# Trawler Gaul - the cover up and the formal investigation



## gadfly (Aug 29, 2006)

We are concerned at the "cover up" that was carried out following the loss of this vessel.

The vessel was lost due to a basic design fault in one of the closing arrangements that were fitted to its outer hull. The 'cover up' protects both political and business interests.
A video representation of this design fault may be viewed on youtube at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FppSXO2kqbc

Comments on the ongoing events associated with this matter can be viewed at: 

http://the-trawler-gaul.blogspot.com/

Any comments on this issue will be appreciated.

kind regards,

ronda


----------



## Steve (Jan 25, 1970)

How about just letting it go? Never forget, but stop wasting your time and energy flogging this dead horse and move on?

Just my two cents!

Steve


----------



## Andy (Jan 25, 2004)

Can you clarify the 'we' bit? Who is 'we'?


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Steve,
I think that's a bit insulting to those who lost family and friends on the Gaul. The prime motivation for the campaign is that they want to find out what really happened to their loved ones, as of yet, they (and many others) believe that what the British Govt have been saying is far from the truth.
To use a modern term, you could say they were looking for closure.


----------



## Steve (Jan 25, 1970)

Sorry James but I disagree, I have insulted no one, I am stating that IMOHO there is little if any mileage left in this tragedy.


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Ouch.....looks like another thread that could swing both ways. 

There was also a 'cover up' regarding the 'Derbyshire', a bulk carrier that sank in a typhoon. Despite the majority of the sister ships cracking in the same place - Frame 65 - there was never a satisfactory explanation given for her loss. Rumours of corporate and Governmental cover up resounded - even when a video of the wreck was shown clearly showing a massive failure in the area of frame 65, the lips of the politicians remained tightly shut. As far as those who wield power are concerned, she was 'overwhelmed' by the 'forces of nature' - no mention of Frame 65 at all. Case closed.

In the case of the 'Gaul', we'll never really know the truth. I sailed with one Mate who used to be a fisherman out of Hull and he told me of the Navy Sparkies taken aboard some ships fishing off the North Cape.....officially denied, never happened. Talk to fishermen and they will say it did - but it's never been proven. Alas, whatever happened to the 'Gaul', there will never be an official declaration of anything other than what we've been told.

Good luck in trying to get truth, Gadly.

Jonty


----------



## RayJordandpo (Feb 23, 2006)

Jonty
Talk to any of the old timers who fished out of Hull during 'The Cold War'. When fishing the North Cape or Russian coast they often carried "men from the Ministry" as they called them. A friend of mine was injured quite badly on a trawler when off the Russian coast but because they had a - shall we say 'non official crew member' on board they couldn't put him ashore for treatment and returned to Hull. He received quite a substantial compensation pay out, far more then he expected but was advised not to say too much about it. I am going back to round about the Gaul incident era.
Ray Jordan


----------



## Ventry (Apr 18, 2007)

*Cover Up - or the decision does not suit!*

Jonty and Ronda,
I am always suspicious of those who declare a 'Cover Up' as it invariably means that the outcome was distasteful or unacceptable to those who declare it.
As for the 'Derbyshire' there was much speculation on behalf of the 'Derbyshire Family Association' (DFA) into the loss and many assumed it was the famous 'Frame 65' and such assumptions were supported to some degree by 'cracking' incidents in sister ships. I recall reading in one editorial in the early 90s that a local (Liverpool) well known Ship Master known to have vast experience in similar ships was quoted 'Leave well enough alone less you uncover the real reason and leave the bereaved with a terrible legacy'.

The ITF got involved and financed the exploration of the wreck site around the mid 90s and what do the photographs show??
Certainly no evidence of structural failure iwo Frame 65 IN FACT the Hull was intact in this area. What it does show is the foc'sle hatch open with a mooring rope visible and extended on deck. Anyone who sailed on deck will recall it standard practice to secure the last rope down to the underside of the cover by means of a rope stopper for ease of retrieval and then secure cover with 'butterfly dogs'.
The Formal Enquiry has suggested 'failure' of the 'dogging on the forward Main Hatches'. Fine, but what was the in itiating event ( the root cause).
That would most certainly have been the Change of Trim (CoT) which allowed unrestricted impact of 'Green Water' on to the Fore End of No. 1 Hatch. The flooding into the forward space which caused the CoT was in all likelihood and probably through the Foc'sle hatch.
The Formal Investigation which you think was a 'Cover Up' was sensitive to the berieved and state ingress as coming through Foc'sle vents and a peculiar declaration *It most definitely was not the foc'sle hatch cover*

Cover Up...I don't think so! Being sensitive to the bereaved ....._maybe_

Outcome: SOLAS Chaper XII...................also IACS UR 12, 18 & 24

I think the DFA should be thanked for the the focus they put on Bulk Carriers and making sailing in them a safer place.


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Ventry,

Good post and thank's for taking the time to explain. I read through the whole of the 'Derbyshire' case out of interest (I still maintain a keen interest in this case from a purely maritime point of view ) and whilst I am aware as to the loss - and the reasons cited - Frame 65 was shown to be a particularly weak spot on *all *of the class. If I may quote?:

" The Formal Investigation commenced on April 2, 2000. They eventually concluded that the ship sunk due to structural failure and absolved the crew of any responsibility in the sinking. Twelve ventilation holes were found to be responsible for allowing water to get into the ship, flooding it, and pulling it down by the bow....... this resulted in the ship experiencing greater stresses than it was designed for. The 1986 grounding of the similar MV Kowloon Bridge resulted in its break up, and faults found in two other sister ships lend weight to this conclusion. "
(Derbyshire Families Association)

And:

" The story of crew negligence is based on the deduction of two of the three assessors appointed by Lord Donaldson of Lymington on behalf of the British Department of Transport. They examined the 135,774 pictures of the Derbyshire wreck taken during two surveys by a research vessel of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. These assessors, Robin Williams and Remo Torchio, *both naval architects but lacking any seafaring experience*, concluded that a mooring rope coming out of a fore access hatch was evidence that the crew was busy preparing the arrival of the vessel and left the access hatch open with the rope half out when the typhoon was approaching. But on all ships worldwide this operation takes place only a few hours before arrival and not two days out at sea as it was then the case. During the re-opened formal investigation of April/July 2000 it was easy to prove that the access hatch had been forced open by a heavy impact, probably the broken winch or fore mast, and due to its buoyancy the rope floated half way out. "

And:

" Clearly, what now needs to be determined is what sequence of events caused the Derbyshire to sink. *What is now believed to have happened is that the inhabited section of the vessel, abaft frame 65, separated from the rest of the ship and sank almost immediately. The sonar evidence supports this, the research confirms frame 65 as a weak point, the sisterships all suffered cracking in this area,* and the fact that no messages were ever sent by the crew gives this hypothesis added weight. "
(Derbyshire Families Association)

And:

" In 1982, eighteen months after the loss, her sister ship, TYNE BRIDGE, experienced severe brittle fractures. These cracks initiated at frame 65 and propagated into the deck. After this fracture, the DERBYSHIRE Family Association (DFA) started investigating frame 65 cracks on the other sister ships. They hypothesized that this might be the cause of the loss the DERBYSHIRE. In 1986 another sister ship, KOWLOON BRIDGE, broke at frame 65 after grounding. These events caused a closer look into the loss of the DERBYSHIRE. "
(Ship Structure Committee)

The latter report concludes that frame 65 was not the major cause of the loss - but was a weakened point on the vessel. However, her loss *is* attributed to the forepeak hatch being stove in by the seas - the rest being a catastrophic failure of the vessel's integrity resulting in her going down in less than two minutes.

I believe what was being said was that the class were inherantly weak at the point of frame 65 and, as a result, loss of the vessel places frame 65 as part of - but not *the* single reason fror - her sinking. As to the FI, I suggested a 'cover up' based on the fact that two of the main investigators, however well qualified they may have been as Naval Architects, had no sea going experience. Clearly, their comments as to the foc's'le hatch shows a glaring non-knowledge of on board procedures and by being cited, rather threw the findings into the realms of a 'quick conclusion'. It smacks of lip service when one considers the human cost and the need to give grieving families closure.

You said (Quote): _"Anyone who sailed on deck will recall it standard practice to secure the last rope down to the underside of the cover by means of a rope stopper for ease of retrieval and then secure cover with 'butterfly dogs'. "_ Without appearing too pedantic, I was never aboard any ship that followed that practice! Ropes were secured to a whammy to the ladder leading to the foreward store and the hatch dogged shut. The dogging was always checked and, if need be, secured with the inevitable hammer! Securing it to the cover itself would surely mean fouling the operation of the dogs as no other place exisited on the forepeak hatch to secure a rope?

I also believe that the class, with many actual failings in this area, were unsuitable for their role and steps should have been taken to amend this. However, that is with the benefit of hindsight.

The Derbyshire Families Association deserve great credit to their painstaking work in ensuring regulations regarding this class of vessel were brought to the fore and many more lives saved as a result of their refusal to simply explain the accident away, initially, as 'an Act of God'.

YouTube has a video from the UK/EC Assessor's department which shows, in graphic detail, how the loss possibly occured - and it blames the fo'c'sle hatch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAhaP53wkM0

As for the 'Gaul' - no clear explanation for her loss exisits and whilst speculation has thrown up amny anomalies, there is still no clear and factual account available to explain her sinking.

Jonty


----------



## Hague (Feb 23, 2007)

*Securing of Foc'sle Hatch*

Jonty,
I believe you are repeating exactly what Ventry is saying. I read both descriptions of the practice and can't detect a significant difference.
More importantly, elsewhere on this site another participant refers to practice on board the ship by the previous deck crowd in that supplementary wire lashing from the underside of the cover to the vertical ladder were the usual practice.
Now that is unusual!


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Hague,

Yes - but I am backing up what is said with some evidence - just in case someone thinks I am disagreeing (as some may well do....!) I am, however, also highlighting that whilst frame 65 was not the cause of the loss, it was a significant factor. I also mentioned that the experts called in for the FI had no experience and little knowledge of deck practice. I suppose each Mate and deck crew had their different methods of securing mooring ropes. However, the original FI seemed to think that the dogs on the fora'd hatch either worked loose or were not secured properly - an assumption made by two experts with no sea experience at all.

As for the rope stowage method. On most of the ships I sailed on if I took a short cut like that I'd have the back of the bosun's hand across my head for being slovenly! As the fo'c'sle was under water most of the time, it was one of the for'ad jobs that was always double checked. A bosun's store hatch sprung once in bad weather and by the time the ship was turned around and we went out, she had half filled. The only solution to it was to Spanish Windlass it shut with a wire inside and then canvas cover it and lash it on the outside. It lasted - but the mess afterwards took some cleaning up.

All the hatches used for rope stowage were never fouled. The mooring ropes were attached to the ladders by their eyes, whammied up, and the hatch dogged down fast. I never saw the centre pad eye on the hatch (some ships didn't have that arrangement ) fouled - mainly due to its requirement of being an anchor point in the event of a failure of its watertight integrity.
Jonty


----------



## gadfly (Aug 29, 2006)

Gentlemen,

Thanks for your comments on this thread. I would now like to respond to some of the points that have been raised:

*Steve*
Sorry if the posts on this topic are no longer of interest, however, I would like to state that there should always be a motivation for rectifying injustice.

*Andy*
To respond to your query the ‘we’, the authors of the first post, are people whose lives have been adversely affected by the Gaul case. 

*Ray Jordan*
Many thanks for your post, which gives an insight into the ‘stuff’ that was happening in the fishing industry at that time. However it is an unfortunate fact that in the Gaul case, there have been too many spy, Russian and submarine ‘angles’ which have all tended to cloud the reasons behind the vessel’s loss. 

To put it roughly, the Gaul had two large holes in the starboard side of her hull that were not provided with proper means of closure; in rough weather water flooded in through these holes and the vessel sank.

*Ventry*
I think that your inferences go against the facts in the Derbyshire case, the forward vents and airpipes were actually destroyed by the sea, but you seem to think that these factors are unimportant and that the initiating event for the flooding and the one which caused the forward trim, was an open focsle hatch. The evidence does not really support this scenario. 
While the focsle hatch was found to be open, it could be seen that it had suffered from significant mechanical damage; this was most probably caused by the windlass, after it had been detached.
Scenario:
1.	Vent and airpipe damage results in flooding of forward spaces
2.	The forward trim results in high wave loads on forward equipment and the windlass is swept away
3.	The windlass contacts the forward hatch and opens it
Etc.
In any case, the final report of the Formal Investigation is quite clear on the most probable sequence of events.

*Jonty*
I think that the issues you have raised are all valid.

The final point that I would like to make is that there is no dispute to the fact that the Derbyshire had a design/constructional fault at frame 65. However it was not this design fault that resulted in the loss of the vessel - it was a deficiency in the International Regulations that were in force at the time the vessel was built (the 1966 Load Line Convention). If the hatch covers to number 1 hold had not collapsed, the vessel would not have been lost.

The Gaul case is both similar and different to the Derbyshire. The Gaul also had a design fault, but this was in the closures to two openings in the vessels hull. 
All are agreed that the vessel was lost due to flooding through these two hull openings, but officialdom becomes blinkered when it is suggested that a design fault in the closures may be to blame. There are commercial and political implications associated with this type of scenario. 
It is obviously much safer and cheaper to blame the crew.


----------



## Ventry (Apr 18, 2007)

*Derbyshire*

In order for me to respond I took a look at your profile which reveals nothing and I therefore assume you have some practical experience.

You commence your reply by stating 'the facts in the Derbyshire case'. This worries me as invariable you will oscillate between declaring 'cover up' one moments and then using the umbrella of 'facts' in the next and, quite happy to find comfort in the FI 'being quite clear on the chain of events

My 'humble' opinion, based on almost 50 years in the industry ( 23 years in command of some of the largest vessels afloat) and having some 'hands on' knowledge of FI is that the weak point in the system was simply the foc'sle hatch. I 'believe' that ingress through this hatch was the initiating event. It was a weak point point in every ship I sailed in. Precautions taken to make it more secure from the inside varied from ship to ship and generaly inversely proportional to the size ( more on a coaster than on say a VLCC). But, secured from within they should be. The modern trend in removing the foc'sle does not help the situation. 

I find it very difficult to take you seriously when you state


_*While the focsle hatch was found to be open, it could be seen that it had suffered from significant mechanical damage; this was most probably caused by the windlass, after it had been detached.
Scenario:
1. Vent and airpipe damage results in flooding of forward spaces
2. The forward trim results in high wave loads on forward equipment and the windlass is swept away
3. The windlass contacts the forward hatch and opens it
Etc.
In any case, the final report of the Formal Investigation is quite clear on the most probable sequence of events.*_


The 'windlass' being detached (maybe when she hit the seabed)
Vent pipe damage (unlikely)
I won't even comment on (2) or (3) or Etc


----------



## benjidog (Oct 27, 2005)

The reason why Steve and Andy were concerned about this thread is that such an emotive question always leads to disputes as we have seen in the exchanges already.

Whilst we all feel sympathy with those that lost loved ones, it is not clear what can be achieved by keep going over old ground. It is pretty unlikely that any new facts will emerge at this stage so unless they do, hard as it is, maybe it is time to move on. 

Regards,

Brian


----------



## non descript (Nov 18, 2005)

*Please be careful.*

I would urge people to take heed of Brian’s comment.


----------



## Ventry (Apr 18, 2007)

I will not stand back and simply 'agree' with comments made about an event which is as close to me as anyone.


----------



## gadfly (Aug 29, 2006)

Gentlemen,

Before we move on…

I initially hoped to open a forum discussion on the subject of the Gaul RFI.

While there are some parallels with the Derbyshire investigation – it is not my intention to “go over old ground” in that case, as that may easily lead us off the Gaul track and divert attention towards issues that have been, more or less, satisfactorily settled.

And, without meaning to sound arrogant or patronising, I wish to make two final points, if need may be: 
1. The windlass was found detached from the wreck, its position on the seabed indicating, as the RFI report suggests, that “_severance occurred immediately before or soon after the sinking process_.”
2. As to the vent pipe damage, the imagery from the wreckage field showed the destruction of some of the ventilators and airpipes located on the foredeck.

Kind regards


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Benjidog,

With all due respect, 'old ground' tends to lead to differing angles of thought - and all thought must have a conclusion. If anything, the lessons learned from the 'Derbyshire' were implemented (perhaps too late) but my inference about a cover up stems from the the lack of practical seafaring experience of two of the FI's experts. The third resigned.........

Ventry has some very salient points and I concur with his thinking based on his knowledhge and experience - I do not have to agree with him and he has maintained the line that each of us have an input and each of us have the right to agree or disagree. I applaud that as, having been the victim of the 'dismissers', I value constructive debate far higher than debilitating disregard. I honestly do welcome his views and his experience.

Gadfly, I believe, has an interest in the 'Gaul' and, like so many others, seeks answers. Surely the majority of us on this site who have practical experience can offer some ideas or pointers that he may have notr seen? No-one - not one of us - has all the answers and now and again something turns up which can offer more avenues of lateral thinking to be explored. Is that not the purpose of the site? To discuss maritime affairs - whether old ground or not?

I, for one, would like to know more about the 'Gaul'. I know, from having sailed with ex Fishermen, that their stories of RN R/O's are not just scuttlebutt - Ray Jordan confirmed that for me, and I am grateful for his input. I have also heard the rumours about her being sunk by the Soviet Navy for ';spying', of a lifebelt turning up in Norway which had fresh water organisms in it - leading to the rumour of the crew being kept in some Gulag - and I enjoy reading how these avenues are run down and dismissed or left to hang. It remains a sea mystery.

I hope the thread is not discontinued as I, for one, would feel that by doing so, we have permitted a censure when what we have is the basis for a lively and informative debate by members.

Jonty


----------



## Steve (Jan 25, 1970)

It May help if Gadfly could tell us what exactly he thinks happened ? I would be interested to know what he wants to hear and from whom?


----------



## gil mayes (Nov 20, 2006)

Concur.
Gil


----------



## Hague (Feb 23, 2007)

Agree


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Gadfly?

Jonty


----------



## Hague (Feb 23, 2007)

He's flown!

John


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

The liferaft with the freshwater organisms is real and did happen. Channel 4 did 2 programs about the loss of the Gaul and interviewed the Norweigan fishing skipper that picked up the Liferaft , incidentally he was a member of the Norweigan Military Intelligence at the time this happened.

There have been a great many theories about the loss of the Gaul over the years , including the now discredited one that the Soviet's sunk her ( not even in the height of the cold war would they have sunk her killing her entire crew , far better for them to arrest the ship and have a show trial ). People who had been onboard her testified that the access door to the processing deck used to be tied open to help ventilate the ship and feed cool air to the engineroom.

When the video from the C4 expedition was studied the very same access door to the processing deck was open , confirmed by the video taken by the MAIB inquiry survey. Her wheelhouse windows were intact which also destroyed the findings of the original board of Inquiry findings which , If I remember correctly , stated that she must have been overwhelmed by going broadside on to the sea having her wheelhouse washed out - thus the reason for no mayday call.

There was a design flaw in the waste chutes from her processing deck , they did stick open and didn't close as they were designed to do. These would have let considerable amounts of sea-water enter the processing deck , that along with water entering from the processing access door on the deck are the main reasons for her loss in my view.

She was not broadside to the weather , when found she was head on to the weather on the night she foundered. Studies on her sisterships found that if the access doors and the waste chutes were shut she would not have foundered ( all 3 sisterships are still going 2 as fishing boats one as a research vessel ) so the families are right to highlight the failure in the design of the waste chutes as they were a direct influence on what happened.

I do not know for a fact that the sisterships waste chutes were modified/replaced but I do remember a conversation with a Hull trawlerman who had been on the Kurd ( the Gauls sistership ) and he said that there was a lot of work done after the Gaul was lost.

It was a disaster for Hull and the families of the men who died. In truth the only way to know for sure what happened to the Gaul would be to raise her and study her in dock. As this will never happen it is understandable that the families will never accept any official version , especially since the first Board of Inquiry was a shambolic affair in the first place as most if not all of its findings have been found to be wrong.

It was an ex-Royal Navy man that led the first inquiry and due to that its to be expected that the families suspect a cover-up. Given £5m or so it would be possible to raise the Gaul and settle this arguement ( and more importantly recover the remains of the men onboard ) once and for all.


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Davie,

Thank you for standing in where gadfly appears not to have responded. It answers some of my own questions regarding the ship.

Jonty


----------



## UmbornePirate (Feb 3, 2007)

Davie Tait said:


> ...... She was not broadside to the weather , when found she was head on to the weather on the night she foundered. .......


Davie

Like Jonty, thanks for filling in some of the detail. However your explanation contains the statement above that raises the eyebrows slightly. It appears to suggest that a vessel sinking through 280m to the seabed can be assumed to maintain the heading that it held on the surface before sinking, which I find difficult to accept.

The MAIB report is here and here and SN Members interested in this subject who have not seen them will find them worth reading. The detailed report contains the statement that: 

_"Gaul was on a southerly heading at the time when she was knocked-down but the wreck was discovered pointing north-east. Whatever the heading of the vessel when on the surface, the random nature of the forces acting on the vessel as she left the surface stern ﬁrst and sank 280m makes any possible connection between the two headings tenuous, unpredictable and unrepeatable. No signiﬁcance can be placed on the wreck’s heading."_​
The MAIB report makes some assumptions in its analysis to conclude that she was on a southerly heading and this, like all assumptions, carries a risk that the deduction may be wrong. Others are therefore entitled to make their own assumtions and may believe she was on a different heading. However the bottom line is contained in the rest of the quoted paragraph. *No significance can be placed on the wreck's heading.*

In the now unavoidable climate of conspiracy theories I do think we need to be careful not to confuse the picture further with oversimplification or unjustified deductions.

All the best

Pirate


----------



## gadfly (Aug 29, 2006)

Davie and Pirate,

Many thanks for your comments, which we have found interesting.

The Derbyshire, the Royal Navy, the Cold War, the Russians and their navy, crew error, our profile, Norwegian Military Intelligence, raising the wreck and the costs, and conspiracy theories have all been mentioned here………together with _the flogging of dead horses_.

However at the start of this thread, we mentioned the fact that the Gaul had a basic design fault in one of her hull fittings and that this could have led to her loss. We also mentioned the fact that we were concerned about the cover-up that had been carried out to protect political and business interests. 

Any one who wishes to know our views on these issues can visit our website where a number of facts and official fictions are revealed: 

http://the-trawler-gaul.blogspot.com/

A video representation of the design fault is also available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FppSXO2kqbc

And finally, we would like to suggest that the conclusion of the 2004 Formal Investigation, in which crew error is put forward as the reason for the loss, is a disgrace.

Best regards and keep posting

Gadfly


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Gadfly,

The disgrace is that dead men tell no tales - we have seen blame apportioned to the dead in, for example, the Mull crash of ZD576, the RAF Chinook, in 1994. Enquiry verdict? 'Gross Negligence'.......

Families still fighting to get names cleared. Nowt, as they say, changes when it suits.....

Jonty


----------



## gadfly (Aug 29, 2006)

Good evening gentlemen

Another video on the Gaul formal investigation, which questions its outcome, may be viewed via this link:

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v14183802Zq4HSaDb

Plase note this comment relates to the Gaul RFI not the Derbyshire RFI

regards

Ronda


----------



## Iain B (Apr 28, 2007)

gadfly said:


> Good evening gentlemen
> 
> Another video on the Gaul formal investigation, which questions its outcome, may be viewed via this link:
> 
> ...


Gadfly

I had the 'Pleasure' of once meeting a Mr J. Lee (MAIB Investigator). Who I believe was the lead investigator into the Gaul (2nd enquiry). 

Mr Lee has now retired and it's not polite to speak ill of the (politically) dead. 

During one brief conversation I had with him about 7 years ago - he told me how he disliked fishermen, northerners, scotts and scouse in particular. 

Since then I have developed my own ideas about the MAIB and the people they employ. So far I have seen nothing to suggest my impressions from 7 yers ago were wrong.

PS 
I am not scottish or scouse (I'm an unhappy hammer - c'mon West Ham!)


----------

