Report: Several factors contributed to the tragic outcome at Bruckless Pier

An investigation by the Marine Casualty Investigation Board (MCIB) into the tragic death of a boat owner at Bruckless Pier has resulted in a number of safety recommendations.

Eamon McNern, of Castleview, Dunkineely, had gone to the pier to retrieve his boat from the water on September 28, 2023. His remains were found a short time later after another boat owner noticed a capsized dinghy next to Mr McNern's moored motorboat.

The MCIB report was published on August 28, 2024. Recommendations include awareness campaigns regarding legislation requiring the wearing of personal flotation devices (PFDs), the increased risks of operating a boat alone, and the importance of proper training and risk management assessment for powerboat operators.

The investigation revealed that the victim was alone in his ship and that this incident was not

someone else. He had planned to get his boat out of the water with the help of a family member he was supposed to meet at 6:45 p.m.

He visited the pier several times during the day, but returned home at 3:30 p.m.

According to the report: “The movements of the injured man between 3.30 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. are unknown, but

At some point during this hour-long period he returned to Bruckless Pier and launched his dinghy to head back out to his motorboat.”

A tragedy

The MCIB report describes that at 4:30 p.m. another boat owner arrived at the pier to check his own engine.

boat because there was a strong wind.

“He noticed that there was a capsized dinghy next to the motorboat of the victim,” the report states.

The boat owner put on his own life jacket, launched another dinghy and rowed to the motorboat of the accident victim.

According to the report: “The conditions were very challenging for him. He initially tried to

Motorboat out of the wind, but was blown forward behind the boat. He had trouble rowing back up against the wind and the swell.”

When he boarded the motorboat, he noticed that there was no one on board, the engine was idling and the boat hook was hanging loosely on the deck.

Shortly afterwards he saw the body of the victim on the surface of the water between the boat and the shore.

Despite the strong wind, the man managed to cut the ropes that connected the capsized dinghy to the motorboat.

He untied the mooring line of the injured man's motorboat and drove it to the shore to pick up a person who had come to the pier to help. Together they brought the injured man's body into the boat and began CPR while driving to the pier.

The report continued: “The seas were rough and they had difficulty getting the boat to the pier. At the pier they were assisted by two other citizens who had been called to the pier to assist.”

When preparing the report, investigators found that the victim was alone on the water with his motorboat during the hour between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.

“Since the injured person was operating alone, the exact circumstances that led to this accident could not be determined. Therefore, the most likely sequence of events is as follows,” the report states.

“The injured person was able to successfully transfer from the dinghy to the motorboat. There were minor jobs that could be done on the boat to prepare it for recovery from the water in two to three hours.

“The casualty had started the vessel's outboard motor. If the casualty's intention was to use the motor to drive to the pier, then the next step would have been to access the vessel's bowline and release it from the mooring buoy.”

However, the closed hinged window indicates that he had not tried to reach the bowline in the conventional way.

“Alternatively,” the report continues, “the casualty may have attempted to haul in the bowline using the ship's boat hook. To do so, he would probably have had to stand up and reach over the side of the ship to attempt to hook the bowline and then pull it on board.”

“Access to the bowline through the top-hung window would have had less of a negative impact on the stability of the vessel or the casualty than the somewhat awkward action of standing up next to the gunwale edge and reaching over to hook and pull on the bowline, taking wind and waves into account.”

Investigation analysis and recommendations

According to the MCIB report, the most likely explanation for the capsizing of the dinghy is that it occurred when the casualty attempted to climb out of the water after falling overboard from the motorboat.

The report outlines the factors that contributed to the tragic outcome.

“Wind speeds increased throughout the day, reaching force 6 at times with strong gusts of up to 35 knots (65 km/h). A small craft warning was in effect. These were challenging weather conditions under the circumstances.Another factor was the immersion in cold water, as the water temperature was 14 °C.

Although the planned vessel movement would have only covered a short distance, the lack of voyage planning was also cited as a factor. It is recommended that all voyages, regardless of their purpose, duration or distance, require some level of voyage planning. This includes checking weather forecasts and conditions, reviewing hazards and risks, creating a voyage plan, having means of communication in place and ensuring that someone on shore is aware of the plans for the voyages and has a plan of what to do should they become concerned about the welfare of the crew.

Investigators found that the victim was not wearing a lifejacket at the time. According to the Code of Practice for the Safe Operation of Recreational Craft, a person operating a recreational craft in Irish waters is required by law to wear a lifejacket.

He was also found not to have any emergency communications equipment with him, such as a portable VHF marine radio or a mobile phone in a waterproof bag. He also did not carry a PLB, a device that can be worn by a person so that when activated correctly in an emergency situation, it sends a signal that is detected by satellite systems and then reported to emergency services.

Another reason was that the ship involved in the accident had neither a boarding ladder nor an emergency ladder. There is no legal requirement for ships of this age to be converted to newer regulations. However, a boarding ladder is listed as life-saving and personal safety equipment.

Another finding was that although the injured party had been involved with boats all his life, he had no formal training or certification in powerboating. Such training would have given him a better understanding of the factors mentioned above.

The MCIB recognises that the Code of Practice for the Safe Operation of Recreational Craft is not regulatory in nature and merely provides safety information and guidance. Training is therefore voluntary.

It is suggested that there should be “some sort of system requiring recreational craft users to attend basic safety and awareness training, perhaps similar to the online pre-driving test.”

In addition, further regulations for the training and use of recreational craft as well as special water safety awareness campaigns for recreational craft users were recommended.