Directory —
Technology —
Blog Details for "The Trawler Gaul"
The Trawler GaulThe Trawler GaulDisclosures and criticism of the formal investigation held into the sinking of the vessel Articles2007-01-12 10:33:01 The third round of Parliamentary Questions and Answers8 January 2007?I?ve got my mind made up so don?t confuse me with the facts!?In December last year the Lib Dem MP for Romsey, Sandra Gidley, tabled another set of questions to Parliament. These were meant to shed some light on the vexed issues of the Gaul, which, after previous parliamentary enquiries, still remained unclear. Sandra Gidley?s requests for information, received by the tabling office on 19 December 2006, subsequently morphed into a slightly different set of questions and were answered by the minister for transport on the 8th of January. (The document published HERE shows both versions as well as the ministerial answers.)If we compare the last question on the Gaul, submitted to the tabling office in December, with its published version [113499], we cannot help noticing that the formerly closed, narrowly drawn question, meant to elicit an unambiguous 'yes or no' reply, turned into an open-ended inquiry, which allowed... 2007-01-02 22:26:02 The Gaul - 2007Many thanks to all those who have followed us through 2006 to 2007, and a Happy New Year!After a short break we are now back on track:>>> For a short refresher on the Gaul case, please follow this LINK or return HERE.>>> A more comprehensive and explicit version of our initial posting (?Critical comments on the findings of the Re-Opened Formal Investigation into the loss of the trawler Gaul?) can be viewed HERENow, having diagrammatically represented the various possible reasons as to why the outer non-return flaps in the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul were found in the open position during the 2002 underwater survey (click HERE to view the diagram), we can show that there are other alternatives to the explanation laid down by justice David Steel during the 2004 RFI.The tree diagram at the above link also shows that the explanation for the loss of the Gaul, chosen by the investigation panel, was, on the basis of evidence, not the most plausible one either.What ... 2007-01-02 22:26:02 Critical comments on the findings of the Re-Opened Formal Investigation (RFI) into the loss of the trawler GaulFollowing a careful study of the report into the loss of the trawler Gaul published in December 2004, at the end of the RFI, (http://www.fv-gaul.org.uk/), a number of questions and objections as to its content and conclusions arise. In essence, the inquiry concluded that human error on the part of the crew, shore maintenance staff and the vessel's owners was the cause of the vessel's loss. In this post, it is suggested that what actually led to loss of the vessel was a design fault in the construction and arrangements of the duff and offal chute openings and their means of closure. The RFI conclusions in briefThat the Gaul capsized and sank in severe weather following undetected seawater ingress into the factory space. The water entered this space through two hull side chute openings[1].That each of these two hull side chute openings had two means of closure: an outer non... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 The Formal Investigation John Prescott (upper) & Justice David Steel (lower) Attorney Generall- Lord GoldsmithWe will be responding soon to the letter received from the Department for Transport 2006-12-20 10:16:03 Sister VesselsYesterday we received a letter from the DfT purporting to answer our previous queries. We will publish it on this site and comment on its contents shortly. For starters, we are addressing the department?s inference that there was no design defect on the Gaul, because the sister vessels, with the same design, did not sink.?? it should be remembered that the FV Gaul and her sister ships were built under Lloyd?s approval, with the same duff and offal chutes design. On the sister ships these chutes survived under similar conditions and were retained until the end of their service.? (Letter from the DfT dated 07.11.06)The above comments imply that the duff and offal chutes gave satisfactory trouble free service throughout the lives of the sister vessels. A closer look into this matter shows that, in fact, this is not quite the case: The Gaul had three sister vessels: Arab, Kelt and Kurd. These vessels are still in service, but none is currently working as a trawler.Availabl... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 New Parliamentary Questions and Answers (part 1.)1 November 2006Torremolinos ConventionSandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ratify the International Marine Organisation?s Torremolinos Convention. [97992]Dr. Ladyman: European Directive 97/70/EC implemented a harmonised safety regime based on the 1993 Torremolinos Protocol. The safety standards were subsequently enhanced by Directive 2002/35/EC. The Government consider these standards exceed the requirements of the Protocol and that its ratification is therefore no longer necessary.Gadfly: It is suggested that there are three reasons why the UK should attach more importance to the 1977 Convention and 1993 Protocol: 1. Safety: There are about 24,000 fatalities in the world fishing industry annually. While the UK fishing fleet meets the safety provisions that are required by the Torremolinos Convention, failure to ratify this Convention at the International level contributes to the fact that s... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 New Parliamentary Questions and Answers (part 2.)1 Nov 2006 FV GaulSandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will examine recent evidence and decide whether the formal investigation into the loss of the FV Gaul should be re-opened. [97993]Dr. Ladyman: The Re-opened formal investigation into the loss of the FV Gaul was conducted with unprecedented thoroughness. The evidence was scrutinised by leading experts in the fields of oceanography, naval architecture and engineeringThere is no reason to doubt the outcome of the expert analysis that led to the RFI?s conclusions, and consequently there is no reason to reopen the investigation.(Letter from DfT 7.11.06): The investigation was conducted with unprecedented thoroughness on behalf of the FV Gaul?s crew, her master and mate, and the Department for Transport (DfT). The evidence ? which included video footage of the wreck, as well as new model tests carried out at MARIN in the Netherlands ? was scrutinised by leadi... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 Do you have any problem with the truth?http://audio.xanga.com/gadflynest/b 456d210520/audio.html 2006-12-20 10:16:03 Nose-thumbingAs the reply from the DfT (see HERE) failed to reveal the scientific arguments behind the Department's decision to disregard 'new' evidence of a design fault on the Gaul, and to ignore calls for re-opening the investigation, I telephoned the Treasury Solicitior to find out his latest views on the subject.Two months after he had become aware of the evidence in question (so as not to say four years), the Treasury Solicitor still appeared incredulous towards our claim that the findings of the RFI were unsound, and professed, once again, his unshaken belief in the merits of the formal investigation. Showing that he was far too wordly-wise to be driven down a conversational cul-de-sac, my interlocutor skilfully managed to avoid either accepting our suggestions or providing technical counter-arguments by way of rebuttal.And, to prove that he had more than one arrow in his advocatorial bow, he now informed me that the criticism we had expressed towards the RFI could not be ... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 Comments from MAIBWe have received a response from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. Please see HERE. 2006-12-20 10:16:03 What is this all about?The Hull trawler Gaul sank in 1974 with the loss of all 36 crew. The wreck was located in 1997, surveyed in 1998 and 2002; and, in 2004, a formal investigation concluded that the vessel had capsized due to flooding through the duff and offal chutes, which had all been left open by the crew.The panel tasked with conducting the formal investigation were prepared to consider a multitude of other possible causes for the loss of the vessel, including the most spectacular: ?? seizure, scuttling, fire, collision, explosion, missile attack, torpedo attack, striking a mine, icing, cargo shift, structural failure, grounding, snagging a seabed cable or a submarine??But not an obvious design defect in the construction and arrangement of the vessel?s waste disposal chutes!!We can now disclose that the design fault that has been discussed at length on these pages is not in fact new evidence. This had been revealed to the government some time ago, in fact, prior to the MAIB?... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 The Design DefectFor a pictorial explanation of the design defect on the Gaul, please follow this link: http://webzoom.freewebs.com/inconvenientc itizen/Gaul%20design%20fault.pdf 2006-12-20 10:16:03 Shiptalk.com - the world's leading seafarer's portal - have kindly published some of our comments on their site. These and other interesting articles can be accessed at: http://www.shiptalk.com/index.asp?ItemID= 1268&rcid=160&pcid=139&ci d=160'#anch 2006-12-20 10:16:03 Spelling it outThose who are interested in a more inclusive and incisive summary of the Gaul case and its latest developments can read the article published on a New Zealand news website: The Scoop, optimistically entitled: The Sinking Of The Trawler Gaul ? Case Reopened. 2006-12-20 10:16:03 E-petitionAn e-petition has been lodged at No.10, requesting the PM to:"To instruct the Secretary of State for Transport to examine recently revealed evidence regarding the loss of the trawler Gaul, as per the requirements of the 1995 Merchant Shipping Act, para. 269.-(1), and either decide to re-open the formal investigation or present clear technical arguments for dismissing this evidence. To introduce legislation aimed to safeguard the independence of maritime accident investigations from political and commercial influence."If you support the goals of this petition and do not consider it a risky business or an exercise in futility, please add your signature on the form that is published at: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/marine-acciden ts/(We will be signing it shortly. >:-)) 2006-12-20 10:16:03 The gentle art of evasionAnxious as ever to alleviate our concerns about the formal investigation into the sinking of the Gaul, we have continued to press the DfT for their views on the technical paper that we had provided and their scientific arguments for dismissing this evidence of a design fault on the Gaul.The reply from the DfT eventually came (we have published it HERE) and it states: ?The report to which your e-mails refers is a document without attribution from a named individual with recognised qualifications and cannot be considered to be either new and important evidence or grounds for suspecting a miscarriage of justice under this Section.? (i.e. Section 269 to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995)The above paragraph gives a gentle hint, from the Department, that the issues raised in the technical paper do not in fact constitute new evidence; so we will take this as our cue to publish a fragment from one of the items of correspondence, now in our possession, which can, perhap... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 Letter from the Department for Transport We have recently received an emailed reply from the Department for Transport (DfT):http://www.freewebs.com/inconvenien tcitizen/dftletter7nov.htmThe reply was of unattributed authorship and did not bear the usual DfT logo and header. Anyway, we assume that its contents would have been given some form of ministerial approval prior to dispatch. The response was entirely as expected, apart from the disappointment of having taken nearly eight weeks to draw up. The reply fails to address the design fault issue that was put forward in our paper, but merely reiterates the conclusions of the RFI. The DfT also carefully avoids to comment on whether this fault in the duff and offal chutes has been examined (either prior, during or subsequent to the 2004 investigation). Now, we would like, in our turn, to comment on some of the points that are made by the Department: ?The investigation was conducted with unprecedented thoroughness???. The evidence??? was... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 The Sergeant Schultz SyndromeI have been in touch with a senior Maritime Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) source, who had been involved in the preparation of the Gaul case prior to the 2004 formal investigation. Asked whether the MAIB had provided information to the wreck commissioner (i.e justice david steel) in respect of the patent design defect in the construction and arrangement of the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul, he would say neither Yes nor No. As to the pre-investigation deliberations that had taken place between MAIB and other experts on the subject of the faults in the construction of the chutes he had no clear recollection.Whilst in other cases the MAIB would collect evidence and provide analysis on the causes and circumstances of a marine accident, in the Gaul case, I am told, the MAIB provided the documentary evidence, but left the government?s retained experts to formulate their own conclusions. The MAIB, my interlocutor said, was in a difficult situation v... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 Questions on answers or How to communicate economicallySandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the total cost of investigations and inquiries into the loss of the F. V. Gaul in 2006 prices. [96789]Dr. Ladyman: The total cost to the Department of investigations and inquiries into the loss of the FV Gaul was £6.5 million. No adjustment has been made for 2006 prices.Gadfly: Perhaps Dr Ladyman should know that the Original Formal Investigation was concluded in 1974. There appear to be some items missing from the above list. The total costs to the Department should also have included:1. the costs of the stability and seakeeping investigations and model tests carried out for the Department by NMI and YARD between 1975 and 1978 estimated at £75,000 (in 1976 prices)2. the costs of the two reports by Roger Clarke published in 2000. Stated to have cost the Department £50,000 at that time3. additionally, the costs of 32 years of governmental time... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 The "Accidents and Agenda" report published by the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2005 explores the ways in which the processes of accident investigation may be improved with the aim of preventing the re-occurrence of similar incidents in the future. http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications /list/reports/Accidents_and_Agenda.pdf 2006-12-20 10:16:03 "18.17... it is now necessary to focus on the important and central feature of the vessel in this case, the duff and offal chutes. In this connection, it is important to note that although both chutes were found on the wreck to be open both in way of the non-return flap and the internal top cover, there is no known mechanical reason why this was so." (Report of the Re-opened Formal Investigation into the Loss of the FV Gaul)(!) 2006-12-20 10:16:03 The research into the outcome of the Gaul formal inquiry was carried out by a naval architect who is currently employed by the UK government (i.e. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency). For some time now, he and his family have been subjected to close monitoring and various acts of intimidation. It is, of course, regrettable that a challenge to the results of this inquiry could have serious implications for those directly involved in the case, but, considering also the implications of leaving things as they are, such regrets cannot be a good enough reason for remaining silent. 2006-12-20 10:16:03 MENTIONI have been alerted to the fact that the information presented on this blog and on the related website (www.freewebs.com/inconvenientcitizen) has been taken over by a freelance media outlet.While this is perfectly OK with us, we would like to advise that any claim, mention or allusion to exclusivity by any media representative would be totally inaccurate and misleading. Further information on the issues presented on our websites will continue to be freely available to anyone interested in the subject. 2006-12-20 10:16:03 A press article slipped though through the net: "Gaul tragedy: new probe call" - interesting read and update. 2006-12-20 10:16:03 Improbable impossibilityAn extract from the Report of the Re-opened Formal Investigation into the loss of the FV Gaul:"21.1 What was or were the probable cause or causes of the loss of the GAUL?A sudden and rapid accumulation of water on the factory deck, (...)21.2 What possible causes can be eliminated by the evidence which is now available?All other causes including, seizure, scuttling, fire, collision, explosion, missile attack, torpedo attack, striking a mine, icing, cargo shift,structural failure, grounding, snagging a seabed cable or a submarine.21.3 What other possible causes remain open?None."By definition, probable is something likely to happen but not certain. What is not absolutely certain leaves room for other possibilities. Therefore other possibilities (i.e."all other causes") cannot be eliminated. ***"There is no use in trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things.""I dare say you haven't much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always di... 2006-12-20 10:16:03 The Correspondence page on our website: www.freewebs.com/inconvenientcitizen has been updated. 2006-12-20 10:16:03 As I write these lines, Mr Laurance O'Dea (the Treasury Solicitor) is investigating. He is looking into, I am told, the evidence regarding the design defect in the construction of the Gaul and the alternative explanation for the loss of the vessel, which were published on our website (www.freewebs.com/inconvenientcitizen) and mentioned in the Lancashire press. Why did this not happen during the 2004 formal investigation is something that may also be worth investigating. Anyway, we hope that, this time round, our concerns will receive due attention and we wish Mr Laurance O'Dea good luck. 1, 2, 3, 4 |
