Another small observation

The 2004 Formal Investigation into the sinking of the FV Gaul concluded, as we all know by now, that the cause for the loss of the vessel was the ingress of a large quantity of seawater through the two duff and offal chutes openings in the hull of the vessel.
The double-barrier protections of these openings – the inner covers and the outer flaps - were found to be in the open position during the underwater survey in 2002.
The fact that the outer flaps were found open, the investigation concluded, was due to seizure caused by corrosion in the vessel’s 16 month old flap hinges and failure on the part of the crew and shore maintenance staff to identify and rectify this problem.
The fact that the inner covers were also found open was explained away by crew negligence. However, the trouble with these findings (as we have attempted to explain in our earlier posts) is that they were based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

Let’s take, this time, the presumed corrosion at the flap hinges. (For a few more details on this issue please click HERE.)
As the same combination of materials, mild steel and brass, had been used in a number of other structures on the Gaul (e.g. for the toggles and clips on all weathertight hatches and doors), one would expect similar corrosion problems in those areas.
In reality, though, this doesn’t seem to be the case.
Quite the reverse, as the following clips[1] show, even after 28 years under the sea, the toggles and clips on the Gaul did not present such a level of corrosion and seizure that would prevent them from being easily unscrewed by the ROV[2] arm.

.......................................................
[1] Extracts from the 2002 MAIB video footage - © Crown copyright
[2] Remote Operated Vehicle

weathertight hatch mild-steel clips & brass bush

weathertight hatch brass toggle & steel toggle bolt


weathertight hatch brass toggle & steel toggle bolt

Institutional Independence

The smell of fish and bilge water

In the period between 17 and 24 January, two emails were sent to justice David Steel (the Chief of the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation into the sinking of the FV Gaul) and two emails were received from the judge's office in reply.

These items of correspondence were concerned with the very same question that had not quite made it to the Parliament Question Book earlier this year, and which was now addressed to the judge:
Was any evidence of design inadequacies in the construction and arrangements of the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul, specifically relating to:
a. The non-return flaps and their possibility of malfunction (i.e. to open under the action of the sea)
b. The strength of the inner covers when subjected to direct sea loading,

presented to you prior to the publication of your final report on the Investigation on 17 December 2004?"

A simple ‘yes' or ‘no’ from the judge, who acted as solicitor on behalf of the Insurers back in 1978, then as Chief of the Investigation in 2004 and was therefore in the best position to know the answer, would have sufficed.

Sadly, however, we were not meant to get either.

A new article entitled: "Ministers face quiz over Gaul" was published today in the Yorkshire Post.

Let's hope that the Labour MP for Hull East had time to read it.

.........................

and another one: "Call to reopen Gaul Inquiry" appeared in Hull Daily Mail

BRIEF INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY OF THE GAUL CASE AND ITS RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

The third round of Parliamentary Questions and Answers - part 2

‘Attention to detail’

The fourth parliamentary question that was addressed to the Secretary of State for Transport concerned the mode and date of implementation of the four safety recommendations arising from the F. V. Gaul Re-opened Formal Investigation.

The Minister’s latest response to this question was very eloquent and reassuring, but, alas, it was also factually incorrect and misleading. The four formal safety recommendations from the RFI have not as yet been implemented and, had it not been for this recent enquiry, it is unlikely that they would have ever been tackled.

One of the principle faults with the Minister’s response, however, is the fact that he seemed to have opened the RFI Report at the wrong page… (!!) that is, he has copied and responded to text from page 280 of the Report, which does not in fact contain the four formal safety recommendations - these are actually detailed on pages 286 and 287 of the formal document.

To assist matters we have reproduced the four safety recommendations together with our further comments on the Minister’s response at this LINK.

The third round of Parliamentary Questions and Answers - part 1

8 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 the minister enough “wriggle room” to answer as he pleased and keep control of the flow of information. The change of wording from “whether any evidence of design inadequacies, in the construction and arrangements of the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul, relating to: a. The non-return flaps and their possibility of malfunction (i.e. to open under the action of the sea) b. The strength of the inner covers when subjected to direct sea loading, was made available to the Wreck Commissioner...” to “what evidence of design inadequacies in the construction and arrangements of the duff and offal chutes on the Gaul was made available to the wreck commissioner” enabled the minister to get easily off the hook.

The WHAT questions, as any sales professional will be able to confirm, notoriously invite digression.

We must, however, admit that, although open-ended, the question was a lot better than the answer we got. In his reply, Dr Stephen Ladyman kept to the official line and offered nothing extra to what he had stated before. (see the Parliamentary Questions and Answers of 25 October 2006 and 1 November 2006)

And the answer, my friend, is still blowin’ in the wind.

Another design fault

In our previous post we provided a LINK to a factor tree diagram, which presented the various alternative explanations as to why the outer non-return flaps in the duff and offal chutes were found in the open position during the 2002 underwater survey on the Gaul.

We have also published a simple pictorial explanation of the PRIMARY DESIGN FAULT in the vessel's chutes.

Now we are publishing a document, which reveals a second design fault in the construction of these chutes (please click SECOND DESIGN FAULT to view it).

This additional design fault, demonstrated in the above-mentioned paper, gives weight to the possibility that the bolted flap assemblies within the duff and offal chutes became twisted due to wave loading and remained open thereafter. (See item (14) on the factor tree diagram).

Are the conclusions arrived at by the Gaul investigation panel (i.e. that the vessel’s chutes had been left open by the crew and shore staff for 59 days before the accident occurred) supported by any credible proof?

We would be interested to hear it.

The Gaul - 2007

Many 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 HERE

Now, 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 hindered the exploratory abilities of the investigators? - We wonder...