Eastbourne lifeboat tried to assist French yacht for 9 hours

[Juan Twothree]

I'm sure there are plenty of "rescues" that were unnecessary, but I for one am very glad that the CG, who makes the decision works on the principle that it's better to have a lifeboat on scene or to tow in a WAFI who's run out of fuel than to have to go out later in worse weather to rescue said WAFI from the surf and rocks. Of course they'll get it wrong from time to time, I do, you do (if you think you don't, we'll be discussing your rescue sooner rather than later), and so do the CG and lifeboat organisations.

I was once called out to a yacht reported as in difficulties by someone ashore. When we got there he said he didn't need any help, despite the fact that his genoa was jammed fully unwound with the halyard stuck, he had caught his anchor chain around his lifting keel, so was going round in circles, he was on a lee shore, and his engine was overheating. And it was blowing a force 7, and he was single-handed.

I politely suggested that even though he didn't need any assistance, we could probably help to solve some of his problems while we were there.

 

[john_morris_uk]

If someone has made a decision to kill themselves, I don't think there is any "duty" to stop them. Using force would be assault.

I'm suggesting, in response to JuanTwoThree, a lifeboat crew has no right to use force to rescue someone who has decided to kill themselves..

That's nothing to do with it - I'm talking about the legal position.

Absolutely, but authorised mental health workers are one of a few groups who can detain, using force if necessary. Lifeboat crews aren't.

You are misguided.

No court in the land is going to uphold a case of assault against someone trying to stop another person taking their own life. I'm trained in suicide intervention and although we have to accept that if someone is determined to kill themselves, you're not going to stop them (they'll take themselves somewhere out of sight and do it) if you grab someone as they try to jump, or pull them out of the sea when they've jumped in to try and drown themselves, you'll be doing them and humanity a favour. You DON'T have to assess their mental capacity before you act in such an emergency situation. To suggest that is rubbish.

One of the problems with suicide is that we never know how many successful suicides were really cries for help that went wrong.

 

[Birdseye]

We have, though, had plenty of cases of yotties who have requested help, sometimes by means of a Mayday, but then once safely ashore in the Yacht Club bar have insisted that they were fine all along, and could have got themselves out of trouble without any interference from the RNLI.

I have never been rescued as such but when I have contacted the CG on a couple of occasions to let them know I had a problem, they were quite "forcefull" in suggesting the lifeboat and I had to be equally strong in saying no. Quite rightly, they play safe.

The single handed Frenchman could have been concerned about cost since the French lifeboat service charge for a tow.

 

[dom]

The entire story makes no sense to me?

Trailing warps in the Channel, never seen waves high enough for that and sailed into Chbg with sustained 50kt winds. Also, trailing them upwind!!!

Or had the lines just fallen over the side and hooked around the rudder or something? Or had he previously tried running off while slowing the boat down for repairs??

Also, not sure if anybody mentioned this, but 15m south of Eastbourne would have had the vessel clear of the west going lane and in the middle of the TSS. So the yacht was not breaking any rules? And if he was, a big big fine should be heading his way for behaving like a total idiot.

Also what is this nonsense about "treacherous sea conditions"? Is that also jouno/RNLI hyperbole?

And finally, he left Le Havre sailing to Chbg, how on earth was this character "at least 100m off course", when 15m south of Eastbourne is only about 65 miles away?

There's a story out there somewhere but we sure as hell don't have it ....IMHO

Edit: apols if all already said, only skimmed the thread

 

[Leighb]

I have only once been rescued. We caught a pot rope around the prop and partly jamming the rudder at 0200 near Roughs Tower off Harwich. We were anchored by the stern in a slight sea. Crew all well over 70, no chance of going over side in the dark with the bread knife.?
We called Thames CG to advise them of our situation and that we would need assistance and a tow. They sent out the Harwich LB. They were unable to cut us free using their Y boat and an enormous wicked looking scythe! The Cox’n then said he would tow us free. This was a smooth process and they brought us in to the Lifeboat berth in Harwich, in the morning the Cox’n came back in a dry suit with a Large knife, jumped in and cut away large amounts of rope, floats and weights. We then tried the engine which was fine. We went back the next week with suitable liquids and a cheque to show our appreciation.
We were not “in danger” but well and truly stuck and in need of assistance and the Cox’n said we did exactly the right thing.

 

[dslittle]

That does surprise me. Suicide isn't illegal, so how can you justify using force?

So speaks someone (I assume) who has never had to deal with the aftermath...

 

[[178529]]

The entire story makes no sense to me?

Trailing warps in the Channel, never seen waves high enough for that and sailed into Chbg with sustained 50kt winds. Also, trailing them upwind!!!

Or had the lines just fallen over the side and hooked around the rudder or something? Or had he previously tried running off while slowing the boat down for repairs??

Also, not sure if anybody mentioned this, but 15m south of Eastbourne would have had the vessel clear of the west going lane and in the middle of the TSS. So the yacht was not breaking any rules? And if he was, a big big fine should be heading his way for behaving like a total idiot.

Also what is this nonsense about "treacherous sea conditions"? Is that also jouno/RNLI hyperbole?

And finally, he left Le Havre sailing to Chbg, how on earth was this character "at least 100m off course", when 15m south of Eastbourne is only about 65 miles away?

There's a story out there somewhere but we sure as hell don't have it ....IMHO

Edit: apols if all already said, only skimmed the thread

Exactly. This is my point throughout this thread. reading the report you think dickhead Frenchman, in the same category as the AA captain calamity guy.

However, reading the detail it doesn't stack up.

If you spoke to the French guy to get the other half of the story, spoke to the CG directly and the Lifeboat then the reality would emerge.

At the moment it could go from:

- french guy sets off from cherbourg in high winds for le havre
- his boom breaks with a broach/jibe and he runs with the south westerly whilst he rigs things up and trails a warp to slow him down
- he might skirt the shipping lanes. It wasn't clear in the report it said 'the edges of the shipping lanes' which is ok
- he doesn't feel he is in distress as he has the situation under control
- his lights might not be bright or he might have an equipment failure
- he gets things back under control
- the lifeboat turns up
- he knows where he is, knows where he is going but they trunbdle along beside him for the night
- he sails back to port

to:

- Captain calamity sets off, gets lost, things break, refuses help, somehow gets home.


The fact he got home ok in strong winds with a jury rigged boom suggests to me that he was reasonably in control. My point in this thread all along was a reply to the original post and report that this was been played as a french captain calamity but it might have been something completely different.

 

[JumbleDuck]

No court in the land is going to uphold a case of assault against someone trying to stop another person taking their own life.

I am quite sure that you are right. How about the inverse case though - in what circumstance is there a legal obligation / duty of care to prevent somebody taking their own life? A bit of Googling suggests that this exists when the would-be suicide is detained in prison or hospital, but does it apply to a lifeboat crew?

 

[jimi]

I am quite sure that you are right. How about the inverse case though - in what circumstance is there a legal obligation / duty of care to prevent somebody taking their own life? A bit of Googling suggests that this exists when the would-be suicide is detained in prison or hospital, but does it apply to a lifeboat crew?

What's the greater imperative a legal duty of care or a moral duty of care?

As far as I understand there is no legal duty on a lifeboat crew to rescue anyone, whether it be from a sinking ship or a would be suicide.

 

[Blue Sunray]

As far as I understand there is no legal duty on a lifeboat crew to rescue anyone, whether it be from a sinking ship or a would be suicide.

There is a duty for a ship to attempt the rescue of persons at danger at sea under SOLAS, once launched that would apply to a lifeboat.

 

[JumbleDuck]

What's the greater imperative a legal duty of care or a moral duty of care?

To me, moral. But then I would buy someone I cared for a one-way ticket to Zürich if they asked me to or supply appropriate drugs for them to take if they weren't up to the flight and many people would see those positions as deeply immoral. Both are illegal.

 

[Beneteau381]

I think you're guessing wrong then. I've been lifeboating for the best part of 30 years, and taken part in around 1200 calls, and the only instances I'm aware of where people have apparently been rescued against their will have been those that I've read about on this forum. It's more a case of 80% of our calls come from the casualty themselves i.e. actual requests for assistance, to the CG.

We have, though, had plenty of cases of yotties who have requested help, sometimes by means of a Mayday, but then once safely ashore in the Yacht Club bar have insisted that they were fine all along, and could have got themselves out of trouble without any interference from the RNLI.

The only time we forcibly rescue people against their will is when they have entered the water with the apparent intention of taking their own life.

A certain mindset is evident in your post? "once safely ashore in the Yacht Club bar"

 

[Beneteau381]

I'm thankful too, but without discussion and critique how would we determine whether it's a well run organisation in the public interest or a money making machine with great marketing? Several on this thread have highlighted issues and I'm certain all of us are thankful there are crews willing to go out and rescue in genuine emergencies. Polite communication clearly doesn't work - it's the core to the whole thread after all. If the coastguard are the issue then the RNLI would stand down when requested by the people they are trying to rescue. As mentioned by Moondancer the reality is they often proceed with the "rescue" and then make a headline out of it.
Why shouldn't we be able to have a grown up discussion about the failings of such an important organisation? Without criticism and feedback (and more importantly listening, rather than refuting) there's no way to improve and grow.

Constructive criticism is what it is called and all good organisations should recognise that!

 

[jimi]

To me, moral. But then I would buy someone I cared for a one-way ticket to Zürich if they asked me to or supply appropriate drugs for them to take if they weren't up to the flight and many people would see those positions as deeply immoral. Both are illegal.

I agree. But its a path that needs treading carefully. eg No one would argue that breaking the law to follow one's moral imperative in saving Jews in Nazi Germany is laudable, but a psychopath's moral compass is different from the mores of society in general and we would wish to constrain his activities.

However, I'd argue that, generally, the activities of the RNLI are acting in a moral duty of care which far exceeds a legal duty of care. There have been many cases where they have encountered significant risk whilst attempting rescues (Penlee, Fraserburgh,Longhope t name but a few) and as such were under no legal obligation to render assistance.

I also wonder whether there was a suspicion the french boat in the OP may have been suspected of harbouring refugees, hence why it continued to stand by.

 

[scottie]

I had the misfortune to break a fuel line in a rib only shore after no response to HH VHF fired red. Flare
We taken in tow to be dropped at home marina by yacht that would be passing there
Lifeboat arrived on scene and insisted taking over the tow shooting of at speed before checking line was secure and deposited me of the mouth of small harbour some miles back a long my course
No. Doubt another life saved chalked up on the board

 

[lustyd]

The issue for me is the yacht was crossing shipping lanes without navigation lights, they were not only a danger to themselves but to others. Do not think the life boat had a choice but to shadow the yacht in those circumstances

Many vessels are allowed to cross shipping lanes without nav lights, so that's a strange assertion. All vessels underway do so with the understanding that there may be things in the water they cannot see. They also do so with the understanding that not everyone is willing or able to follow all of the rules all of the time. They also understand that maintenance issues and emergencies happen, and that sometimes a vessel will need to follow the best course of action available to them. That might mean sailing accross a shipping lane without lights. It might also mean that your boat drifts in the shipping lane due to the requirement to cross on a 90 degree heading which might mean very little progress is made across the lane if you're having other problems.
None of that makes this skipper incompetent, neither does it necessitate a lifeboat staying out all night. All parties involved seem to have been pretty well under control from what we can see, as demostrated by the outcome. While I'm sure there is someone on every bridge looking out for nav lights on the horizon, it's unlikely they would see the tiny lights on a yacht with a meaningful time to act. More likely most things in the channel will be using radar for their main lookout at night with visual being secondary. I was in the Irish sea once, having called up a ship on collision course off Galloway in a F8 to be told that he didn't see us as he was cleaning the bridge at the time and didn't expect to see anyone out! Lights are rarely the difference between safety and danger, and at sea there isn't always an opportunity to pop in to Halfords and sort the lights out.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Maybe there is Just Reason to intervene in a sittuation where a Boat is or can put others into danger due to apparent lack of say Nav Lighting, strayed or being sailed into Traffic Lanes sufficient progress, engine or sails damaged etc etc ;
Maybe there should be an understanding that although it free to sail wherever there are responsibilites involved by the Skipper and the Craft; plus early assistance action saves lives of everybody

 

[jimi]

Personally, I wouldn’t put drifting at night, damaged,engineless, without lights in a busy shipping lane high on the check list of skippering competence

 

[JumbleDuck]

I agree. But its a path that needs treading carefully.

Absolutely. In the Netherlands every physician-assisted suicide has to be reported for investigation to the police, which I think is proper.

 

[ip485]

I don't think this debate is about egos. Neither is it an odd debate. If you go back to the original post the story is about a French guy who refused help from the RNLI and the newspaper report gave fairly heavy implications that he was being irresponsible, with a suggestion that he was possibly worried about being charged for a recovery - which the French services do.

I and someone else just made the point that things aren't always what they seem. The report only tells one side of the story and we gave personal examples of where that was the case. Nothing about egos at all. No criticism of the bravery of the rescue services. It's not about growing up, it's about realising that what is being presented to you as fact, is very possibly just one aspect. I imagine if someone interviewed the French guy you would get a completely different version of events.

I suspect when a thread becomes a few pages long often contributions are in repsonse to subsequent posts and the way the debate has progressed. I should have made it clear this was the aspect I was addressing. My comments did not relate to your post.