How Many EPIRBS and Liferafts Ever Save Lives ?

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You completely miss the point Evans, I am not in any way passing judgement on those people that take that well informed risks.

Hmmm . . . . calling it "bizarre" and other insults is not "passing judgement" . . . .well if you say so.

If you want to be an "outlier" be an "outlier" , but stop trying to convince the bell curve to shift to you !.


You obviously did not read the piece very carefully, because I explicitly wrote in it: "This is a distinctly personal choice, based on our own assessment of the likely true risks and how to most effectively minimize them. We rarely even mention this decision to others, as we do not want others to base such an important decision on our reasoning and logic. I do believe the thought process should be undertaken with all safety equipment by evaluating the following questions: How likely is the actual risk compared to other risks? Is the equipment well made & will it actually work (has it consistently worked well for others)? Can I personally test it out and see if how it works and refine my procedure or is it essentially a mystery box that I just hope will work? Does it distract either our attention or money from a better solution?"

I have never ever suggested that our approach was best for others. Many people have asked and I have simply explained in that piece why it is our approach. I did not post the extract from our website, someone else did that. I simply responded to your insulting and unfounded and unfact based attacks.

What I am seriously fed up about, is your oft repeated notion that somehow people are going to abandon at a drop of a hat simply because they have some sort of "safety" device.

Well you are #1 denying a plain fact of human behavior - really look up moral hazard. It is a completely proven and establish fact with exhaustive insurance statistics. And #2 you are denying the facts of post-incident analysis of more that half of the yacht abandonment, which suggest they could/would have self rescued if they had not abandoned. Please note I am not at all criticizing (most of) those people. They were simply making a decision based on their available options.

And #3 I never ever said 'at the drop of a hat', or anything like it. You are just making that up and somehow attributing it to me. That is seriously bad behavior on your part - very close to a direct lie.

You obviously have no experience of looking at a liferaft dangling behind a yacht at 4am in a storm and considering whether to board it. Believe you me, its not "the easy option"

Well, you know very little about me, and you would be dead wrong in your 'obvious' assumption.

......

[weavis]

I fly aircraft.

I have a fear of heights as in standing on high buildings etc.
Some of the aircraft I travel in, we have parachutes. The chances of me voluntarily jumping out of perfectly functional aircraft are absolutely zero.

If the aircraft is on fire or out of control and I have a parachute, and I have a chance of surviving the extreme position I am in...... I think I would jump.

If Im on a boat and Ive done everything I can possibly do and the situation is out of control and there is no other course of action except to abandon ship, I would would want a RIB or life raft. My passenger would appreciate it as well. In the event of an onboard fire, you literally have 1 minute before it goes out of control once it takes hold........ then there is the problem with bottled gas and vapours........

I would NEVER go far offshore without one or the other. A locator is a good idea in those circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8BUr0mirpk

[transmitterdan]

I wonder how many people rescued from a life raft were found to have abandoned a boat that still supported life aboard? I'm guessing it is near nil. The concept that a raft or EPIRB makes the loss of the boat more likely isn't a very compelling one. But even if it is true who cares? If someone else abandons their "salvageable" boat how does that affect the rest of us?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

......

again, Evans, what I regard as bizarre is the notion, (a) That people should not consider certain safety items. and (b) that in doing so they are significantly modifying their perspective on saving the boat.

To put this into context, personally, I would prefer if people paid even LESS attention to saving the boat, Ive seen situations where a simple rescue degenerated into a race against time, because people incorrectly overestimated their ability to handle a situation. Most people incorrectly mis-read the inevitable "event cascade".

Far better to leave that hunk of plastic behind, that risk attempting to save it and then find that you have endangered someones life through your stubbornness, The need to emulate a " hollywood cowboy" is not a good perspective.

As to "Moral Hazard", my hero MR. Krugman once defied it as

"any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly"

I would argue that anyone trading recklessness for potential rescue at sea, nowhere comes near that definition, primarily because there remains a significant risk that "one will pay". Ive climbed up the side of a ship at night, personally I never never want to do it again.

Actually one of the problems at sea in SAR situations, is that people don't use the facilities they have , often becoming almost numb to the problem and developing a fatalistic outlook. This suggest that "moral hazard" plays no part in their thinking.

Today we have more people on the water then ever before, They are better equipped then ever before, Standard production yachts, out of the box are capable of taking them to places that previously got you knighted. Coupled with the fact that you have in the most prolific sailing areas you have very light touch regulation and even lighter oversight, has led to situations that uninformed people get into situations they had not anticipated.

All I can say is in that case, Im glad that in the main , they, often unwittingly, invested in some safety gear.

I would form the opinion that its not a modern safety culture thats the problem, its the lack of knowledge,

Hence, while not once, I am now a proponent of mandatory training and every day I become more convinced.

dave

[boatman61]

[QUOTE=weavis;1634236]I fly aircraft.

I have a fear of heights as in standing on high buildings etc.
Some of the aircraft I travel in, we have parachutes. The chances of me voluntarily jumping out of perfectly functional aircraft are absolutely zero.

If the aircraft is on fire or out of control and I have a parachute, and I have a chance of surviving the extreme position I am in...... I think I would jump.

If Im on a boat and Ive done everything I can possibly do and the situation is out of control and there is no other course of action except to abandon ship, I would would want a RIB or life raft. My passenger would appreciate it as well. In the event of an onboard fire, you literally have 1 minute before it goes out of control once it takes hold........ then there is the problem with bottled gas and vapours........

I would NEVER go far offshore without one or the other. A locator is a good idea in those circumstances.
/QUOTE]

On my own boats I only carry an inflatable dinghy.. and not the RIB type.. which I keep semi inflated on the fore deck as my 'Emergency Evacuation' tool..
This year I acquired a SPOT 3 Tracker.. not for its EPIRB capabilities but so as owners could track the movement of their boats rather than sit chewing their nails till I hit a port and send an e-mail..
With deliveries its a no brainer.. carrying a life-raft makes the insurance company AND the crew happy.. so be it.. but the dinghy is still semi-inflated on the foredeck..
Problem here is folk are talking from comfy offices and lounges.. or marina's in some case's.. wonder how much the level of logic stays functional when skipper and crew are cold, wet, exhausted and sea sick.. throw in a fair dash of inexperience of really bad weather for the majority...
Personally I hate liferafts.. think they are death traps.. in spite of commercial training in their use when I worked for an Oil exploration firm for a while..
But then I don't clip on or wear a life jacket either..
Wonder if B n E disapprove of me as much as GBN disapproves of them...:smitte n:

[goboatingnow]

hey phil, Just as B&E can do what they like so can you,

and believe me Im no fan of Liferafts, having had occasion to be in one in a rough sea with three men puking their ring out. Im certainly staying in the boat,

As for the dinghy , good choice, any option to be able to go somewhere othe then the yacht is useful. you can then wait till that Azorian CG boys find you ( again !!!!)

I dont disapprove of B&Es choice, I do disapprove of trying to say that modern safety systems generate a culture of " slap dashery" so to speak.


dave

[weavis]

I think we agree on the final chance aspect Boatie, be it a RIB a life raft or an inflatable.
It is the last choice a sailor EVER wants to make.......but he has the choice if its there.

[goboatingnow]

I would argue that most offshore harness systems are quite useless and more likely to drown you then save you.


dave

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by weavis

I think we agree on the final chance aspect Boatie, be it a RIB a life raft or an inflatable.
It is the last choice a sailor EVER wants to make.......but he has the choice if its there.

Its what makes the seaman.. choices/alternatives..

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Its what makes the seaman.. choices/alternatives..

“When a man cannot chose, he ceases to be a man.”
― Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

again, Evans, what I regard as bizarre is the notion, (a) That people should not consider certain safety items.

You are again making **** up if you are trying to suggest I have said anything like that at all. I have in fact said exactly the opposite. "the thought process should be undertaken with all safety equipment by evaluating the following questions"

and (b) that in doing so they are significantly modifying their perspective on saving the boat.

We can debate the meaning of your added word "significantly" but; (1) you are denying the obvious - which is if they do not have the equipment to call for help they MUST save the boat or die, so the 'call for help' equipment obviously changes the perspective. They now have an option/alternative. And (2) the various other points I have made about proven human behavior and empirical evidence. You just continue to simply insist on your obviously wrong perspective despite logic and all the facts suggesting otherwise.

The need to emulate a " hollywood cowboy" is not a good perspective.

Yes, I understand you have no appreciation at all of "style" or "sport aesthetics". You would apparently not understand why climbers would choose not to use some gear (up to and including a rope) in order to climb with 'better style', or why the Pardey's would choose to sail without an engine. You seem/apparently think all that sort of thinking approach to sport is 'cowboy' and 'bizarre'.

I would form the opinion that its not a modern safety culture that's the problem, its the lack of knowledge, Hence, while not once, I am now a proponent of mandatory training and every day I become more convinced.

Perfectly fine. That's your opinion. I respect your right to have an opinion and will not insult you or call it 'bizarre'.

Originally Posted by boatman61

;1634244]Wonder if B n E disapprove of me as much as GBN disapproves of them...:smitte n:

No, in fact you are my hero

[monte]

I have 2 hypothetical questions..
1/ Evans, if someone on the dock handed you a package the size and weight of a matchbox at no charge that would deploy into a 4 person liferaft if needed, would you take it?
2/ Phil, will you be sharing your next delivery with the spot tracker with CF ?

[weavis]

Originally Posted by monte

I have 2 hypothetical questions..
1/ Evans, if someone on the dock handed you a package the size and weight of a matchbox at no charge that would deploy into a 4 person liferaft if needed, would you take it?

I wonder if the DEA would buy that reason when they arrested you?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by monte

?
2/ Phil, will you be sharing your next delivery with the spot tracker with CF ?

I mean there are so many CGs we can rile up yet

dave

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by monte

I have 2 hypothetical questions..
1/ Evans, if someone on the dock handed you a package the size and weight of a matchbox at no charge that would deploy into a 4 person liferaft if needed, would you take it?

There are four separate issue to discuss: #1 size/stowage, #2 cost vs other alternatives, #3 effectiveness, #4 'moral hazard'.

You are hypothesizing away #1 & #2. So, that obviously tilts the balance of the equation.

But I would definitely want to know something about #3 before I took it on board. I would not want to waste time in an emergency considering or deploying something that simply did not work, even if it was free. I have in fact turned down a number of pieces of 'safety gear' that mfg's have offered me for free, because I had reason to believe they were crap gear.

My own personal experience, and the empirical cases I have studied, is that the 'moral hazard' issue is much stronger with the 'press here for rescue' devices and less with rafts.

Net net, given only 1 minutes thought, if I was convinced about #3 I would probably give it a try.