Volockies

[mayalld]

23 hours ago, nicknorman said:

As I said, you need some coaching in how to operate your boat.

Put it like this: we always open both top paddles fully and the boat never lurches or bashes into the gate. Why is that?

Because all boats perform differently?

[alan_fincher]

14 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I used to do it but couldn't afford all the new fenders!

Stop buying and changing old engines over quite as often, and you will easily be able to!

[DeanS]

14 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Why put your boat in a lock and close the gates if you are not expecting the paddles to be opened? Were you intending to stop for lunch or something?

I think far too much emphasis is placed on getting "permission" to do a perfectly routine and expected action. This in itself carries no safety benefit since any problems arising are likely to do so AFTER the paddle has been opened. So what is actually important is that the people manning the paddles are paying attention and will react if anything goes wrong or especially to a signal from the bloke on the boat, eg shouting, horn beeping etc. Whether or not there was previous "permission" to open the paddle is not relevant to the safety case, provided as I mentioned earlier, the paddle operators have a look to see that the steerer hasn't fallen off the boat, not in the middle of a heart attack or otherwise looking perplexed. It is simply an entirely pointless thing to do which is why we never do it.

Ive no idea how many thousands of locks we have done sucessfully. I can only recall one or two times when I've had to shout for paddles to be closed. So think how many pointless "permissions" have been saved by the policy that it's OK to carry out the expected action ie open the paddles, unless otherwise indicated.

True but not relevant. Actually I think it is because we retain control of our boat whereas he lets his bob about on its own.

 

Hi Nick. It's lovely to see you stubborn as ever.   ...but in this case, you're wrong....(my view of course    )

 

[mayalld]

14 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Why put your boat in a lock and close the gates if you are not expecting the paddles to be opened? Were you intending to stop for lunch or something?

I think far too much emphasis is placed on getting "permission" to do a perfectly routine and expected action. This in itself carries no safety benefit since any problems arising are likely to do so AFTER the paddle has been opened. So what is actually important is that the people manning the paddles are paying attention and will react if anything goes wrong or especially to a signal from the bloke on the boat, eg shouting, horn beeping etc. Whether or not there was previous "permission" to open the paddle is not relevant to the safety case, provided as I mentioned earlier, the paddle operators have a look to see that the steerer hasn't fallen off the boat, not in the middle of a heart attack or otherwise looking perplexed. It is simply an entirely pointless thing to do which is why we never do it.

Ive no idea how many thousands of locks we have done sucessfully. I can only recall one or two times when I've had to shout for paddles to be closed. So think how many pointless "permissions" have been saved by the policy that it's OK to carry out the expected action ie open the paddles, unless otherwise indicated.

Sorry Nick, but that is utter tripe.

Yes, of course there is an expectation that the paddles will be opened....

Just as soon as the boat is in the best position for passage!

Allow that the steerer will have a preferred way of transiting (ride the front gate, ride the back gate, hover in the middle). You or I may have firm views on which is right, but it isn't our call when it isn't our boat.

We prefer to ride the front gate in tickover, so if the paddles are whipped up before we are settled, we get thrown about, and really the idea that you whip the paddles up and be prepared to drop them if there is a problem is just plain silly. Far better to avoid the problem in the first place.

[alan_fincher]

14 hours ago, nicknorman said:

 

Ive no idea how many thousands of locks we have done sucessfully. I can only recall one or two times when I've had to shout for paddles to be closed.

In the unlikely event that you ever go up the Lee ans Stort, if anybody issues you with stern warnings about not drawing more than half one top paddle at Stanstead lock, heed that advice, though.

First time through we didn't, and despite only pulling one paddle, it was hugely dramatic, with not a shred of a chance of holding the boat back with the engine. (No other L&S lock is in any way similar, hence you are taken by surprise).

However I agree with you about Atherstone locks.  Some of the most benign, and horrendously slow, locks on the regularly used system, (to fill - they empty fast enough,of course).  Those locks regularly get large unnecessary queues because people insist on only part pulling (sometimes just one) paddle whilst everybody else waits far longer than is necessary.

 

[alan_fincher]

29 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Sorry Nick, but that is utter tripe.

Yes, of course there is an expectation that the paddles will be opened....

Just as soon as the boat is in the best position for passage!

Allow that the steerer will have a preferred way of transiting (ride the front gate, ride the back gate, hover in the middle). You or I may have firm views on which is right, but it isn't our call when it isn't our boat.

We prefer to ride the front gate in tickover, so if the paddles are whipped up before we are settled, we get thrown about, and really the idea that you whip the paddles up and be prepared to drop them if there is a problem is just plain silly. Far better to avoid the problem in the first place.

To add to this, if you are working a near 72 foot boat downhill in a lock that it will barely fit in to, then it is absolutely essential that it rides down the bottom gate(s) with its stem post either on them, or within an inch of two of them at most.

More than this, the steerer will need to ensure that any bow fender is drawn up, and placed out of use on the front deck, to give the required length to stay clear of the cill, and to allow the bottom gate(s) to open when you draw back against the cill to create the space.  Whilst I will generally  travel on short pounds without the bow fender deployed, (to avoid having to walk 72 feet to stow it at every lock), if I am travelling many miles between locks it will generally be down, (as a protection to others if either of us get something wrong, or lose reverse due to a prop foul), so on arrival at the first lock in miles, I need time to go and lift it, stow it, ad then walk 72 feet back to be at the controls.

None of this seems intuitive to people using full length locks, but whose boats are (say) sub 70 feet long, but it is vital that my boat will fit at all points of the operation.  To say the least some are often puzzled by my actions, if I ask them not to draw paddles until the fender is stowed.

Unfortunately some CRT volunteers are insufficiently trained in such matters, and assume that all boats can work through just by staying clear of the cill at one end, and of the bottom gates at the other, (this despite the visual evidence before their eyes that the boat is actually a tight fit!).

I'm not anti-volunteer - there are some very good ones, (usually actual boat owners, rather than National Trust members who have never been boating!), but they must have rules, a basic level of training, and stick to it, if they are not to be a danger to those they think they are assisting.

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by alan_fincher

[nicknorman]

Ah yes Dean and Dave. The "I'm in charge and don't you forget it" brigade. I'm sure that apart from the underlying insecurity that leads you to this behaviour, you are really both very nice people!

Anyway perhaps you should consider why this is so important to you, but not to me? And not to plenty of other people on the cut who look at you rather oddly if you seek permission to carry out the logical next step in helping someone through a lock.

[MHS]

We also had issues going up Cranfleet 2 weeks ago. 

Firstly while waiting on the pontoon a Volocky waved a massive red flag at us. Oh heck is there a problem or a stoppage? No the lock was against us. We had worked that out already as there was water leaking from the bottom gate. 

More annoying was like the OP, they took out bow and stern ropes with a hook, but didn't check we were happy before opening paddles. My wife was at the bow, and the lady volocky merely held the rope without wrapping it around a bollard. My rope was put round a bollard a long way forward, so it snagged on the rear doors and cabin sides and served little purpose in holding us to the side. I asked when the lock was 1/2 full if they would swap it to a (now visible) more appropriate bollard. "As long as you're going up, that's alright " was the response!! 

Not impressed. 

[mayalld]

7 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Ah yes Dean and Dave. The "I'm in charge and don't you forget it" brigade. I'm sure that apart from the underlying insecurity that leads you to this behaviour, you are really both very nice people!

Anyway perhaps you should consider why this is so important to you, but not to me? And not to plenty of other people on the cut who look at you rather oddly if you seek permission to carry out the logical next step in helping someone through a lock.

I don't care whether I am a nice person or not in the eyes of those who would interfere.

The bottom line is that when I work my boat the way I want, everything works out OK. As soon as somebody starts meddling and doing things their way, it works less well.

If you can't see that there is a need for somebody to be in charge, and for it to be clear who that is (rather than having two people believing that they are in charge, or nobody knowing that they are in charge), then your involvement in the operation of a lock is a risk. If my boat and family is involve, it becomes an unacceptable risk that I mitigate by ensuring that such individuals are not involved.

[Midnight]

2 minutes ago, mayalld said:

...... As soon as somebody starts meddling and doing things their way, it works less well.

 

The whole point of the OP and the point regarding the Atherstone top volockie.

[nicknorman]

7 minutes ago, mayalld said:

I don't care whether I am a nice person or not in the eyes of those who would interfere.

The bottom line is that when I work my boat the way I want, everything works out OK. As soon as somebody starts meddling and doing things their way, it works less well.

If you can't see that there is a need for somebody to be in charge, and for it to be clear who that is (rather than having two people believing that they are in charge, or nobody knowing that they are in charge), then your involvement in the operation of a lock is a risk. If my boat and family is involve, it becomes an unacceptable risk that I mitigate by ensuring that such individuals are not involved.

Well obviously we've had this discussion many times before and are both entrenched in our ideas. I just don't see the need to be so officious and control-freak about it. Going through a lock isn't rocket science, it isn't skilful or requiring anything much but paying attention and reacting quickly in the very unlikely event that something bad happens. I can only assume that it's because I am more flexible than you are, I know that there are many ways to skin a cat (although not really that many ways to operate a lock!)  and doing it exactly the way I might do it isn't important, provided the outcome is satisfactory.

Perhaps it comes from my professional career as a multi-crew pilot? One pilot (either the captain or copilot) would be the pilot flying for the sector and generally run the flight and make the decisions - right up to the point, if it were the copilot, where the captain felt he had to intervene. Obviously flying offshore IFR is far more complicated with far more varieties than going through a lock. Some captains were micro-managers, always intervening - and were of course considered pains in the arse by the copilots. Other, hopefully me included, were happy to "go with the flow" unless intervention was actually required. The former group were generally those in the lower half of the ability range and thus IMO it was primarily because they were borderline incompetent and thus nervous and insecure.

Obviously your family is accustomed to you being in charge. It's just a pity that they are not learning the skills to be in charge themselves one day, they are just following your orders zombie-like. I don't know how old they are but at some point they will rebel.

[Dave_P]

1 hour ago, Mac of Cygnet said:

As the OP, I don't mind too much about wandering topics - I've caused them myself.

But perhaps we could have a new forum called 'Personal Spats' into which about half this topic and a few others could be moved?

Although this one was a bit argue-y, it was a genuine boating discussion about how best to work a lock which I read with interest.  Not really just a spat.  In fact a personal unconstructive spat would normally be moderated by deleting/hiding posts anyway.

my tuppence worth - when I'm single-handing I'm ultra cautious when raising paddles.  I probably carry this cautiousness over when I have a crew.  If you apply risk assessment criteria to lock operation with a crew, you would rank likelihood and severity.  The likelihood of a problem occurring from raising paddles quickly is low. However, the severity is very high (sunk boat, death).  On that basis, a degree of caution is probably a good thing, and a good risk assessment would probably advise not raising paddles until confirmed by the steerer and raising paddles one at a time as reasonable precautions.

 

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

One man's "personal spat" is another man's "frank exchange of views" - the latter being, surely, what should happen on a discussion forum.

I would agree with that. It takes all kinds dunnitt? For instance Nick and myself on this thread its only banter and even though he is wrong id still buy him a pint if we met even though he has boated straight past my location on his shiney boat without stopping

[mrsmelly]

10 hours ago, nicknorman said:

, if you need bits of paper to prove you are competent there must be something wrong!

Point of order old sport..................I excpect you had/have some bits of paper proving your competence to fly helicopters and gliders I have some proving my ability to take passengers, its not that either of us chose it that way but the law dictates it surely?

[nicknorman]

7 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I would agree with that. It takes all kinds dunnitt? For instance Nick and myself on this thread its only banter and even though he is wrong id still buy him a pint if we met even though he has boated straight past my location on his shiney boat without stopping

No, I'll do anything for a free pint ... well, almost anything!

1 minute ago, mrsmelly said:

Point of order old sport..................I excpect you had/have some bits of paper proving your competence to fly helicopters and gliders I have some proving my ability to take passengers, its not that either of us chose it that way but the law dictates it surely?

My bits of paper that allow me to fly helicopters in the eyes of the law, have expired. Anyway, the licence permits one to fly. Competence is demonstrated by a 6-monthly proficiency check. Is there an equivalent for you? (genuine question).

As to gliders, no there is still no licence or other bits of paper required in order to fly a glider. EASA are working on killing that off but not yet. I don't even need a proper medical any more, if you have a driving licence that's good enough.

[mayalld]

19 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Well obviously we've had this discussion many times before and are both entrenched in our ideas. I just don't see the need to be so officious and control-freak about it. Going through a lock isn't rocket science, it isn't skilful or requiring anything much but paying attention and reacting quickly in the very unlikely event that something bad happens. I can only assume that it's because I am more flexible than you are, I know that there are many ways to skin a cat (although not really that many ways to operate a lock!)  and doing it exactly the way I might do it isn't important, provided the outcome is satisfactory.

Perhaps it comes from my professional career as a multi-crew pilot? One pilot (either the captain or copilot) would be the pilot flying for the sector and generally run the flight and make the decisions - right up to the point, if it were the copilot, where the captain felt he had to intervene. Obviously flying offshore IFR is far more complicated with far more varieties than going through a lock. Some captains were micro-managers, always intervening - and were of course considered pains in the arse by the copilots. Other, hopefully me included, were happy to "go with the flow" unless intervention was actually required. The former group were generally those in the lower half of the ability range and thus IMO it was primarily because they were borderline incompetent and thus nervous and insecure.

Obviously your family is accustomed to you being in charge. It's just a pity that they are not learning the skills to be in charge themselves one day, they are just following your orders zombie-like. I don't know how old they are but at some point they will rebel.

You miss the point by a country mile!

In actual fact, I am NEVER in charge going through a lock, because I am operating the lock, so that theory is blown out of the water isn't it.

Your stories of being a pilot simply empahsise the point. Somebody was always "in charge", and if I understand correctly there are established processes to transfer control, so that there is never any doubt who is in charge at any moment.

Or perhaps you operated a very relaxed system where the co-pilot simply started flying if it looked to him like the pilot wasn't, and that unless the pilot said anything, that was OK.

Passing through a lock isn't rocket science, but it is a potentially dangerous situation, and preventing problems is for the best.

[PeteS]

14 hours ago, nicknorman said:

I think the discussion is entirely on topic. Perhaps you are one of those modern people who can only be around other people who agree with you, and can't tolerate anyone who has a different view? Tracey Ullman did a really good sketch about that. It would have been really funny if it wasn't so true!

Why not try participating in the discussion. What's your view about volockies?

As I recall the original post was about a volunteer lock keeper, volocky as some call them volcky as others call them, raising a paddle n Cranfleet lock without the say so of the helm.  How that relates to the extended discussion on different locks and paddle raising techniques employed on the various designs of lock and their impact on boats of different lengths is a mystery to me, but I'll leave that for others to decide.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid I'm not a 'modern person', as you have seen fit to call me and to me the fact that you have resorted to a personal attack after one post and without knowing me to my mind shows a degree of intolerance on your part.

I've not participated in the discussion because I had nothing to add but I was interested in the subject.  However this soon waned when I found I was having to wade through all the extraneous stuff, hence my post.

It possible that my view of volunteer lock keepers may be a bit biased as I am one myself.  Therefore, I can quite categorically state that during training I was told to

1) Always ask the helm if they want assistance.

2) Always check with the helm if it's OK to raise paddles etc.

Now I'm not saying that this always happens but I don't recall not following these steps.

Of course I'm not saying that volunteer in question was guilty/not guilty but before people go flying off the handle and making all sorts of accusations maybe the facts should be known first.

Was he distracted by something. a wasp or bee?

Does he have any personal problems or some weighty thing on his mind?

We all make mistakes and in my experience the ones who shout the loudest about other's errors are those who cannot take it when it is coming in their direction.

[mayalld]

1 minute ago, PeteS said:

As I recall the original post was about a volunteer lock keeper, volocky as some call them volcky as others call them, raising a paddle n Cranfleet lock without the say so of the helm.  How that relates to the extended discussion on different locks and paddle raising techniques employed on the various designs of lock and their impact on boats of different lengths is a mystery to me, but I'll leave that for others to decide.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid I'm not a 'modern person', as you have seen fit to call me and to me the fact that you have resorted to a personal attack after one post and without knowing me to my mind shows a degree of intolerance on your part.

I've not participated in the discussion because I had nothing to add but I was interested in the subject.  However this soon waned when I found I was having to wade through all the extraneous stuff, hence my post.

It possible that my view of volunteer lock keepers may be a bit biased as I am one myself.  Therefore, I can quite categorically state that during training I was told to

1) Always ask the helm if they want assistance.

2) Always check with the helm if it's OK to raise paddles etc.

Now I'm not saying that this always happens but I don't recall not following these steps.

Of course I'm not saying that volunteer in question was guilty/not guilty but before people go flying off the handle and making all sorts of accusations maybe the facts should be known first.

Was he distracted by something. a wasp or bee?

Does he have any personal problems or some weighty thing on his mind?

We all make mistakes and in my experience the ones who shout the loudest about other's errors are those who cannot take it when it is coming in their direction.

As you rightly point out, there are various reasons why a volunteer may not do what he or she should do (you have omitted the volunteers who are simply convinced that they know best).

That introduces a risk to my operation of the lock, and I can mitigate against that risk by not allowing the volunteer to provide help that I don't need.

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, PeteS said:

As I recall the original post was about a volunteer lock keeper, volocky as some call them volcky as others call them, raising a paddle n Cranfleet lock without the say so of the helm.  How that relates to the extended discussion on different locks and paddle raising techniques employed on the various designs of lock and their impact on boats of different lengths is a mystery to me, but I'll leave that for others to decide.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid I'm not a 'modern person', as you have seen fit to call me and to me the fact that you have resorted to a personal attack after one post and without knowing me to my mind shows a degree of intolerance on your part.

I've not participated in the discussion because I had nothing to add but I was interested in the subject.  However this soon waned when I found I was having to wade through all the extraneous stuff, hence my post.

It possible that my view of volunteer lock keepers may be a bit biased as I am one myself.  Therefore, I can quite categorically state that during training I was told to

1) Always ask the helm if they want assistance.

2) Always check with the helm if it's OK to raise paddles etc.

Now I'm not saying that this always happens but I don't recall not following these steps.

Of course I'm not saying that volunteer in question was guilty/not guilty but before people go flying off the handle and making all sorts of accusations maybe the facts should be known first.

Was he distracted by something. a wasp or bee?

Does he have any personal problems or some weighty thing on his mind?

We all make mistakes and in my experience the ones who shout the loudest about other's errors are those who cannot take it when it is coming in their direction.

My honest view is that you are too sensitive to be on a public forum. You seem easily offended or upset by the fact that people have different views and express them. Ironically it is your earlier post that is one of the most off-topic on this thread!

Anyway your points about human frailty are of course quite valid, but equally you can't be too surprised if when errors are made they are pointed out. What is not acceptable is that when a volockie makes a mistake, he gets all defensive and refuses to accept it - although I will concede that perhaps it depends on how this is pointed out to him!

[PeteS]

Just now, mayalld said:

As you rightly point out, there are various reasons why a volunteer may not do what he or she should do (you have omitted the volunteers who are simply convinced that they know best).

That introduces a risk to my operation of the lock, and I can mitigate against that risk by not allowing the volunteer to provide help that I don't need.

Dave you're quite right some boaters prefer not to have the assistance of the volunteer and as you can see they should always ask first.

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

My honest view is that you are too sensitive to be on a public forum. You seem easily offended or upset by the fact that people have different views and express them. Ironically it is your earlier post that is one of the most off-topic on this thread!

Anyway your points about human frailty are of course quite valid, but equally you can't be too surprised if when errors are made they are pointed out. What is not acceptable is that when a volockie makes a mistake, he gets all defensive and refuses to accept it - although I will concede that perhaps it depends on how this is pointed out to him!

Nick I congratulate you, this is the first time I've been called sensitive and only reinforces my comment that you don't know me.

 

[Pluto]

22 minutes ago, mayalld said:

Passing through a lock isn't rocket science, but it is a potentially dangerous situation, and preventing problems is for the best.

That's the real point to be made. Flying obviously has potential dangers, both to crew and anyone else, and while working through a lock is certainly less dangerous, the dangers are not so apparent, especially to the uninformed onlooker. It is when people don't 'see' the danger, that things become dangerous.

[DeanS]

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Ah yes Dean and Dave. The "I'm in charge and don't you forget it" brigade.

Very funny:)  ok then...a simple question to weed out a simple answer...

When a boater enters a lock...WHO do you feel is "in charge".  SOMEONE has to be "in charge". What if something goes wrong, and there needs to be clear quick communication, and no one knows WHO is in charge. If a volockie things THEY are in charge, and the owner of the boat feels differently, surely you agree it adds a danger to the mix which should't exist. 

 

and yes...I do have a personal chip on my shoulder about people helping, interfering,  helping without asking first, after nearly having my kids and boat hooked up on a side brick in a lock on the L&L. 

As a disclaimer....I don't know the locks the OP was going through..perhaps they are very slow and you have a point, but I am talking generally  

 

peace to all.

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

Point of order old sport..................I excpect you had/have some bits of paper proving your competence to fly helicopters and gliders I have some proving my ability to take passengers, its not that either of us chose it that way but the law dictates it surely?

All the major incidents have been with people who hold a piece of paper, from car drivers with licences to air line pilots including trip boat skippers and sea going captains. 

[furnessvale]

27 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

All the major incidents have been with people who hold a piece of paper, from car drivers with licences to air line pilots including trip boat skippers and sea going captains. 

As a police sergeant, I was required to pass a promotion exam but that was only the first step.

Occasionally, a disgruntled PC who had not passed the exam would moan about having to pass an exam to become a sergeant.  I would point out to them that there was more to it than that.

1.  You pass an exam.

2.  You pass a promotion board.

3.  You apply for and pass an interview for a particular sergeant's position.

4. You then learn on the job and become a sergeant.

After asking them how far up that ladder they were, I would ask how much use a detective sergeant would be who had managed to achieve 10% in an exam on criminal law.

Such is life.

George

[mrsmelly]

45 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

All the major incidents have been with people who hold a piece of paper, from car drivers with licences to air line pilots including trip boat skippers and sea going captains. 

This may be true but its a fact that to do certain jobs you have no choice other than to obtain bits of paper.