Adding to the tragedy of this event is the irony that those who lost their lives were not responsible for the decision to make the trip; neither can the happening be called an accident. When we decide to take our dinghies to sea we have weighed up the conditions, our experience and the suitability of our boats. We survive or not by our own decisions. If children attending these ‘Adventure Centres’ have true adventures we quite rightly hold up our hands in horror, for real adventure is not sought. We expect our children to be as well cared for as if they were with their parents or they wouldn’t be sent, which would certainly mean in this case that some form of rescue boat should have been on hand in the charge of a competent person. The anguished parents of these children are not only bereaved but are also no doubt blaming themselves, however misguidedly, for allowing their children to attend or for trusting those who chose the centre. The various authorities are now holding their enquiries and no doubt they will present their findings in due course, but what can we learn from the little we know?

The ‘calm sea’ that was observed at the beginning was almost certainly due to the offshore breeze not being felt until away from the shelter of the land. The stronger wind funnelling from the Charmouth Gap added to the adverse effect later. Novices may be misled by a calm sea, but to assume this state is going to continue, even with no offshore breeze at all, is naively optimistic, as most of us know too well.

The ‘qualifications’ of the instructors appeared to be so basic as to be worthless. They apparently satisfied the owners of the St Albans Outdoor Centre. Presumably the instructors felt competent by dint of their piece of paper also. Such qualifications are dangerous. Presumably in this age when apprenticeship schemes are being scrapped wholesale, the only thing that can substitute for experience is a ‘qualification’. Offering graded qualifications is a nonsense; one should be qualified or not. One doesn’t consult a medical student who has passed his first year exams if one only has a minor ailment, one requires a proper doctor or none at all. People who are unable to judge their own progress have to seek these minor qualifications. Too many, however, see them as status symbols. A ‘pound of experience and an ounce of common sense’, more valuable by far, would certainly have prevented the canoe expedition from starting out in the form it did.

The ‘equipment’ that was trusted consisted of wetsuits and buoyancy aids/lifejackets. The water around our coasts in March is at virtually the lowest temperature of the year. Thicker than standard wetsuits of good fit or dry suits would be required to ensure long term survival. Their high price and the nature of the commercial operation makes the use of these unlikely. There did not appear to be any form of head covering; this could have saved 10-20% of body heat escaping. The effectiveness of the flotation gear was therefore academic: the casualties died of hypothermia. There is a similarity to the Rye Bay dinghy tragedy, however, where the crew wore buoyancy aids but drowned when their heads fell forward into the water. Life jackets, which are supposed to keep your head back and thus avoid this happening if you become senseless, are obviously desirable whether your unconsciousness is due to hypothermia or the traditional bang on the head. Nevertheless, a buoyancy aid is the better article if self-help is your aim. My daughter, having escaped from an immersed, inverted helicopter during a simulated accident, could not pull herself out over the edge of the concrete tank due to the shape of her lifejacket! Would an uninflated life jacket be the best normal wear for dinghy sailing? The ideal is probably that form of lifejacket that has a small amount of buoyancy for immediate flotation and which can be topped up by mouth or gas cylinder if required. For racing with normal safety facilities available, nothing beats buoyancy aids, of course.

The ‘canoes’ were certainly not sea kayaks. This is unlikely to have made a difference as the party probably did not have the skill to make use of their characteristics, but in any case they did not appear to be fitted with cockpit aprons. Without seeing the actual capsizes taking place one cannot be sure, but the water inside the canoes due to this omission certainly lowered the canoes’ stability. We don’t know if bailers or sponges were carried.

As the party was at sea for some eight hours, the miracle is that only four people died. The members of the party deserve every praise for their attempts to escape from a situation which was not of their own making. The seemingly negligent decisions that led to the rescue attempts being delayed should teach us that one’s own positive approach to safety is the important thing, not relying on equipment, qualifications or other peoples’ judgement or efforts.