The need for a liferaft <--> immersion suit

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by mikereed100

I think to a certain degree a large liferaft with ballast chambers may initially have more stability than a dinghy, but this is quickly overcome as waves become larger. I'm thinking here of the aforementioned Fastnet race in which liferafts were repeatedly capsized and the occupants thrown out. The ballast chambers on a liferaft do not extend very deep and the turbulent portion of even a small wave can render them ineffective. I believe that a dinghy with a sea anchor would fare no worse in rough conditions.

After spending quite a bit of time at sea in a liferaft Steve Callahan felt there must be a better solution and came up with this:
An Easy to Store, Combination Hard Bottomed Dinghy/Life Boat | Lin & Larry Pardey: Newsletters & Cruising Tips
http://www.stevencallahan.net/images...signs/frib.pdf

Look, I am sure you mean well with comments like this but they are misplaced. Your example couldn't really be worse. Fastnet 79 is absolutely the incident which began to force leisure liferaft manufacturers to radically redesign their liferafts, a process which has continued to this day. Now international standards such as ISO and SOLAS make the liferafts of today about as similar to those in the fastnet as is an AUDI Q5 to a Ford Pinto.

I am not suggesting they are yet perfect, which is why I personally repack my own or rather attend the certification repacks and supervise equipment repack and also examination of materials, seams etc. However the idea that modern liferafts which attain ISO 9650 and SOLAS standards are anything like the toys back in 1979 is really reaching too far.

[monte]

These conditions in a dinghy..Er...no thanks!
www.clubmarine.com.au/internet/clubmarine.nsf/docs/MG20-1+Feature/$file/sydhobart-10.jpg

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by ruby tuesday

... I personally i would never go out in Ruby Tuesday without my raft in its box in a cradle securely fastened to the stern.

i thinki that the only people that would go without a raft are those that really dont give a stuff about themselves or their crews.

if you were to offer me a crewing place on your boat with that as your exit strategy then i'd just laugh at you and then walk off.

We all exaggerate for drama in posts. I hope you recognize that each sentence in this is absurd.

1. I feel certain you would go some short distance.

2. A personal opinion few share, and rather accusatory when directed at people you do not know. Play nice.

3. I really don't think your laughter would be noticed. I also hope your reaction would depend on the sailing venue, but perhaps not. Conversation might be more constructive.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You make it sound as if it's an either/or proposition -- either "understand the craft" or "have safety equipment". Surely the best solution is both. If having safety equipment is leading you to neglect your craft, is the solution to perfect your craft, or get rid of you safety equipment? I know which one I would choose. Why all the need to psychologically manipulate yourself? If you should be fighting the fire rather than thinking about the raft, why just fight the fire. The raft doesn't make you get into it.


You are in a cat, which depending on the design might be more or less unsinkable. That's a rather different proposition. Fire is a risk, but I might personally be ok in reasonable waters (not cold high latitude) without a raft, in a sturdy cat. In a mono (aka "lead mine"), not so much.

Yes, my thoughts were specific to cats in rather temperate waters. That is my reality and the only one that interests me directly. There are posters from cold waters that are equally focused on their private reality. Since my boat is effectivly unsinkable (this has been proven by boats that were well-holed by gunfire--long story), the real concern is fire.

And so yes, you may have a very limited choice between fire fighting and preparing to leave. Assuming that you are single handed or short handed (my reality is that my partner is disabled) you cannot do both. Ignore the fire for a few minutes while prepping the raft and the choice is made for you.

It also comes down to a sailor's ability with contingencies. Many good sailors are just not very mechanical. Some can fix anything. Some have crews that are prone to panic, some pitch in. The skipper needs to understand these factors.

I'm not saying don't take a raft. I'm saying I've seen people hurt or killed because they thought they could buy safety. related to this, we've all heard a great many cases of sailors being rescued from voyages that should NEVER have begun. We're they more comfortable with the idea because they thought rescue was probable? While I would certainly take an EPIRB, if I thought there were any chance I would need it, I would not go. It would feel like sloppy judgment. And that is my opinion and my choice. So is climbing a cliff with no rope, if that is my mood; I don't expect rescue, and so it is something I seldom do.

[laika]

Originally Posted by mikereed100

I think to a certain degree a large liferaft with ballast chambers may initially have more stability than a dinghy, but this is quickly overcome as waves become larger. I'm thinking here of the aforementioned Fastnet race in which liferafts were repeatedly capsized and the occupants thrown out. The ballast chambers on a liferaft do not extend very deep and the turbulent portion of even a small wave can render them ineffective. I believe that a dinghy with a sea anchor would fare no worse in rough conditions.

After spending quite a bit of time at sea in a liferaft Steve Callahan felt there must be a better solution and came up with this:
An Easy to Store, Combination Hard Bottomed Dinghy/Life Boat | Lin & Larry Pardey: Newsletters & Cruising Tips
http://www.stevencallahan.net/images...signs/frib.pdf

It seems a tough sell that a modern well-designed raft w/ a good sea anchor would be worse off in survival conditions than your average dinghy with the same sea anchor.

But that FRIB folding dinghy looks awesome! If I had a larger boat, I really like the portland pudgy..the idea of already relying on the escape pod for everyday use and being able to facilitate an active SAR, so to speak. Also an unsinkable, puncture-proof platform. I recently bought a winslow 4-man, but only because I couldn't make the pudgy work for me.

The FRIB looks like it might be able to overcome some of those hurdles for the acutely spacially-challenged.

[carstenb]

I'll chime in here again.

I'm not going to defend Evns and Beth choice of not having a raft - they are perfectly capable of doing that themselves. But let's look at reality

They have (had) a steel boat - chances of that holing are infinitely smaller that holing a glass boat. They are mechanically capable of repairing (and carry the tools to do so) virtually anything that can happen. Biggest danger to them is fire (I don't know but I assume they do carry fire extinguishers). Also, they are superb seamen (woman) and can sail through almost anything (and have) or sail away from it.

So their decision is not as wild as it appears at first glance.

We're mounting an RTW and have prepared ourselves as best we can. We're both Yachtmaster Ocean and we've trained by sailing in very rough weather here in the Baltic (not as rough as other places). We do carry a raft and other safety equipment.

One of the problems associated with this issue is that a number of sailors (Rebel Heart comes to mind) go to sea without understanding how to use the equipment they have (SSB radio) and in boats that are not properly prepared for heavy seas (Rebel Heart again) and with a crew that doesn't understand what they are getting into.

Ocean sailing is serious business. Sure you can circumnavigate and if you have a good weather eye and plan and execute correctly, you'll go all the way round and never even see gale force winds. But you have to be prepared for the eventuality that, as they say - **** happens.

We've stripped our boat down and reassembled it and we carry the tools to do so.

A liferaft costs perhaps a couple of thousand bucks - If this expense is going to stop you ocean sailing - then perhaps you need to rethink your budget.

[mikereed100]

Don't get me wrong. I don't think life rafts are a bad option, just that they are not the only option. I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me that they are much, if at all, better than an unsinkable dinghy. I realize that this is contrary to dogma, but I believe that once conditions deteriorate to the point that the ship is sinking, any life raft, be it purpose built or a modified dinghy, is going to be wet, cold and at some point upside down. (Given that, I think that no matter what you step into when the boat goes down, some sort of protection from the elements is necesary, whether that be a wetsuit, drysuit or gumby suit.)

Considering cost, this will not be insignificant for a large number of budget cruisers. A good offshore rated raft will cost upwards of $3000 initially, not including mounts and the ongoing cost of inspection, which can run from $500 to $1700 every 1 to 3 years. This cost can be eliminated by doing the inspection yourself, but most people lack the skills and confidence to do this. Eventually (20 years?) the raft will be condemned and can no longer be serviced.

In addition, we are all aware that sometimes life rafts do not inflate when asked, or fail to hold air when they do inflate. The dinghy is ready to go, has been tested almost daily and presents no additional cost.

[Muckle Flugga]

(

Originally Posted by mikereed100

Don't get me wrong. I don't think life rafts are a bad option, just that they are not the only option. I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me that they are much, if at all, better than an unsinkable dinghy. I realize that this is contrary to dogma, but I believe that once conditions deteriorate to the point that the ship is sinking, any life raft, be it purpose built or a modified dinghy, is going to be wet, cold and at some point upside down. (Given that, I think that no matter what you step into when the boat goes down, some sort of protection from the elements is necesary, whether that be a wetsuit, drysuit or gumby suit.)

Considering cost, this will not be insignificant for a large number of budget cruisers. A good offshore rated raft will cost upwards of $3000 initially, not including mounts and the ongoing cost of inspection, which can run from $500 to $1700 every 1 to 3 years. This cost can be eliminated by doing the inspection yourself, but most people lack the skills and confidence to do this. Eventually (20 years?) the raft will be condemned and can no longer be serviced.

In addition, we are all aware that sometimes life rafts do not inflate when asked, or fail to hold air when they do inflate. The dinghy is ready to go, has been tested almost daily and presents no additional cost.

Well, I am fairly sanguine about this, which is why I specifically avoided discussing it. I consider a rib style sailing dinghy with full, buoyant canopy (else useless inverted and constantly exposed/bailing/sun) to be an acceptable and possibly superior survival craft, as it has active as well as passive elements, and a rigid floor which protects from sea creatures, and puncture by the likes of knife or speargun. Looking at what happened to the liferaft occupied by John "Steamer" Stanley off the Winston Churchill in the disastrous Sydney to Hobart a number of years back makes me somewhat leery of the integrity of standard liferaft floors. It is true however that the initial incision in this case was made to provide air while inverted.

However, it must also be said that when tumbled and taking heavy waves on the underside when inverted, a hard bottom may exert a crushing force on the occupants as it does not collapse to divert and spread loads. I learned this back in 1989 while surfing (with the captain of the sail trainer I was on at the time and a couple of others at his suggestion) a big Atlantic swell into an East facing beach in Guadeloupe (EC) in a hard dinghy (4 of us paddling). The force of the water on the inverted hard bottom as we tumbled caused me to break the wooden paddle I was holding over the back of my shoulders as we were pile driven by its force.

I would like to try sailing dinghies such as Callahans clamshell to test the theory of survival craft use. However, my primary problem with these has always been the issue of stowage.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

(

Well, I am fairly sanguine about this, which is why I specifically avoided discussing it. I consider a rib style sailing dinghy with full, buoyant canopy (else useless inverted and constantly exposed/bailing/sun) to be an acceptable and possibly superior survival craft, as it has active as well as passive elements, and a rigid floor which protects from sea creatures, and puncture by the likes of knife or speargun. Looking at what happened to the liferaft occupied by John "Steamer" Stanley off the Winston Churchill in the disastrous Sydney to Hobart a number of years back makes me somewhat leery of the integrity of standard liferaft floors. It is true however that the initial incision in this case was made to provide air while inverted.

However, it must also be said that when tumbled and taking heavy waves on the underside when inverted, a hard bottom may exert a crushing force on the occupants as it does not collapse to divert and spread loads. I learned this back in 1989 while surfing (with the captain of the sail trainer I was on at the time and a couple of others at his suggestion) a big Atlantic swell into an East facing beach in Guadeloupe (EC) in a hard dinghy (4 of us paddling). The force of the water on the inverted hard bottom as we tumbled caused me to break the wooden paddle I was holding over the back of my shoulders as we were pile driven by its force.

I would like to try sailing dinghies such as Callahans clamshell to test the theory of survival craft use. However, my primary problem with these has always been the issue of stowage.

The problem is that a dingy of any sort will not stay upright in really rough weather. They are rolled by waves greater in height than the beam of the dink and more than a certain steepness. You will be thrown out and drowned. A dinghy is just not a survivable craft in a big storm. Liferafts have ballast pockets specifically to prevent this effect. You can't row or maneuver them, but they are specifically designed to keep you out of the water in almost any conditions. They have totally different seakeeping qualities and are not substitutes for one another.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The problem is that a dingy of any sort will not stay upright in really rough weather. They are rolled by waves greater in height than the beam of the dink and more than a certain steepness. You will be thrown out and drowned. A dinghy is just not a survivable craft in a big storm. Liferafts have ballast pockets specifically to prevent this effect. You can't row or maneuver them, but they are specifically designed to keep you out of the water in almost any conditions. They have totally different seakeeping qualities and are not substitutes for one another.

I accept this. However in mid to low latitudes and the right season they may be able to navigate you safely in the trades to the next island group. Bligh did it a third of the way across the Pacific in an open boat, plus the Coral and the Arafura, and kept his whole crew alive. And believe me the latter two are not typically gentle!

I would not have such a craft ALONE, however if I were based in the SoPac primarily or exclusively, for example, I think it would be an excellent tender, with a single liferaft backup. It would be a bore watching clouds over atolls just over the horizon and be bobbing around not being able to do anything about it!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

I accept this. However in mid to low latitudes and the right season they may be able to navigate you safely in the trades to the next island group. Bligh did it a third of the way across the Pacific in an open boat, plus the Coral and the Arafura, and kept his whole crew alive. And believe me the latter two are not typically gentle!

I would not have such a craft ALONE, however if I were based in the SoPac primarily or exclusively, for example, I think it would be an excellent tender, with a single liferaft backup. It would be a bore watching clouds over atolls just over the horizon and be bobbing around not being able to do anything about it!

I totally agree. Liferafts are horrible. The seasickness alone. Being in a liferaft is the closest thing there is to being in Hell, if you believe first hand accounts.

But a modern liferaft is the only thing you would want to step up into in case your boat sinks in a big storm. It's Hell, but it will keep you alive.

If your boat sinks or catches on fire in a F6 or below, just get into your dinghy, with the liferaft tied up alongside. Simples.

Just don't fantasize that your dinghy somehow substitutes the function of a liferaft or eliminates the need for one. Go out sometime in your dinghy in a F7 first, and then see if you still think like this. If you survive, of course.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I totally agree. Liferafts are horrible. The seasickness alone. Being in a liferaft is the closest thing there is to being in Hell, if you believe first hand accounts.

But a modern liferaft is the only thing you would want to step up into in case your boat sinks in a big storm. It's Hell, but it will keep you alive.

If your boat sinks or catches on fire in a F6 or below, just get into your dinghy, with the liferaft tied up alongside. Simples.

Just don't fantasize that your dinghy somehow substitutes the function of a liferaft or eliminates the need for one. Go out sometime in your dinghy in a F7 first, and then see if you still think like this. If you survive, of course.

Hey DH,

I've been out in my dinghy in plenty of rough weather. I have to. I liveaboard most of the time, when I am not working on other's boats. I have jumped her clear of many a big wave, and taken her out open sea plenty, as I use her as a dive tender. She's pretty good actually. It would be a big sea indeed that would sink her. But yes, I can use her as a plan b, with one at least of my liferafts aboard. Actually having two (one manual one auto) means that my plan is ALWAYS to have a liferaft for my liferaft, if I am forced to abandon. Not inflated, but cannistered still.

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The problem is that a dingy of any sort will not stay upright in really rough weather. They are rolled by waves greater in height than the beam of the dink and more than a certain steepness.

Too true, but keep in mind that a liferaft will not be much wider than a dinghy. If a 5' wave can roll most dinghys, a 6' wave can roll most 4 person life rafts. A sea anchor would help to mitigate, but not eliminate this.

You will be thrown out and drowned. A dinghy is just not a survivable craft in a big storm. Liferafts have ballast pockets specifically to prevent this effect.

I think you may be giving ballast pockets more credit than they deserve. The turbulent water of a breaking wave can extend many feet below the surface, rendering typical ballast pockets ineffective. It is not uncommon for life rafts to capsize due to wind and wave action and for the occupants to be thrown out. That said, the ballasting in the Givens Life Buoy is very impressive. Unfortunately, they seem to have gone out of business and their patents have gone with them.

I am certainly not trying to talk anyone out of carrying a life raft. My only reason for posting on this thread is in response to comments that an inflatable life raft is the only rational option in all situations for abandoning ship. In the OP's case (remember the OP?), sailing a 29' steel boat across the Atlantic, a liferaft with immersion suits makes perfect sense. Would he be irresponsible to carry a Portland Pudgy instead? I don't believe so.

[BigBoater917]

While it's great that the OP has a steel hulled boat it's actually a moot point. They should be preparing to abandon ship in the event (knock on wood) of an emergency. Since they're doing the circuit I'm presuming there will be a point where some cold water sailing will occur. The life raft and survival suits are designed to work together. The suits will keep you alive long enough to get in the raft. The raft will protect you from hypothermia and Sun exposure. In the winter you'll be wearing the suit in the raft anyway.
If you really want both you'll find a way and IMHO you should have both. Try to imagine sitting in a raft soaking wet, cold and getting tossed around like a toy, you'll wish you had the suit. If you only have the suit you're just buying some time but not much. You'll miss the other things the raft has that the suit doesn't, like food and water. It's not an easy choice to make for something you won't likely need but will incredibly greatful for the one time you do.

[ASTBoone]

Immersion suits work fine for keeping you warm, but they have a very low buoyancy rating. If you go into a storm sea wearing only an immersion suit, you WILL drown. Immersion suits only give about 5-10 lbs of buoyancy. You need at least 35 lbs. to keep your head above the swells and waves in a (washing machine) sea state. If you have ever tried one on in the water, you will immediatly realize that they are awkward and very difficult to swim or maneuver yourself to a vertical upright position. Your body will to float horizontally.
Keep in mind also that even in a immersion suit, you will lose body heat over time. They are not equipped with a heater in them. Once the body starts to cool down in an immersion suit, it will continue to cool. Immersion suits should never be considered as an only source of survival in an offshore environment.