How Many EPIRBS and Liferafts Ever Save Lives ?

[boatman61]

Snore.... I'm one of those chestbeating macho ass#*les who carries nothing but a VHF and a dinghy.... then when the s*#t hits the fan I sit out there going..."Oh S*#t... Oh S#*t...."
When I get back ashore safely... yet again... I do my 'Tarzan' act...

Bit like the guy who jumps of the roof of the Empire State.... as he passes the windows on each floor folks can hear him saying.... "So far... So good..."

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

All thinking people accept that safety is a "mindset" not a kit bag of equipment, but THAT in now way justifies the opposite thinking, that safety could be "advanced" by restricting such equipment.
Dave

As far as I have seen in this thread nobody has made or implied that. Either you inferred it from something someone wrote, or your statement is a rhetorical device.

What I have seen in this , though not stated very susinctly, is that 'push button' rescue devices allow people, statistically, to become more complacent about their mindset towards safety.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Evans , really this is a high school debating tatic that a loosing side attempts, bring the argument to a hypothetically ridiculous point in an attempt to justfy their original point.

Parachutes are not considered for un trained cilivians, because they are a complex, dangerous and require significant training. Equally the procedures involved in exiting a high attitude pressured plane remove it from comtemplation.

Parachutes more dangerous than a garunteed (sp?) crash into the earth? I don't think so. They could be simplified for emergency use by passengers. Even if they are so complex that most people can't make them work, so what, 5 people go out the door and only 1 person gets their chute to work, 1 less dead body. Finally, planes have to pass thru low altitudes on their way from high altitude to a crash at ground level, and at least a few people could escape the plane during that period.

Chutes aren't on planes because the cost benefit analysis for them doesn't work. What they cost to make, install and haul around until needed could be better spent on improvements that would prevent the crash in the first place.

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

10 trivial recuses , 100 trivial rescue , whatever justifies a life saved.

That is the mindset in this society and in every society I am aware of. Somebody in immediate distress will get the help they need at great cost. But that cost diverts money that could be spent elsewhere to better effect.

Lets say the CG mobilises for 20 rescues, and 1 life is saved. Let's say $250k per rescue, $5M net. Instead the the money goes into mandatory safety checks for all vessels once per year, and all vessels clearing out from customs, done free to the boater, with no mandate to repair any problems just to inform the skipper of things he might not have noticed. $5M will buy you a lot of inspections, and a lot more than 1 life is going to be saved.

But that's not an immediate danger being dealt with, and it's hard to establish how many lives saved, and it isn't 'sexy' like rescuing people, so society doesn't want to pay as much for it.

That money could also be diverted to help feed 10,000's of folks starving to death somewhere due to drought rather than rescuing pleasure boaters who weren't bright enough not to get in over their heads.

Ultimately what I see is that the money being spent on rescues is going to push most societies into requiring training and licensing for pleasure boater, especially those going offshore. I don't like this, but the increasingly casual way people can get into offshore sailing now will force the issue. Today I say a book entitled "Fast Track to Cruising: How to Go from Novice to Cruise-Ready in Seven Days"by Steve Colgate

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

to quote the daleks
" resistance is futile"

I thought that was a borg quote.

[callmecrazy]

As far as I have seen in this thread nobody has made or implied that. Either you inferred it from something someone wrote, or your statement is a rhetorical device.

I'm pretty sure that is precisely what has been implied in this thread. The language has simply been an act of dancing around this point.

I'm with everybody else in the school of hard knocks version of sailing. I won't be carrying a liferaft (unless somebody gives me one), and I accept the risk in doing so. But I recognize the risk!

This point, is the only point of contention I've had throughout this thread. I don't believe the mere presence of a liferaft would prevent me from doing everything possible to save my boat and crew Prior to launching it. That is the point Estar continues to beat to death (among other points). And it's certainly not "too subtle" for us simple minded folk to comprehend...

And I'd further that by saying there are plenty of people like me/us out there to offset the 'statistics' of those other folks, But we'll never know that, because there is no statistical recording (or news stories) of successful seamanship.

It's one thing to accept a risk, but it's not appropriate to justify it to yourself, by implying everyone else should accept the same risk else they face the wrath of judgement and condescension.

[Catamount]

Originally Posted by callmecrazy

I'm pretty sure that is precisely what has been implied in this thread. The language has simply been an act of dancing around this point.

I don't think anybody has said or implied that the availability of liferafts or other rescue equipment ought to be restricted or regulated by government or any other organization.

Originally Posted by callmecrazy

This point, is the only point of contention I've had throughout this thread. I don't believe the mere presence of a liferaft would prevent me from doing everything possible to save my boat and crew Prior to launching it. That is the point Estar continues to beat to death (among other points). And it's certainly not "too subtle" for us simple minded folk to comprehend...

But there is some anecdotal evidence from sailing where this is what sometimes happens, and we can apply scientific evidence from other fields where this type of effect is demonstrated to be real. No one wants to believe it could happen to them, and so they argue against this evidence. It's not something I ever really thought about myself before becoming involved in this thread, but I do now believe that it is indeed possible that the mere fact that I carry a liferaft could potentially affect my decision making during an emergency situation. However, I also believe that now that I am cognizant of that, I can work it into my own "mind training" in such a way as to try to mitigate the negative impact on my decision making. And I have sought out hands-on training with the liferaft -- which is quite sobering.

Originally Posted by callmecrazy

It's one thing to accept a risk, but it's not appropriate to justify it to yourself, by implying everyone else should accept the same risk else they face the wrath of judgement and condescension.

No one has suggested that everyone else should accept the risk of sailing without a liferaft just because they have themselves, certainly not Evans. He has been adamant that this is his and Beth's own personal decision, and not something that they recommend for others.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Catamount

No one has suggested that everyone else should accept the risk of sailing without a liferaft just because they have themselves, certainly not Evans. He has been adamant that this is his and Beth's own personal decision, and not something that they recommend for others.

True.... this is also my decision after taking a few annual Survival at Sea commercial courses sponsered by my employers in the past...
My preference is an inflatable with ditch bag and survival blankets.... but thats me working with my abilities and experience...
I would strongly recommend anyone who gets a liferaft for their boat go on one of these courses... its not a simple matter of pull the cord, wait a coupla minutes and jump in...
theres a lots can go wrong in any kind of weather and the wind/waves can flip these easily before you have the chance to get in... and righting thems tough enough in a swimming pool... never mind in a sea...
Educate yourself in survival methods... just buying and stowing alone will not improve your survival chances
Get some Training

[meyermm]

Adelie - Quote What I have seen in this , though not stated very susinctly, is that 'push button' rescue devices allow people, statistically, to become more complacent about their mindset towards safety.

Where is this statistical evidence all I have read mainly from one poster who has driven some of us mad with his continual beating of the same drum based on his opinion. Just like my opinion it is not worth more than the one of many opinions expressed here.

[Catamount]

Originally Posted by meyermm

Adelie - Quote What I have seen in this , though not stated very susinctly, is that 'push button' rescue devices allow people, statistically, to become more complacent about their mindset towards safety. (end quote)

Where is this statistical evidence all I have read mainly from one poster who has driven some of us mad with his continual beating of the same drum based on his opinion. Just like my opinion it is not worth more than the one of many opinions expressed here.

We only need statistical evidence if we want to prove that this is a wide spread problem that endangers more lives than it saves. But we do not need statistical evidence to show that it does, at least sometimes, happen -- we have sufficient anecdotal evidence -- some people do sometimes become more complacent about their mindset towards safety given access to "push button" rescue. Maybe you don't -- more power to you -- but others sometimes do.

[psneeld]

Here's a famous quote that applies to most emergency situations...

Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth.
Mike Tyson


The ONLY thing that really affects how a person reacts during a truly scary emergency is training. The military has PLENTY of anecdotal evidence to prove that concept.

My own background is 20+ years/5000+ hours of US Coast Guard helo flying with numerous in flight emergencies of my own... plus the review of thousands more emergencies from both internal and commercial reports. ( my last job was Chief of Aviation safety for the Guard.)

Think whatever you want...but without continuous hands on practice and a few stair step emergencies...how you are going to react in a true life and death emergency is only a guess...whether you carry safety gear or not.

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by meyermm

. . . Where is this statistical evidence all I have read mainly from one poster who has driven some of us mad with his continual beating of the same drum based on his opinion. Just like my opinion it is not worth more than the one of many opinions expressed here.

You gotta love folks who shout - where is the statistical evidence . . . Simply put except for insured boats it does not exist. The database that does exist is collected by the insurance companies to use to set insurance rates. There is no access to that information outside the company. Some insurance companies do require that to remain insured you have to have this or that safety equipment on board regardless of where such is required by the coast guard/bureaucrats of the country.
- - In order to generate "statistical evidence" somebody has to collect the data and collate it. Who is going to pay for that? Who is going to collate and publish the information? All that takes organization and money. You have a large amount of boats from big to little countries floating around the oceans. Just getting "piracy" data for the actual cruising community is very difficult. And most probably 9 out of 10 real incidents are not reported either because of not knowing where to report it or embarrassment at being the victim.
- - I sense this thread splitting into two basic groups of boaters. First there is the "so what if we rescue 9 false or incompetent sailors to get to the one authentic rescue. Others have addressed this issue from the money aspects. Nothing wrong with this if the society is willing to pay for the equipment and trained rescue personnel to use it.
- - On the other hand is a group of long term cruisers who are exemplified by the phrase - I go where I want, when I want and I don't want any guv'mint a**holes telling where or when I can go. These folks have the skill and intelligence to "take care of themselves" in most all situations. What safety systems they have on their boats is mainly determined upon their own personal risk assessment. Generally speaking all the ones I have met have safety equipment that exceeds any government requirements.
- - Also the "save everybody" group, I suspect, is mostly in the in-shore and near-shore sailing areas and consist overwhelmingly sport fisherman boats or smaller fishing boats. Nothing wrong with that except that it eventually leads to bureaucrats passing laws mandating schools and licensing for ALL boaters.
- - That aspect really raises the "hackles" on long-term cruisers who got into the life-style to get away from - people and guv'mints telling us how to live our lives. Luckily, most of these reg's, etc., expire at the territorial limits of the oppressive government especially if you are not flagged in that country.
- - So the discussion will just go around in circles between the two different groups and neither is going to convince the other. But bottom line, nobody is prevented from carrying additional safety systems but there is normally a minimum level of safety equipment set reasonably to the risk of perceived problems the local bureaucrats or insurance companies perceive as valid.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by meyermm

Adelie - Quote What I have seen in this , though not stated very susinctly, is that 'push button' rescue devices allow people, statistically, to become more complacent about their mindset towards safety.

Where is this statistical evidence all I have read mainly from one poster who has driven some of us mad with his continual beating of the same drum based on his opinion. Just like my opinion it is not worth more than the one of many opinions expressed here.

Poor word choice on my part, by statistically, I meant in a large group of sailors there will be a greater tendancy. I did not mean I had statistical evidence for this issue.

On the other hand I have statistical evidence for a similar safety related issue. Charlie Wing in "the Liveaboard Report" indicates that there was an inverse relationship between draft and the number of times a boat had been aground, shoal draft vessels ran aground more often statistically. In a completely rational world a shoal draft boat would be less likely to run aground. This is not that world. My sense is that skippers of shoal draft boats got a little complacent about water depth either sailing or anchoring. Sample size was about 71 vessels.

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by Adelie

My sense is that skippers of shoal draft boats got a little complacent about water depth either sailing or anchoring. Sample size was about 71 vessels.

Lets take it as a granted that the presence of safety/rescue equipment leads to complacency in some skippers (whether this is true or not, is for the moment irrelevant.)

The problem is with the conclusion that is oh-so-wrongly drawn from that assumption: that getting rid of the safety/rescue equipment will counter that sense of complacency and will actually result in safer sailing. No it won't because while complacency may be slightly correlated to the presence of safety/rescue equipment, but is not caused by the presence of safety/rescue equipment. Therefore getting rid of the safety/rescue gear won't resolve the problem of complacency. What it WILL do is ensure that you've SOL when you really need an epirb or liferaft.

Let me also point out that contradiction in the argument being made: on one hand it assumes that skippers are foolish enough to become complacent when they have access to safety/rescue gear, and yet on the other hand it assumes that the same foolish sailors will behave responsibly if they don't have access to safety/rescue gear. No, if you're a foolish skipper, you're a foolish skipper. Period. You don't suddenly get smarter when you don't have access to safety/rescue gear. If you're smart enough to say "Gee, I don't have access to safety/rescue gear so I should be more careful" then you're also smart enough to say "Gee, I have the rescue/safety gear but nevertheless I shouldn't be complacent."

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Here's a famous quote that applies to most emergency situations...

Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth.
Mike Tyson


The ONLY thing that really affects how a person reacts during a truly scary emergency is training. The military has PLENTY of anecdotal evidence to prove that concept.

My own background is 20+ years/5000+ hours of US Coast Guard helo flying with numerous in flight emergencies of my own... plus the review of thousands more emergencies from both internal and commercial reports. ( my last job was Chief of Aviation safety for the Guard.)

Think whatever you want...but without continuous hands on practice and a few stair step emergencies...how you are going to react in a true life and death emergency is only a guess...whether you carry safety gear or not.

Of all the posters on this thread psneeld has the most directly relevant experience and knowledge to the subject at hand and is ignored.

For me the bottom line is:

a) If a skipper goes to sea and dies for lack of an EPIRB or Liferaft he has committed suicide.

b) If a skipper goes to sea with another person and that person dies for lack of an EPIRB or Liferaft then the skipper is guilty of manslaughter.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

For me the bottom line is:

a) If a skipper goes to sea and dies for lack of an EPIRB or Liferaft he has committed suicide.

b) If a skipper goes to sea with another person and that person dies for lack of an EPIRB or Liferaft then the skipper is guilty of manslaughter.

By that arguement those who drive older cars without airbags that are involved in accidents committ suicide and/or manslaughter.

And parents whose children die of measles, mumps, whooping cough after declining vaccinations due to fears about the vaccines are guilty of infanticide.

And people who decline medical treatment for themselves and/or their children for religious reasons are guilty of suicide and infanticide.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by Adelie

By that arguement those who drive older cars without airbags that are involved in accidents committ suicide and/or manslaughter.

And parents whose children die of measles, mumps, whooping cough after declining vaccinations due to fears about the vaccines are guilty of infanticide.

And people who decline medical treatment for themselves and/or their children for religious reasons are guilty of suicide and infanticide.

Though not my opinion...there are many that would agree...

The nice thing is that the US Coast Guard is fully funded...meaning it doesn't have to charge for rescues. Not matter how prepared or not the skipper is. Believe me...while the average coastie willingly goes into harms way to save boaters...it's the rare one that's willingly AND knowingly going to trade their life for the average recreational boater...so no worries there...

BUT...if a boater doesn't have a reasonable cache of rescue equipment or plans that are available at a reasonable cost...then most civilized societies ARE going to assign poor judgement and/or blame to that individual. It comes in all forms from housing to auto to travel safety practices that drive up costs in all those arenas. Most states are now requiring some sort of boating safety course. It costs money to take or get certified. I teach it and think it does little to actually improve safety...but many think otherwise including insurance companies who are betting on money more than I am. So I could actually be wrong...unbelievable!!

[capn_billl]

The level of an "emergency" is kinda relative. If I had an important job to return to, (like I do have). And I required that job for my direct and imediate support, (again like I do), and if hundreds of others relied on me to show up and perform that job, (again). Then drifting for weeks trying to fashion a makeshift rudder may not be a viable alternative. I make resonable efforts to insure the boat is functional before I leave, and I am prepaired and can affect reasonable repairs. But I run on too tight a schedule to allow for extensive delays even if not immediately life threatening. And can you insure the makeshift rudder will not subject the baot and crew to greater danger??

I recently read about a guy who got out over his head, and after losing rigging and about to drift from an inland river to under a bridge to open sea, (where he may have had to wait weeks for a rescue), decided to call for help clinging to the bridge. He was in a difficult situation, not imediately life threatening, but about to become significantly more dangerous. The biggest complaint I hear from rescuers is that often people wait until it is almost too late to call turning a routine pickup into a more dangerous rescue for both the victims, and the rescuers. Any rescuer I know would rather pickup a guy clinging to a bridge than scour the open sea in bad weather for hours, ...days, ...looking for a guy who didn't have the sense to call as soon as he realized he was in trouble.

If I'm coastal sailing, and something major goes wrong that will prevent me from returning to work on monday, whether the boat is still floating or not, I'm going to call for help. This spending months on a deserted island distilling tree sap to reconstruct a cracked hull may work for some people, but not for me. (maybe when I retire).