The Trawler Gaul

RSS Feed Homepage

Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4

2006-12-20 10:16:03
For those who have tried to contact us without success I have a message:Big Brother is not only watching, but also interfering.

2006-12-20 10:16:03
"If I take refuge in ambiguity, I assure you that it's quite conscious" (1) In a recent message, the Treasury Solicitor writes: ?You have indicated that in your view the chutes were a design fault. This is your view but appears not to have been accepted as such by any of the retained experts.? Having contacted one of the retained experts, I learned that the design fault they had considered was in fact related to the difficulty of maintenance of the non-return flaps (2) (3), and that they had not identified or even seen, within the documentation that had been made available to them, any reference to a design fault in terms of inadequate strength of the inner covers and possible malfunction of the non-return flaps. There is definitely a difference in perception here. Could some occlusion of the communication lines between those involved in the 2004 investigation be the explanation for that?Anyway, that the vessel had a design fault in the construction and arrangement of the duff and ...

2006-12-20 10:16:03
UpdateThe other day I asked another retained expert the same question: did he identify or see any reference to a design fault, in terms of inadequate strength of the inner covers and possible malfunction of the non-return flaps on the Gaul, within the documentation that had been made available to him during the formal investigation? He seemed unsure about that...

2006-12-20 10:16:03
Aiming but not quite hittingOur relations with the Government are deteriorating. We have been trying to extract a comment from the DfT, on the vexed issue of the Gaul investigation, since the 4th of September. Up to this moment, no comment or justification for the lack of it has been offered.Nevertheless, DfT's statement on their service standards, which is published on their website, reads: "The Department is always pleased to receive comments about its work. We are happy to answer any queries and supply information about what we do. The services we offer to everyone who contacts us are:The Department will always try to be helpful. We will make a note of all comments given to us about our policies, and will make sure they reach the policy officials and Ministers concerned. " "We aim to reply to emails within 20 working days."

2006-12-20 10:16:03
House of Commons - Session 2005 - 06Part 2: Oral and Written Questions from Monday 23 October 2006(96868)280 Sandra Gidley (Romsey): 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)281 Sandra Gidley (Romsey): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what progress has been made towards the implementation of the formal safety recommendations arising from the F. V. Gaul Re-opened Formal Investigation.(96790)282 Sandra Gidley (Romsey): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether any evidence of a design fault in the construction and arrangement of the duff and offal chutes on the trawler F. V. Gaul was made available to the Wreck Commissioner during the 2004 investigation.(http://www.publications.pa rliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmordbk2/61023o01 .htm)

2006-12-20 10:16:03
Equivocation and other fallaciesThe Secretary of State for Transport has provided answers to the Parliamentary questions tabled last week. His answers are both evasive and incorrect.More about these later...

2006-12-20 10:16:03
Critical comments on the findings of the formal investigation into the loss of the trawler GaulFollowing a careful study of the report published at the end of the formal investigation (December 2004) into the sinking of the trawler Gaul (http://www.fv-gaul.org.uk/), several questions and objections 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 and this had an adverse effect upon the watertight integrity of the Gaul?s external hull envelope. The design defect: The duff and offal chute openings in the hull of the vessel were provided with a two-barrier closure system (i.e. the outer flap and inner cover), which was required to maintain the hull?s watertight integrity against...