Lifeboat Banned for Health & Safety — Three Hours After Rescue
MKFreeberg at House of Eratosthenes on Aug 16 2008 at 7:29 am | Filed under: Feature Article
Via Rottweiler, a sordid tale of rules trumping things they ought not. It involves a rescue boat, and it seems the time line looks like this:
June 11: General purpose semi-inflatable lifeboat at Hope Cove suspended from active service by the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency because of concerns about the structural integrity of the hull.
August 12: A 13-year-old schoolgirl is swept out to sea 150 yards. Hope Grove Station Officer Ian Pedrick asks the Coast Guard for permission to use the boat to rescue her, then loses radio contact.
What happens next is where it starts to get a little silly…
The four-strong crew braved heavy surf to help save the girl, but their courage was not appreciated by their bosses at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
Their boat has been confiscated and locked up, and their station officer and his crew, who are all volunteers, are now under investigation following the rescue.
Now villagers say a holidaymaker could die because of what they say are “health and safety rules gone mad”.
The boat had been taken out of service by the MCA in June because of fears about the safety of the hull, but the crew had paid £2,000 from their own funds to have it repaired.
It was left in the boathouse next to the beach at the village and was due for further inspection by health and safety officials from the MCA.
The boat has been in service without any problem for 15 years and has carried out 91 successful rescues between 2000 and 2005, and around ten a year in the two summers since.
The MCA spent around £10,000 buying the boat and £5,000 giving the 11 coastguards in the Hope Cove team specialist training in using it just two years ago.
I’m impressed that, if you read the original article to the end, you see some pencil-neck bureaucrat is dishing out some sound bite justifying this lunacy by saying “The health and safety of the boat crews and those who they may render assistance to is of paramount importance.” What a fascinating piece of logical warp this is. So let me get this straight — if the boat isn’t there, the swimmer dies, but of course the swimmer does not fall under the definition of “those who they may render assistance to” and so, in that manner, “those who they may render assistance to” are doing just great because the MCA had the wisdom and foresight to make sure this dead swimmer, who is dead, was not being rendered assistance.
I realize this is an imperfect analogy because when the boat caught up to the girl, it seems she was being rendered assistance by a diver. But I don’t really know what exactly that means. There is nothing in the article to indicate there was serious merit to these concerns over the hull integrity; the boat had been credited with over 91 rescues without any safety-related incident; and common sense seems to declare rather forcefully that a swimmer in trouble will have a much better chance with the boat than without it.
The operation was a complete success; the patient died.
Misha titles his own post “Let ‘er drown!” And that reminds me of a line from one of the greatest war movies ever made:
Aid: This is from General Alexander, sir…reminding you that you are not to take Palermo.
Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.: Send him a message, Cod. Ask him if he wants me to give it back.
[Discuss This Topic with MKFreeberg]
