The following blog is a reply to posts on one of the English Channel Chat Groups (with one of the administrators being a CS&PF pilot), where there has been criticism of my first (of two) blogs. I am blogging about my reasons for moving to CSA, specific responses to Mike and Charlie’s comments and suggestions to improve the experience of all involved in English Channel swimming in the future.
I was content to write a closed letter to the CS&PF committee about my concerns until a member of the committee (Mike Oram) jumped on Channel Groups to make comments about my swim as an authoritative figure without even attempting to contact myself (the swimmer and customer) or my support crew. If Mike had bothered to contact me after my original post before posting himself, I would have made him aware (maybe he is already?) of serious safety issues and the lack of professionalism by CS&PF representatives on board the boat. His contact would have ensured this remained a closed letter to the CS&PF.
In addition, Mike has made serious errors in his summation of my swim which need correcting. I am sending this document to the CS&PF committee as well. This blog is now an open letter to the CS&PF (in addition I will follow this up with an official letter to the committee). Mich (from Channel Groups) believes “any concerns about pilots are taken seriously by the CS&PF and investigated accordingly”. The CS&PF committee have an opportunity to prove Mich correct.
As both Charlie Gravett (CS&PF Chairman) and Mike Oram (CS&PF Secretary) have publicly misrepresented my swim on Channel Groups and have made incorrect comments about myself, I am left with little choice but to expose the details of the swim for people to have the opportunity to read for themselves.
CS&PF representatives on my boat during my swim:
Detailed Summary:
1. Pilot conduct (before and during my swim)
I must restate that nowhere in my previous blog did I blame the pilot or crew for the outcome of my swim. If anyone can quote me blaming the pilot in my blog then I do encourage you to email me so that I may review the wording I have chosen and if necessary rephrase what I have written.
The CS&PF website (under ‘swimming rules’) states that pilots must give the secretary 12 hours advance warning before a Channel attempt. Eddie’s contract states “a minimum of 24hrs is required to set up pilot / boat / observer”.
I rang my pilot Saturday night asking if I was swimming the next morning. He said ‘no’ and for me to call him at 9.30am the next morning. On Sunday morning I called him at 9.30am and he had just woken up and told me I was probably swimming that (Sunday) night and to call back in a few hours. I was shocked when Paul and I walked to the beach shortly afterwards (about 10:30am) and Freda and a couple of the beach crew told me that they believed I was starting at lunch time that day. They told me that the two observers had known since the day before (Saturday) that those involved in the swim were to meet at 11am for a midday start. I got back in touch with Eddie as I was confused about what was going on. Was I expected to swim with 30 minutes notice, after just being told I wasn’t swimming until midnight (especially after having a large carbo-loading breakie)? It was therefore impossible for me to be ready in 30 minutes. I spoke to Eddie and we mutually decided on Sunday night. Only Eddie and I had that phone conversation. So where is everyone getting this misinformation from?? I never delayed the swim (I had been waiting 4 and a half weeks why would I knowingly miss an opportunity?).
How is it that the Secretary must get 12 hours notice, the boat, boat crew and observers require 24 hours notice and yet, I only get 30min notice (2nd hand notice from other people who are not my pilot) and no-one cares (aka no-one discussed this on Channel Groups when critiquing me)?
The swim start (meeting at 11am) Sunday was also organised without my permission/ final decision, even though Eddie’s contract (also accessible from my blog) clearly states: “It is, however, the responsibility of the swimmer/s and their support team to agree the final decision to make an attempt.”
2. Conduct of one observer / Role of observers
Since Mike Oram has been quoting the observers report, I am willing to post the report on my blog (if Mike Oram is okay with this – please let me know) to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to read the entire report.
Observers Report
This document is flawed because of serious inconsistencies, missing information and falsehoods:
Observer Conduct – Nathan
Nathan piloted the boat for approximately the last 4 and a half to 5 hours of the swim. CS&PF committee members could you please clarify the role of observers during the swim? Can you please also clarify how observers can be pilots at the same time? Can you please explain to me whether you were aware of observers piloting boats, and especially in my example whether you were aware that Nathan was piloting my boat? Could you please also explain how I paid Eddie and his boat crew to take me across the channel and another person not named as boat crew was piloting? I assume that Nathan was a qualified and experienced pilot. Can you please confirm this?
I hope Nathan is licensed to be piloting (legally if required and) with CS&PF because my contract with Eddie states that “Both the craft and the pilot will be registered as required by the CS&PF and the English and French Coastguard authorities.”
In addition to the above, Nathan verbally abused myself and my support crew during the swim.
Observer Conduct – Who is observing?
The CS&PF website states: “The appointed Observer shall be in sole charge of the timing of the swim, and shall be responsible for observing compliance with the rules, subject to ratification by the Committee.” Towards the end of my swim (at the same time, as already noted above) one observer was sleeping and the other was piloting the boat. Nowhere in my observer documentation does it list at what time each observer is being the official swim observer.
3. Conduct of two CS&PF committee members (post swim)
Mike Oram, CS&PF Honorary Secretary
The following comments from Mike were posted on the Channel Groups chat site on the 2nd December 2009.
RE: Mike’s comment: “She was late in booking for a priority position and did not have a number 1 priority, but expected to be prioritised”
I booked one year in advance (which is not uncommon) and originally received third position. I communicated with Eddie via email asking if there was a cancellation could he please move me up a position. I said to Eddie that I could be free any week in the season if a better position popped up (this email trail will be sent to the CS&PF committee). Thankfully, someone cancelled and I became 2nd position in my original week. Mike, is this what you call expecting “to be prioritised”?
RE: Mike’s comment: “She worked on her dream without fully comprehending the reality of what she was trying to do” and… “in an enviourment (sic) she did not know or fully understand”.
Please explain. How did you come to these conclusions? What evidence do you have to support these accusations?
RE: Mike’s comment: “It was a good crossing however and the pilot managed to salvage
the crossing with a good turn around.”
This is an interesting view on the turn around after I hit the Cape. Ned’s post on the 30th November on the Channel Swimmers Chat group from an account of the day of mine and Owen’s swim states that “After coming off the Cap, Chloe was driven North by the current. When we saw her she was low in the water and going backwards. I actually thought that Chloe was getting out at that point – but fair dues she hung in for another 10 hours”. Mike, would you call Ned’s description a ‘good turn around’ by the pilot?
This ‘good turn around’ can be seen from the GPS coordinates (see my blog) from my swim where I swim parallel to the French coast (and swam backwards as I had thought in my blog, due to the extremely strong tide on this particular day) for a long time….making no forward progress.
RE: Mike’s comment: “To blame the pilot (more to the point “the CS&PF and the pilots” as a group as she did not name her pilot), is not a good way to start.”
Nowhere in my blog do I blame ANYTHING on the pilot or blame the CS&PF. I do specifically say that I will not use either in the future but this is very different than blaming.
It is interesting that a few vocal CS&PF representatives are happy to celebrate successful crossings but do not want to hear about swimmers who were unsuccessful. I have had many emails from people supporting me. One person has emailed to me: “It is very refreshing to hear a report that is unafraid to express genuine sentiment and criticism…there certainly seems to be a real problem in addressing the issues that are of real concern to potential Channel swimmers such as choice of pilot or association”. These vocal few at the CS&PF accuse all swimmers who question their swim after not being successful of blaming their pilots and then they deflect attention away from the pilot to the perceived deficiencies in the swimmer. In their view it is obvious that the swimmer was suffering one or more of the following: didn’t prepare enough, didn’t want it enough, bring up issues only “when things don’t go their way” or is a ‘diva’. It seems a little hypocritical to blame swimmers 100% of time for failures and yet to get annoyed at swimmers who question their pilots. Aren’t you doing exactly the same thing that you accuse swimmers of doing? Are you saying pilots NEVER contribute to an unsuccessful English Channel outcome?
RE: Mike’s comment: “The general rule for a 2-way is to accept the first leg as a swim to the
start. You need to start the second leg in good condition for a hard swim – not tied (sic)… and having feed problems.”
RE: Mike’s comment: “All the pilots do their best for their swimmers but we can only travel with
the person in the water and are restricted with their ability to do the swim.”
Refer to Nathan piloting in the observers section of this document to see whether this was a pilot doing “their best for their swimmers”. Swimmers are equally restricted by the ability and the course set by the pilot and in my case for the last few hours, the observer acting as the pilot.
RE: Mike’s comment: “Chloe does not seem to have comes to terms with her failure and still has the need to apportion blame”
Another incorrect reference to me apportioning blame when all I said in my blog was: “I believe I have been painfully honest in my account of my swim. On a different day with a different pilot and boat crew or a lower tide or lower winds (preferably all of the mentioned!) I would have had a much more successful day.” I would never call crossing the English Channel a failure. I wanted to do a double crossing and it was within my ability. I double would have created “a much more successful day”. I don’t call swimming for 24hrs and 50min in any water a failure (let alone in the English Channel).
RE: Mike’s comment: “The pilot is there to… look after your safety…They (pilots)… produce you (sic) a safe path to a French beach”
Mike, would you call Nathan (the observer) piloting in darkness and Force 5-6 winds back to England “safe piloting” or looking after my safety?
Charlie Gravett, CS&PF Chairman
The comments from Charlie (after Sally’s Channel Post) were posted on the Channel Groups Chat site on the 2nd December 2009. Like Mike, Charlie has not consulted me about my swim so I wonder what sort of value, if any, his comments contribute to the discussion of my swim.
On the other hand, Sally (Charlie’s partner) was out in the Channel on the day of my swim (like Ned) and what she has said on Channel Groups on 24/09/09 about the conditions on the day are more similar to Ned’s account than to Mike’s.
From: “Sally & ‘Charlie’” sinkors…@jerseymail.co.uk
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:40:38 +0100
Local: Thurs 24 Sep 2009 05:40
Subject: Re: [Channel Group] Re: Chloe McCardel 2-way
“I echo those sentiments completely.
We were a strong relay team of 5 people – who also caught in the strong
tides and winds that day – and only doing a solo crossing – and we passed
Chloe with Anastasia mid Channel (within about half a mile) way over to the
east of Dover!!!!
It was a tough day out there and Chloe did brilliantly to get as far as she
did…
Well done
Sal”
RE: Charlie’s comment: “Your pilot will stick with you when the going gets tough”
Charlie, I wish this were true for all of us. Unfortunately, when the going got tough (Force 5 – 6 conditions) the pilot was nowhere near the controls and Nathan (employed as the observer) was piloting the boat in Force 5-6 conditions and 6-8 foot waves. It was also in the last few hours of the swim in which Nathan says “who do you think you are, don’t you know I am the captain of the boat?” to one of the support crew.
RE: Charlie’s comment: “The pilot in question is amongst the very best”
Well if the CS&PF Chairman thinks that a pilot who lets the observer pilot the boat “is among the very best” then he either does not know what is going on, or he does know but doesn’t care about swimmer safety.
RE: Charlie’s comment: “He’s a qualified professional with years of experience.”
I don’t know how well the word “Professional” can sit with a pilot who:
The years of Eddie’s piloting experience did show in the successful hitting of the Cap in partnership with my swimming ability. But he had zero experience piloting successful double solo crossings (to my knowledge) and for that reason alone I should not have asked him to pilot for me (my mistake).
RE: Charlie’s comment: “I was saddened to see his good name being dragged through the mud” and “deformation of [Eddie’s] character” (defamation?)
Exposing safety issues and professional mistakes on a swim allows all involved in this sport to examine procedures and become more swimmer and safety focused. I would like Eddie and the CS&PF representatives on the boat to be accountable for their actions. I am hoping to work towards this by providing a truthful and well thought through analysis which is starkly different from defamation.
RE: Charlie’s comment: Chloe is a “naive swimmer”
Yes, I was naive in the fact that Eddie had zero experience piloting successful solo double crossings (to my knowledge) and for that reason alone I should not have asked him to pilot me (my mistake).
RE: Charlie’s comment: Mike’s post was “toned down for public dissemination”
It may or may not have been but many people will not think it fitting for a chairman to post the words you did on December 2nd (see Charlie’s comments below).
RE: Charlie’s comments: Chloe was an “ill prepared [and an] unqualified naive swimmer” her main support person is an “unqualified boyfriend”
It is strange to call someone who completed the 6 hour cold water swim as required and has completed numerous marathon swims around the world (see my website) as “unqualified”. How can I be an unqualified swimmer, how does one become qualified?
I do not believe it is fitting for the chairman of a federation to be describing any swimmer, who has met all the administrative and swim requirements of the federation (let alone an English Channel successful solo swimmer who swam for 24hrs + 50min) as “ill prepared [and an] unqualified naive swimmer”. Neither should a Chairman be describing one of her support crew as an “unqualified boyfriend”. If the Chairman had taken the time to look at the facts he would be aware that Paul undertook an incredible task of supporting me for 25 hours on the water, has swum the English Channel himself only 1 day before my own swim (in a fantastic time of 13:28 and has completed 5 Ironmans and supported many people for Ironmans). I also wonder what the “swimming ilk” of this world would think about these types of comments against a swimmer or support crew (especially those preparing for a Jersey swim?).
How does one become a “qualified” support crew for the English Channel? If you call Paul “unqualified” surely, the CS&PF have a qualification standard or requirement? Or maybe the CS&PF provide specific information for the support crew to prepare them for this incredible task? If the federation does, please forward to me as I cannot find any, anywhere.
For anyone who thinks I argued with my support crew, you will not see this in the observers report or hear it from my observers. In fact one of the support crews tweets from my channel swim which is still on Twitter describes my “perfect attitude and amazing energy… Go Chloe!” and “I was helping crew for Chloe, and I want to say she put forth an amazing effort...” (Channel Groups 22/09/09).
4. Swimmer Safety
I accept and fully appreciate that (as stated in my contract with Eddie) “Channel Swimming is an extreme sport that has its dangers” and that I am required to swim a 6 hr qualifying swim to prove that I have minimum fitness to undertake a Channel attempt. Where is the “the CS&PF “Duty of Care” and awareness programme” available for swimmers to access? This programme is mentioned on Mike’s personal Channel swimming website http://www.channelswimming.com/training.htm. Can someone please define and make readily available the duty of care owed by the CS&PF, the pilot, the boat crew and the observers for the swim.
When the conditions were at their most severe the observer (Nathan) was piloting the boat. As I mentioned in my blog I was being tossed into the boat by the waves. When the conditions were at their most severe the boat kept losing me and I couldn’t keep up with the boat. My support crew kept telling Nathan to cut the engine so I could catch up (Eddie was downstairs). I was constantly falling behind the boat – this was extremely distressing for me, the swimmer.
Mike’s website states that “Both the CS&PF and your pilot put safety first, second and third”. What happened to this statement in the last hours of my swim? Please explain Eddie / Mike / qualified others why I wasn’t owed this duty of care at that time? My support crew were very concerned about my welfare in the last few hours of the swim, because the boat kept losing me and I was being left up to 50 metres behind the boat in the middle of the night in at least Force 5 conditions. They were also concerned in these last 5 hours at other times when I was being thrown against the boat due to the conditions combined with the lack of lighting for me to see where I was supposed to be swimming. Another concern was that Nathan was the only CS&PF representative on deck for a considerable portion of time during the last 5 hours (and the only pilot during this time).
If something had happened to me during those last 5 hours when Nathan was piloting who would have been responsible? Is the support crew responsible, or the pilot, or observers, or boat crew or the swimmer or a combination of the previous parties listed? Mike / qualified other please clarify…
I would encourage people to read the following article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/channel-swimmer–goes-missing-one-mile-from-success-665555.html). Richard was, according to Mike “very experienced” and “very qualified and more than capable of doing the job”. If Richard was an experienced pilot and yet lost a swimmer in 20knot conditions (Ueli, who was found dead 7 days later) is it not then also possible for Eddie to have lost me in those same conditions? And yet Eddie was not even piloting the boat when the conditions were at their worst.
The article claims that Ueli was swimming in 20 knot winds. Mike is quoted as calling these conditions “quite rough”, yet my swim had at least 19 knot winds and Mike calls my conditions merely “uncomfortable”. As I have already outlined, the observers report lists 19 knot winds but is missing the last 3 hours of conditions, as noted earlier conditions were deteriorating rapidly towards the end of the swim. I assume that Nathan was a qualified and experienced pilot. Mike / others please confirm this... Richard was, according to Mike in the article was “very experienced” and “very qualified and more than capable of doing the job”. The article continues to quote Mike... “Richard was an operator who had accompanied cross-Channel rowing attempts”. If he was experienced and yet lost a swimmer in 20 knot conditions is it not then also possible for Eddie to have lost me in those conditions? And yet Eddie was not even piloting the boat when the conditions were at their worst. My contract with Eddie states “It is the swimmers and their team’s duty to know the challenge they are undertaking and be aware of the possible conditions that can be involved.” How can the support crew look out for the swimmers welfare when the boat crew decide to stop sharing information with the support crew? Where is the information (via the CS&PF website or via the information which is sent out with swimmer/s paperwork) directed towards the support crew to assist them with the massive task of supporting a swimmer/s to cross the English Channel? As mentioned on the CS&PF website “English Channel Swimming is an Extreme endurance Sport that can result in injury or even death”. How can the CS&PF acknowledge the severity of this swim and yet provide little / no information for the support crew who work so closely with the swimmer during the swim? The only advice from my pilot was via the contract in which it is stated that swimmers and support crew need “to be aware that sea sickness can be a serious problem for the support team members on the boat.” Although there is virtually no documentation / other training for the support crew from CS&PF, the Chairman of the CS&PF has the audacity to claim my main support person was “unqualified”. This is strange considering the CS&PF provide no assistance / qualification and do not require any qualification to be a support person. Charlie / other committee members please explain Charlie’s comments. The CS&PF website claims “There is a reason for the rules we work under”. Well, what are the exact rules and guidelines for the pilot, boat crew, observers and support crew on the boat during the swim?
What do I know about CSA?
Paul swam with CSA (a day before me, I was not on his boat as I was resting for my swim). Paul was extremely happy with his experience from the first contact with his pilot, through the swimming journey to France, on the way back to England and post-Channel. His pilot (Eric Hartley) was very encouraging of Paul during his swim (lots of thumbs up and encouraging words), made the support crew tea every hour of the swim (it’s all on video too), popped champagne he had brought (as a surprise) at the conclusion of the swim and was very open with his communication with Paul before the swim. Paul was personally congratulated by the President of the CSA (who is not a pilot) via email a few days after his swim. I wish I had had the same English Channel experience as Paul!
I have been in email contact with Julie Bradshaw (President of CSA, world record holder for the English Channel) and I trust if I have any concerns with the CSA that she would listen carefully to my concerns and address them in a professional and balanced way.
I have also met Reg Brickell and I have spoken to him at length. He also has the record for piloting the fastest female solo double crossing so I trust that I am giving myself the best opportunity for success with himself as the pilot.
My mistake (please correct me please if I am wrong with this guess the info is difficult to obtain on the internet) is that I picked a pilot without any previous success of a solo double channel crossing (to my knowledge). I picked a pilot with a zero success rate for what I wished to accomplish. It didn’t matter how many successful solo swims he had because a double crossing for both the pilot and swimmer (and the crews) is much more difficult.
It doesn’t matter what the result of my swim was (success / failure / single / double), the conduct of two CS&PF individuals during the swim (Eddie and Nathan) and the Hon. Sec (Mike) and Chairman (Charlie) after the swim has been totally inappropriate. Pilots have a duty of care to their swimmers in one of the most dangerous extreme sports in the world and they also run businesses for commercial gain and must provide the service they claim to offer / which is in their contract. For these two reasons Pilots should be held accountable for their conduct. CS&PF representatives on the boat should act professionally at all times. Likewise, CS&PF committee members should act professionally on the Channel Groups website and refrain from slandering and misrepresenting swimmers.
The article about Ueli (the swimmer who drowned), states that the CS&PF was set up when “Mr Oram was suspended from the list of registered pilots of the Channel Swimming Association after a complaint from a swimmer that crew were allowed to sleep below decks, leaving “insufficient crew on station to attend to the safety of passengers during bad weather and rough seas”” (www.independent.co.uk). It would appear that I am not the only one who has taken a stand for the safety of swimmers in the English Channel.
Hopefully, the safety issues exposed in my swim and the similarity to those of the death of a swimmer in similar conditions will encourage the CS&PF to look closely at how the safety of the swimmer/s is better protected to ensure the safest passage for English Channel swimmers.
Suggestions:
——————————————————–The End——————————————————————-
