Lamma.com.hk

LAMMA-ZINE - CLASSIFIEDS - EVENTS - GALLERIES - LINKS - Subscribe - Donate - Advertise - Contact Us - Facebook

  WHAT'S NEW? YSW Library Opening Ceremony w/Carrie Lam
  WHAT'S ON?    Children's Variety Show ~ Lamma Fun Day
  LAMMA-ZINE:  Bookworm Cafe's Co-Founder ~ Instagramming ~ Lamma Life... 

It is currently Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:51 pm

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Proceed at your own risk
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 8:51 am
Posts: 61
Have to agree with you dory it is probably not the best thing to do with the VV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Vv concerns
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2013 5:51 pm 
Offline
over 600 messages posted
over 600 messages posted

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:34 pm
Posts: 664
dory wrote:
Good luck with that one! Just remind us all which hospital you expect to end up in.


It's not quite as bad as that ........ anymore. The majority of VV drivers are self absorbed 'don't give a toss' bunch of assholes. But there are a few nice ones.

Nowadays due to social networking etc..... things are changing worldwide. If photo's, blogs and complaints to the relevant authorities can topple governments, then tackling VV's shouldn't be that difficult.

I've had a few words and shouts with an asshole who drives his VV down the narrow path across the farm towards PS beach. I took a photo of him last time and said 'one more time, and I'm calling the Police. (There is a big sign saying VV's are illegal on this path.)

He was just about to drive onto the path yesterday, and he got about 10 metres down the path when he spotted me. He backed up and took the legal route.

It's still a bloody headache but I think that they are starting to realise that they 'will' be held accountable, unlike in the past.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: accountablitly
PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 8:51 am
Posts: 61
Tigger

think you also have a point.... HKKF have not been held properly accountable for the way they operate the service. I am still finding the exits are blocked on occasions. I have stepped in a few times when i can be bothered and asked for the exits to be unblocked which now HKKF ferry staff done when i told them to get the manager or coxswain. It starts of with waving of the hands and "its okay" kind of reply. Then when they see you are taking photos and video on the boat and see you will not back down they move the stuff. The other day I did this and managers were on the boat in 60 seconds sorting it out. The cargo passenger got very upset with th eHKKF staff but I told him they are only doing their job.... have a go at the marine department you do not like it. But it should not be the job of passengers to do this, it should be automatic and the boat staff deel empowered to enforce the policy. They work long hours with low pay and it seems managers that bully them. There was another time on Friday when the exits were blocked by cargo and i just could not be bothered to make a fuss again (i think HKKF hate me enough already). So I have gone back to the marine department with more evidence via 1823. I think HKKF are under the impression they can issue a new policy, press statements and negotiate with the Marine Department and just to ignore all the outcomes. Well this attitude extends to not using the radar properly, not keeping the correct distance between boats etc etc. Little things add up and eventually 39 people die........ Sure none of the deaths were on a HKKF ferry but there is still that "it okay, just this one time" attitude that creeps in slowly without people noticing. Never the less HKE is part of our community and I was deeply upset for weeks after the accident. People have criticised me on the forum for making a fuss and I get that, it is important that they do, there are two sides to everything. I would go as far as say those that those who disagree with me on the cargo situation should contact HKKF and say they disagree with the fuss I am making. Thats what living in a "democracy" or at least the version we have here is all about, different opinions. Just remember when things went really really the two captains found themselves in court by themselves, perhaps making a fuss will help protect the boat staff from being in this situation again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: accountablitly
PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2013 4:28 pm 
Offline
Discussions Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:06 pm
Posts: 5045
Location: Tai Peng
lamma air wrote:
Little things add up and eventually 39 people die


No, what went wrong were big things:
1) Lamma IV was built without watertight bulkheads. So it sank like a rock when it was hit.

2) Both captains made amazingly stupid piloting decisions and thus collided.

The HKKF boat was damaged but no one was at risk.

None of the things you're complaining about here had or would have made any difference to the outcome. Life jackets are a waste of time if you're trapped underwater in a smashed cabin. Exit ramps can't be opened at all at sea whether they have boxes in front of them or not. The actual emergency exits are clearly marked. Complain if they are obstructed by all means. Making a fuss about things that really have no safety impact is just making the bureaucrats also concentrate on these trivial issues instead of actual life threatening risks. They'll be happy to see attention diverted from the real mistakes that were made to stuff where they can blame low level staff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 6:13 am 
Offline
over 100 messages posted
over 100 messages posted

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:40 pm
Posts: 168
By making this fuss you can also be responsible for deaths, should an accident occur. Imagine a headline - "people drowned because they gathered near the main exit instead of going to the emergency exit".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Making a fuss
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 7:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 8:51 am
Posts: 61
Anton wrote:
By making this fuss you can also be responsible for deaths, should an accident occur. Imagine a headline - "people drowned because they gathered near the main exit instead of going to the emergency exit".


I see your side of things perhaps you are correct about those in the offices but thru need reminding people are watching them. Believe me I will make a huge fuss if the emergency exits are blocked. I hardly think people will congregate at the wrong exit so disagree with you on that one. On the subject of life jackets you are correct they are no good if you are pinned down by large cargo items that shift if the boat becomes unstable, hence the cargo capacity and size restrictions. As far as the gang plank exits go I remind you again these are the marine departments rules not mine. The cargo capacity is determined by international regulation as the result of CBA. To come back to your point about people waiting at the gang planks if staff are trained which I hope they are they will direct you. If the passage ways are blocked by shifted cargo it will take longer. I aware of the big reasons for the disaster. I have read through all 250 or so pages if the report. Some if it makes disturbing reading if you are a Hkkf passenger. I will be posting selected extracts from the report here over the next few weeks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a fuss
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:34 am 
Offline
Discussions Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:06 pm
Posts: 5045
Location: Tai Peng
lamma air wrote:
on the subject of life jackets you are correct they are no good if you are pinned down by large cargo items that shift if the boat becomes unstable, hence the cargo capacity and size restrictions.


On Lamma IV, there was no cargo.
It was the chairs that came unbolted.
The cabin was turned 90 degrees. If that happens on any ferry, there will be plenty of furniture, bodies etc. to pin you down while you drown.

You keep citing Lamma IV, but then talk about things that had no part in that accident.

However, it is true that the cargo handling on the ferries is pretty slapdash, and obviously these ferries were never designed to carry freight.

I don't care if it's stacked in front of an unneeded exit. But having cargo secured by a cargo net would keep it from getting thrown around.

But the ferries don't sail in any storm big enough to make that happen anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:16 am 
Offline
over 600 messages posted
over 600 messages posted

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:34 pm
Posts: 664
If it is a HKKF rule/policy that NONE of the exits should be blocked, and it's a HK Transport Dept policy that NONE of the exits should be blocked, well then, they shouldn't be blocked. It's just flouting of the law.

Furthermore, if the gangplank is blocked with cargo it will take a while to get the boxes off upon berthing. And passengers will have to wait. Why can't the delivery guys let people off first?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 11:57 am 
Offline
Discussions Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:06 pm
Posts: 5045
Location: Tai Peng
Tigger wrote:
Furthermore, if the gangplank is blocked with cargo it will take a while to get the boxes off upon berthing. And passengers will have to wait. Why can't the delivery guys let people off first?


No, this was boxes in front of the door on the other side of the ferry, not the the side being used.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Flouting the law
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 8:51 am
Posts: 61
Tigger wrote:
If it is a HKKF rule/policy that NONE of the exits should be blocked, and it's a HK Transport Dept policy that NONE of the exits should be blocked, well then, they shouldn't be blocked. It's just flouting of the law.

Furthermore, if the gangplank is blocked with cargo it will take a while to get the boxes off upon berthing. And passengers will have to wait. Why can't the delivery guys let people off first?


It is this flouting the law that concerns me the most. I do see what Alan and others are saying it seems a big fuss about a little thing but Hkkf have to follow the law


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:47 pm 
Offline
over 600 messages posted
over 600 messages posted

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:34 pm
Posts: 664
As a long term 'island dweller',(over 20 years) I hadn't given safety on the ferries much thought.

But after the tragedy, and the completely 'mind boggling array' of serious errors from not only the staff of HKKF, but also the Marine Department and also the ship builders. Not to mention that the tragic loss of 39 people, which should not have happened.I am really angry that NOTHING seems to have changed.

Many more revelations and the pathetic apology from the Head of the MD.

Then assurances from the MD and HKKF, that they have learnt from their mistakes,...... ????

But nowadays, (To me) is not only about the audacity about flouting the law, but it's completely 'taking the piss' (to use one of my favourite English expressions) to continue this way of working.

Many people are asking for the Chief of the MD to step down. He failed in his job. Don't get that either... he should be fired!!! As should all the other staff that were so complacent (and continue to be) to lie and didn't do their job. A loss of lives that should not have happened.

As a long term resident I have seen 'flouting of the law' just a basic part of HK life. But after November 1st last year, I have changed my way of thinking.

I'm not happy with the attitude of the ferry company .... and I'm not happy that they are still blocking 'gangplanks'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 8:51 am
Posts: 61
Tigger wrote:
As a long term 'island dweller',(over 20 years) I hadn't given safety on the ferries much thought.

But after the tragedy, and the completely 'mind boggling array' of serious errors from not only the staff of HKKF, but also the Marine Department and also the ship builders. Not to mention that the tragic loss of 39 people, which should not have happened.I am really angry that NOTHING seems to have changed.

Many more revelations and the pathetic apology from the Head of the MD.

Then assurances from the MD and HKKF, that they have learnt from their mistakes,...... ????



I'm not happy with the attitude of the ferry company .... and I'm not happy that they are still blocking 'gangplanks'


Dear Tigger I think you summed it up much better than I did. The Head of Bradbury School also extended her concerns over the cargo issue to HKKF. Just like me she received not reply from HKKF, clearly they do not care at all. So it might mean hurting their fragile profit line and getting the Marine Department to fine them. But the Marine Department is not interested, all they want to do is deflect passenger concerns with standardised emails intended to shut trouble makers like me up.

But things have changed now after the accident..... We need to look after our own safety as far as we can, make a fuss shout, jump up and down and wave the evidence infront of them. T


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 8:51 am
Posts: 61
This is an open request for all ferry users with children and infants.
Please force HKKF to carry more life jackers for children and infant life jackets. Child and infant life jackets are not the same at all. At the moment as per Hong Kong law HKKF ferries carry about 22 child life jackets, this is about the legally required 5% of the licensed capacity of the ships. HKKF are within the current legal requirements so they are not breaking the law. There is no legal requirement for infant life jackets at all, this means infants are placed a a great risk of drowning should there be accident. Please think how you would protect your infant from drowning in an accident, at the moment I would not like to think about this at all. You can see HKKF on the subject of life jackets are taking the exact word of the law, almost to the letter. Why do they follow the exact letter of the law in some areas and not others?

Digging down into the recommendations of the Lamma accident report item 6 on page 182 makes this recommendation.

"(6) Sufficient child lifejackets should be carried for every
child on board all classes of vessels and consideration
should be given to the provision of infant lifejackets."

22 child life jackets are not sufficient for our ferries, I have counted and there are upwards of 30 children on the services that serve the schools. There are also typical 3 infants on board that have NO life saving devises. The problem here is the word consideration, this means they do not have to carry LPDs for infants , they just have to think about it.

There is also no information on the boat regarding height, weight or size regarding when child, infant or adult life jackets should be used. I think this is based on the child's height therefore I have used the 100 cm rule of HKKF they use for child tickets when arriving at the number of 30. If this is the correct measure HKKF themselves will have data form the ticket gates on child use.

The recommendations do not make any provision for disabled ferry users of which we have several in wheel chairs that use the ferry. I have no idea about LPDs for wheel chair users so would like to hear from anyone with knowledge in this area.

The full report can be found at [url]http://www.gov.hk/en/theme/coi-lamma/pdf/coi_report_e.pdf
[/url]

As always I will pass these concerns on to 1823 and HKKF to give them an opportunity to reply. If you are concerned for you child's or infants safety onboard HKKF ferries please do the same. The more voices we can add to this the more likely something will be done.

Please send me a private message if you would like to discuss this issue further.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: 10% child life jackets
PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 11, 2013 8:51 am
Posts: 61
Sorry just found this on page 175 of the report.

454. Mr Wong Wing Chuen said that, although the review was still
underway, the requirements in respect of child lifejackets had received
consideration already. In the first place, consideration is being given
to increasing the percentage of child lifejackets required to be on - 176 -
board from 5% of the total number of persons on board a vessel to 8%
or 10%. Alternatively, consideration is being given to require that the
“quantity of child lifejackets on board every voyage should match the
actual number of children carried on board”.

So with pressure from ferry users we should get the number increased, this will mean pretty much all the children will have access of a LPD. So lets put the pressure on HKKF to do this.

It seems from the report they are well aware of this issue on page 169 Captain Pryke said this
"Whether sufficient child lifejackets are carried for every
child on board, and whether the statutory requirement
for child lifejackets should be one lifejacket for every
child actually on board the vessel."

On page 167 Captain Pryke also says "Furthermore, he noted that local passenger vessels were not required to carry a child lifejacket for every child actually on board the vessel. "


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group