Are liferafts really a rational expenditure

[Pelagic]

I've had to step into a life raft from the roof of a sinking tug during a winter gale in BC waters.

I have also rescued two seaman from a life raft east of Egypt in a similar December storm, with the 12 others missing and pronounced lost.

No one involved ever considered the statistics or justification for a life raft, they were just grateful to have that final option

[Mike OReilly]

I consider life rafts to be in the same category as guns. They are a highly specialized tool which have a high cost (not just financial) and have a fairly narrow window of usefulness. They both also have significant drawbacks and failure paths. If I ever found myself in that situation where they were useful, then I'd surely be very glad to have one, but by any rational measure of the risk, the odds of me ever needing one is exceedingly small.

If my resources were unlimited I would have one in a flash. But since they are not, I must apply a cost-benefit analysis to this (and indeed all) risk situations. The risk is very low, and so far I’ve not found the benefit justifies the cost. I don’t cross oceans (yet), although I have sailed in areas where help could be days away. I may also be more comfortable with a higher level of risk than many.

For me, the resources associated with a life raft are currently better used in more functional ways. But as I say, this is my current calculus, and I may change my mind in the future. Other people will weigh the variables differently, and come to different conclusions.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

...
No one involved ever considered the statistics or justification for a life raft, they were just grateful to have that final option

Options are good on boats. Thats one reason I carry a life raft...its option C (A: cats dont sink fast. B: Dinghy...mobile exit option. C: Liferaft. Plus VHF, SSB, EPIRB, and InReach).

Options are good and its amazing how fast options can evaporate on boats.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

The rational man would not be playing with recreational sailboats in the first place.

There you go.

I was hoping this discussion would go in the direction of "where to better spend the money." Additionally, I suspect there is some number that got into life rafts and were never heard from again.

• Watertight bulkheads. Even a false floor. Partial bulkheads. I'm pretty sure my boat cannot sink (two crash tanks forward, two aft, in both hulls (8 tanks), no ballast. Flip, possibly, but I still don't need or want the raft.
• Fire suppression systems.
• More third party inspections. We can all miss something.

And so forth.

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by chris mac

Just to bring up a different point. My understanding is most drownings far from shore are caused by accidentally falling from the boat. Whether single handing or alone on watch. In those situations, a life raft won't help you. Tether and Jack lines are a bigger priority..

Good point. Does anyone have any stats on how many liferafts have actually saved people from drowning?

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

If my resources were unlimited I would have one in a flash. But since they are not, I must apply a cost-benefit analysis to this

Lemme introduce you to my liferaft salesman

- But what if you're responsible for guests!
- But what if you're struck by a whale or container
- But what if you were surrounded by sharks
- But what if there's a fire onboard
etc etc


You just need more of a Fear Premium. We need to find what scares you into irrational decisions. Spiders? Snakes?

Seriously though, I feel better with a liferaft, don't know how you do it. This is just a feeling of course.

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I've had to step into a life raft from the roof of a sinking tug during a winter gale in BC waters.

I have also rescued two seaman from a life raft east of Egypt in a similar December storm, with the 12 others missing and pronounced lost.

No one involved ever considered the statistics or justification for a life raft, they were just grateful to have that final option

Naturally they would but the question is how likely is this, and whether the $$ could be spent better in avoiding such problems

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by hafa

THIS. r and 20'+ Tiger and pelagic gray sharks are common. .

Yes that would be quite scary but did you see the latest "shark attack" story from Australia? So the shark decides to eat the kayak, while the kayaker manages to swim away.
US kayaker attacked by great white shark - 9news.com.au

Imagine it chewing on your liferaft....yikes! This is why I'm OK with a hard dinghy

Apparently they've decided to attack by air too
Australian man injured after shark jumps into boat - BBC News

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

Naturally they would but the question is how likely is this, and whether the $$ could be spent better in avoiding such problems

Hi Cyrus,
Obviously if a person could predict the future, they would resolve the problem Before it became an emergency.

You don't wear a seatbelt because you expect to crash...it just makes sense to have that extra level of security

Having a life raft is not a problem,
Not having one when sinking in a winter gale is.

I guess living and working on the water, my belief that nothing unforseen will ever go wrong, was shattered at an early age.

[chris mac]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

Naturally they would but the question is how likely is this, and whether the $$ could be spent better in avoiding such problems

Of course it can be better spent to prevent the need of a life raft. Buy a small cabin far from the sea. Your odds of sinking are very low at this point;-)
Sailing has inherent risks. Striking an unseen object, or equipment failure may one day cause the loss of your boat. Buying a 10 billion dollar super yacht won't eliminate this risk. strive for the best, prepare for the worst, pick your cliché.
Prevention is paramount but you still need a back up plan. It's up to you what it will be.
As for me, I see money as a tool. Use it to make your life better, safer, funner. Sinking in the middle of the ocean with your life savings in the bank, but no life saving options, is quite ironic.
Being at sea is very different than land.on land, If you don't carry a spare tire because it feels like wasted money, thats fine. It won't kill you, just inconvenience you.
Everyone must balance their own risk/reward.

[HopCar]

I think it's safe to assume that anyone who's boat sinks in the open ocean will die if they don't have a secondary boat.

With today's electronics, maybe the secondary boat doesn't have to be a raft loaded with lots of water and food. Maybe a dinghy with 48 hours worth of supplies and an Epirb will do.

If I were going to do a significant ocean passage, I would carry a raft and a bunch of electronics to call for help with.

Thirty years ago I would have planned on weeks or months in the raft. Today I think planning for 48 hours is realistic.

[daletournier]

Some of the lodgic here is surprising.....you will most likely never use a life raft so dont buy one can also extent to life jackets, epirbs, life rings, large bilge pumps etc etc.....most likely wont need any of the above so save your money?
As to spend your money to prevent needing the above? Explain to me how you predict all future possible scenarios, I cant.
I just wasted 3k on a new sail, the old one most likely would have got me there, I just wasted 6k on new rigging, the old stuff would have probably been ok, I just wasted 1k on sorting my liferaft, wont need it, the list goes on.
So many come undone due to ppp (piss poor planning), she'll be right mate!
I think most decisions are made based on a lack of money and then justified. If I had to give up drinking beer for a year in order to have the money for a life raft I would, its all choices and consequences.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by HopCar

I think it's safe to assume that anyone who's boat sinks in the open ocean will die if they don't have a secondary boat.

With today's electronics, maybe the secondary boat doesn't have to be a raft loaded with lots of water and food. Maybe a dinghy with 48 hours worth of supplies and an Epirb will do.

If I were going to do a significant ocean passage, I would carry a raft and a bunch of electronics to call for help with.

Thirty years ago I would have planned on weeks or months in the raft. Today I think planning for 48 hours is realistic.

My philosophy exactly, accept for the 48hr bit. Modern communication (plus redundancy) that you can keep charged.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

Lemme introduce you to my liferaft salesman

- But what if … You just need more of a Fear Premium. We need to find what scares you into irrational decisions. Spiders? Snakes?

Exactly. So much of this stuff is sold to us on a WHAT IF!!! basis. There is no end to this line of thinking. It is impossible to be 100% safe or 100% prepared for everything. This is why I look at this question in terms of actual risk AND cost/benefit.

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Having a life raft is not a problem,
Not having one when sinking in a winter gale is.

I understand what you’re saying Pelagic, but I disagree on this point. Having a life raft IS a problem for me. It’s a problem of cost, of space, of storage, of deployment, of maintenance. It certainly comes at a real cost, both financial and otherwise. This is why I currently choose not to outfit one: risk assessment and cost-benefit.

Originally Posted by daletournier

Some of the lodgic here is surprising.....you will most likely never use a life raft so dont buy one can also extent to life jackets, epirbs, life rings, large bilge pumps etc etc.....most likely wont need any of the above so save your money?

Dale, all these items easily pass the cost-benefit analysis. Much like wearing a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet, these things are low-cost tools to deal with (in the case of road travel) a high-risk activity. Life jackets, rings, bilge pumps, even EPIRBs are cheap in terms of resource costs. Life rafts are not.

The question is not, should I have all possible safety gear to guard against all possible risks? The question in real life is, what risks warrant the expenditure of my limited resources? Where resources are un(or less) limited, then a life raft can easily pass the test. In my cases, it currently does not.

… but I will no doubt be regretting this assessment should my boat sink out from underneath me as we head towards Newfoundland .

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I understand what you’re saying Pelagic, but I disagree on this point. Having a life raft IS a problem for me. It’s a problem of cost, of space, of storage, of deployment, of maintenance. It certainly comes at a real cost, both financial and otherwise. This is why I currently choose not to outfit one: risk assessment and cost-benefit.
.

Hi Mike,
No argument from me that you have that right to prioritize and I believe you will also be sailing alone...., but just one hypothetical question....

If you read that a US towing company had decided not to put the "legally required" Liferafts on their 5 man Tug boats as they were financially just scraping by.....and one of those tugs sank.

Would public opinion aprove of the companies' priorities?