Concerns raised 3 Lack of evidence that other breakwater deterrence measures are effective View source Dangerous jumping from and water around the breakwater View source Lack of lifeguard cover at the breakwater during higher-risk spring and summer periods View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
DAVID CHIAKA EJIMOFOR · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
DAVID CHIAKA EJIMOFOR, aged 15, drowned after jumping into the sea from a breakwater at Aberavon on 19 June 2023. The principal concerns were the absence of lifeguards during higher-risk periods, despite their historical use to deter jumping, and the lack of evidence that alternative deterrence measures were effective.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of evidence that other breakwater deterrence measures are effective
Wider context from the report “(1) There are no lifeguards stationed at the breakwater during higher risk periods in the spring and summer months (when the weather is good and the tides high), when children and young people have been seen/known to jump into the water from it.
(2) Jumping from, and the water around, the breakwater is known to be dangerous.
(3) The practice of placing a lifeguard at the breakwater at times of higher risk in the spring and summer months (when the weather is good and the tides high) had been in place historically and was known to be effective at reducing the risk.
(4) I was not given, in evidence, a satisfactory or cogent explanation as to why that measure had been removed prior to DAVID’s death, nor why that measure continues to be absent today.
(5) Nor was I shown any evidence that other deterrence measures put in place since DAVID’s death (including clearer signage and a limited-height barrier) are otherwise working effectively to reduce the risk.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Dangerous jumping from and water around the breakwater
Wider context from the report “(1) There are no lifeguards stationed at the breakwater during higher risk periods in the spring and summer months (when the weather is good and the tides high), when children and young people have been seen/known to jump into the water from it.
(2) Jumping from, and the water around, the breakwater is known to be dangerous.
(3) The practice of placing a lifeguard at the breakwater at times of higher risk in the spring and summer months (when the weather is good and the tides high) had been in place historically and was known to be effective at reducing the risk.
(4) I was not given, in evidence, a satisfactory or cogent explanation as to why that measure had been removed prior to DAVID’s death, nor why that measure continues to be absent today.
(5) Nor was I shown any evidence that other deterrence measures put in place since DAVID’s death (including clearer signage and a limited-height barrier) are otherwise working effectively to reduce the risk.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of lifeguard cover at the breakwater during higher-risk spring and summer periods
Wider context from the report “(1) There are no lifeguards stationed at the breakwater during higher risk periods in the spring and summer months (when the weather is good and the tides high) , when children and young people have been seen/known to jump into the water from it.
(2) Jumping from, and the water around, the breakwater is known to be dangerous.
(3) The practice of placing a lifeguard at the breakwater at times of higher risk in the spring and summer months (when the weather is good and the tides high) had been in place historically and was known to be effective at reducing the risk.
(4) I was not given, in evidence, a satisfactory or cogent explanation as to why that measure had been removed prior to DAVID’s death, nor why that measure continues to be absent today.
(5) Nor was I shown any evidence that other deterrence measures put in place since DAVID’s death (including clearer signage and a limited-height barrier) are otherwise working effectively to reduce the risk.
” Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Conduct and complete a signage, fencing and barrier review, including risk assessment of deterrence options.
Verbatim wording from the response “We will seek to respond to the point of deterrence measures (including signage and a limited height barrier) that has been raised by the Coroner's concerns and to identify any changes to signage, barriers and/or fencing at the breakwater to mitigate the risk of any future death by undertaking a signage, fencing and barrier review and implementing any necessary actions identified by such review. The review has commenced and will risk assess each option to ensure that by reducing one risk it does not create another. The initial review is anticipated to be concluded by the end of” Source location Response from ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Repeat and disseminate a water-danger awareness communication through media including Instagram.
Verbatim wording from the response “Associated British Ports are repeating this summer an awareness communication that has been run in previous summers warning of the dangers of water. The communication is posted on various media to include Instagram.” Source location Response from ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS
Open published response
Concerns raised 12 Limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code to high-speed passenger craft View source Lack of proper protection for passengers and crew from impact and vibration hazards View source Non-uniform risk management for high-speed rides View source Confusing and inconsistent requirements and guidance for small-craft operators View source Insufficient crewing for lookout and skipper workload control View source Delays in revising codes of practice for high-speed craft View source Loss of situational awareness during RIB operations View source Inadequate seating and collision-impact mitigation in RIBs View source Inadequate forward visibility from passenger-carrying RIBs View source Failure to ensure timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations View source Unavailability of AIS capability for monitoring RIB operations View source Excessive piloting workload during high-speed RIB operations View source See 9 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Emily Jane LEWIS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Emily Jane Lewis, aged 15, died at Southampton General Hospital on 22 August 2020 after the high-speed RIB on which she was a passenger collided with a buoy, projecting her into a handhold and causing fatal injuries. The principal concerns included the workload and situational awareness of a lone skipper, inadequate forward visibility and passenger protection, shortcomings in seating and handrail design, insufficient risk assessment and safety management, and confusing or inconsistent regulation of high-speed RIB experience rides.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code to high-speed passenger craft
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of proper protection for passengers and crew from impact and vibration hazards
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Non-uniform risk management for high-speed rides
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides .
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Confusing and inconsistent requirements and guidance for small-craft operators
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient crewing for lookout and skipper workload control
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Delays in revising codes of practice for high-speed craft
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back : the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond . The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Loss of situational awareness during RIB operations
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Inadequate seating and collision-impact mitigation in RIBs
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions , noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Inadequate forward visibility from passenger-carrying RIBs
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Unavailability of AIS capability for monitoring RIB operations
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS) . There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Associated British Ports; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Excessive piloting workload during high-speed RIB operations
Wider context from the report “In the course of the inquest I heard evidence of multiple issues in relation to in particular (a) the high workload of piloting a RIB at high speed, particularly in the vicinity of buoys and vessels (b) loss of situational awareness (c) the improvement in safety of having a second crew member thereby providing an additional lookout and reducing the skipper’s workload (d) forward visibility issues in RIBs complying with existing requisite safety standards when passengers are being carried (e) issues as to safe seating and the need to mitigate the effects of collisions, noting in particular the injuries suffered by Emily Lewis (f) the need for risk assessments and safety management systems to be meaningfully (g) limitations in applying the Small Commercial Vessel and Pilot Boat Code as annexed to MGN 280 (M)(Small Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure Workboats and Pilot Boats – Alternative Construction Standards) to high speed passenger craft operation (h) the potential benefits of an automatic identification system (AIS). There was also evidence concerning the way in which the revision of the codes of practice appears to have slipped back: the Maritime & Coastguard Agency now plan to go to consultation next year, then the RYA will respond. The MAIB describes current requirements and guidance for the operators of small craft as “confusing and inconsistent” and observe that there does not appear to be uniform approach to managing the risks associated with high speed rides.
In the foreword to the MAIB report into the index collision it is stated: “... passengers in small high speed craft are very vulnerable to impact and vibration injuries. In the last 15 years the MAIB has investigated numerous accidents involving high speed craft and made various recommendations to improve the safety of this sector. However, as yet, little has been done to provide proper protection to passengers and crew from these hazards that routinely result in life-changing injury and occasionally death.”
My concerns relate to:
a. Whether consideration should be given to licensing arrangements for port authorities and local authorities to achieve an early, uniform and comprehensive framework for the use of RIB craft on high speed experience rides, including crewing levels, manoeuvres, craft standards and risk assessments
b. Whether interim measures should be considered to manage risks of high-speed RIB experience rides
c. Whether the existing BS EWN ISO 11591 needs revision (or supplementing) to take into account the effect on forward visibility of passengers about RIB craft and whether any practicable retrospective steps can be identified to improve forward visibility on RIB craft
d. The need for consideration of seat and handrail design : as well as the injuries sustained by Emily Lewis I note the MAIB’s concerns about handholds for jockey seats
e. The need to consider whether there should be provision of AIS for RIB craft to facilitate monitoring of RIB craft operations and intervention in the event of unsafe practices being identified
f. The need to consider how timely and comprehensive review of MAIB recommendations can be achieved
” Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Issue a general direction supporting the AIS requirement after the harbour revision order application concludes.
Verbatim wording from the response “ABP supports the use of AIS transponders by all commercial vessels and has taken steps to promote their use by vessels operating in the Southampton SHA through issuing the NtMs, which require all commercial vessels operating in the Southampton SHA to have an operational AIS transponder fitted unless they have been granted an exemption.” Source location Response from Associated British Ports
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Implement a register requiring commercial vessel operators in the Southampton statutory harbour area to provide vessel details.
Verbatim wording from the response “In addition, ABP, in consultation with the MAIB, issued notice to mariners no.52 of 2024, which has been reissued as no. 22 of 2025 (the “NtMs”) to implement a register of commercial vessel operators in the Southampton SHA.” Source location Response from Associated British Ports
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Amend the high-speed vessel collision risk assessment and introduce a separate assessment for vessels over 20 metres.
Verbatim wording from the response “Following a review of the risk assessments in place after the SEADOGZ incident, we amended SOT – 133-4 to specifically apply to vessels of less than twenty metres in length and introduced a new risk assessment, SOT – 153-3, which applies to vessels greater than twenty metres in length.” Source location Response from Associated British Ports
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Require operational AIS transponders on commercial vessels operating in the Southampton statutory harbour area, subject to exemptions.
Verbatim wording from the response “- have issued a notice to mariners stating that AIS transponders are required for all vessels being used commercially in the Southampton SHA from 1 January 2025.” Source location Response from Associated British Ports
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Generally monitoring AIS tracks and intervening is impractical because it requires dedicated resources and may not materially improve harbour safety.
Verbatim wording from the response “While AIS is an important aid to navigational safety, monitoring the AIS tracks of vessels (or a specific class of them), identifying whether they are operating safely or not, and potentially intervening in their operation in the Southampton SHA would be very challenging for ABP, require dedicated resources (with associated costs), and may not materially increase the safety of harbour users. Statutory harbour authorities do not have the powers, expertise or resources to generally police all vessels in their SHA and bring enforcement action in the event of non-compliance.” Source location Response from Associated British Ports
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Changes to regulation of high-speed experience-ride RIBs should be implemented nationally by the MCA, rather than locally.
Verbatim wording from the response “As such, any changes to the regulatory regime would be best implemented through a consistent national approach, led by the MCA, as the national marine regulator, to ensure that there is a uniform, consistent and comprehensible framework in all UK waters that is properly communicated to the relevant commercial vessel operators.” Source location Response from Associated British Ports
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation The assertion that ABP had not assessed high-speed commercial passenger craft risks before the incident is incorrect.
Verbatim wording from the response “In section 4 of the Report, you state that “ABP (the harbour authority) had not assessed the risks of high-speed commercial passenger craft operations in its area”. That is not correct.” Source location Response from Associated British Ports
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Separate risk assessments for commercial and non-commercial high-speed vessels are unnecessary because their navigational risks are substantially the same.
Verbatim wording from the response “The size of vessels is considered to be the appropriate determining factor as it is a suitable analogue for passenger capacity. The risk profile, and therefore the control measures, for large and small high-speed passenger vessels are materially different. ABP considers the navigational risk posed by commercial and non-commercial high-speed passenger vessels operating in the Southampton SHA to be substantially the same and therefore does not have separate risk assessments for them as it would not materially improve navigational safety in the SHA.” Source location Response from Associated British Ports
Open published response
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations