is actually there ...

[jenlyn]

 

Then perhaps your OP would not have attracted so much criticism if you had plainly stated that you were not happy at the way Allan R or CRT had addressed it

 

Then there would have been no misunderstanding.

 

I was not protesting that you were wrong to start the topic (just for clarity even I don't give myself that right). I was criticising the way you started it

None of us are perfect.

I shall bear in mind your point.

[CDS]

None of us are perfect.

I shall bear in mind your point.

[BruceinSanity]

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.

Run out of greenies for today, have a virtual one.

 

I wouldn't click on an NBW link for any money.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Attached are copies of the CRT files

 

1.Original Incident Report.pdf

2.Final Report.pdf

3.Emails regarding Lock Gates Bolts.pdf

4.Photo of the Lock.pdf

 

I am glad that some of you have decided to attach me rather than either Allan or CRT. Shalom

Thanks for posting the links. Hopefully it will lead to a more informed discussion.

[ditchcrawler]

 

Oh I see,simulated supposition.Is that the best kind?

I have seen people doing good simulations almost in tears, sweating and almost throwing their hand in. Its unbelievable how people get engrossed into what is really play acting. You often see a different side of them.

[Ian Mac]

Can I ask a fundimental Question. (disclaimer I have not yet read all the new paperwork.) How do we know that the front of the boat hung on the projecting bolt? The reason I ask is there is another possibility, which locks fitted with these plates provide. That is if the gap between the plates is just right the stem iron traps in them and the boat hangs. The offline lock at the top of Cheshire locks be the bluebell is notorious for this trick, and even after warning people about it, it still can happen, seen it done! So on ispection of the photos I note the plate has been repositioned was this the real cause. The reason it becomes possible to happen is that the head timber wears over time allowing the stem iron into the Gap, so this is a maintenance problem.

--

Cheers Ian Mac

[Graham.m]

Can I ask a fundimental Question. (disclaimer I have not yet read all the new paperwork.) How do we know that the front of the boat hung on the projecting bolt? The reason I ask is there is another possibility, which locks fitted with these plates provide. That is if the gap between the plates is just right the stem iron traps in them and the boat hangs. The offline lock at the top of Cheshire locks be the bluebell is notorious for this trick, and even after warning people about it, it still can happen, seen it done! So on ispection of the photos I note the plate has been repositioned was this the real cause. The reason it becomes possible to happen is that the head timber wears over time allowing the stem iron into the Gap, so this is a maintenance problem.

--

Cheers Ian Mac

 

Because it is one of the facts accept by both sides, even where it hung on the lock gate is accepted

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It was not my decision to invite further discussion on here. I also respect Alan Fincher's decision not to comment further and the moderators decision to lock his single post to a new thread (although I must admit to not understanding why Alan saying he would not comment further meant that others were prevented from doing so!).

Perhaps we should start at the beginning. CaRT appear to accept that the boat hung up on a projection. CaRT's minimum safety standards (2d3) say that locks should be free of such protrusions.

Do people agree that CaRT has tried to hide this?

[Graham.m]

Your turning into a hero of mine,was that you at the storming of the Iranian Embassy swinging on the curtains?

 

Sorry I can't answer that No I only swung from trees

[Graham.m]

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.

 

Derek, I think that they have been through a hard time and come out of the otherside having hopefully achieved what they intended, that as far as possible others will be better served by the VLKs and things will be a little safer on the canals.

[Graham.m]

Or certified for short

 

Oh definitely certified I must be to spend cold days at the helm of a narrowboat

[Starcoaster]

It was not my decision to invite further discussion on here. I also respect Alan Fincher's decision not to comment further and the moderators decision to lock his single post to a new thread (although I must admit to not understanding why Alan saying he would not comment further meant that others were prevented from doing so!).

 

 

 

You wrote an NBW blog a piece entitled "son blamed for near sinking."

What on earth about that might possibly make you believe that further discussion on here wasn't plainly inevitable?

 

As for asking why others might be prevented from commenting after Alan asked for his statement to be locked?

May I refer you back once more to your "SON BLAMED FOR NEAR SINKING," you libelous liar. <Other words are available, all of them are swearing.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Starcoaster

[NilesMI]

What I don't understand is why CRT's final report states: "The length of the craft is a key factor in the incident."

 

There is a discrepancy between the length Alan F gives for the length of Flamingo in his incident report, and the length recorded on CRT's licence database.

 

It is fair enough for CRT to state that a boat length exceeds their stated maximum of 71.85' (71' 10.2") but only if that is, in fact, the case. CRT should have resolved the discrepancy and actually measured the boat, before deciding whether its length was a factor in the incident.

 

The other area of uncertainty is the question of where David F was before he took the initiative to open the top paddle. But CRT's report does accept the version given in Alan F's incident report, that David was on the boat. It says "When the skipper's son (Mr D Fincher) got off the boat, he ran to the top gate..."

 

Apart from not resolving the uncertainty about the boat length, CRT did identify the direct cause of the incident, which was the protruding bolt on the bottom gate. They also accept that according to his/her training the v-lockie should have dropped the paddle on the bottom gate immediately, which implicitly accepts Alan F's claim that he/she didn't.

 

As a result, I can't really argue with the recommendations they make in their final report, which address the things which most concerned me about the incident when Alan reported it here.

 

I think the standard of reporting of this serious matter on NBW is abysmal.

[Graham.m]

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.

 

Make no mistake nothing I referred to or information came from NBW or Allan Richards. It all came from CRT or from the family's published comments, from which I made my own mind up. All though if read fully and carefully it is all there in CRT's published papers.

 

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

 

Does that apply to you. Doesn't to me

[dmr]

What I don't understand is why CRT's final report states: "The length of the craft is a key factor in the incident."

 

There is a discrepancy between the length Alan F gives for the length of Flamingo in his incident report, and the length recorded on CRT's licence database.

 

 

Well this is strictly true, though it feels a bit like CaRT might be using the length as a bit of a diversion.

They appear to be trying quite hard to avoid saying that a VLK performed badly, and though I don't agree with this attitude, Ican see why an "organisation" might behave like this.

Its true because longer boats tend to stick their front up against the gate or "ride down the gate" whilst shorter boats put themselves in the middle of the lock. So a shorter boat would not have hit this problem. But.. riding the gate is NOT wrong, its a very sensible way for a longer boat to negotiate a lock whilst keeping clear of the cill.

 

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

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Well this is strictly true, though it feels a bit like CaRT might be using the length as a bit of a diversion.

They appear to be trying quite hard to avoid saying that a VLK performed badly, and though I don't agree with this attitude, Ican see why an "organisation" might behave like this.

Its true because longer boats tend to stick their front up against the gate or "ride down the gate" whilst shorter boats put themselves in the middle of the lock. So a shorter boat would not have hit this problem. But.. riding the gate is NOT wrong, its a very sensible way for a longer boat to negotiate a lock whilst keeping clear of the cill.

 

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

It is certainly my view that CaRT is using length as a diversion.

 

it is also true that they have failed to comment on the assertion that the VLK failed to drop a paddle twice when requested and appeared completely ignorant of the need to do so.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)