A Mayday, really?

[dom]

Pedant's note: there can be no right to split infinitives.

Well, ....the novelist Raymond Chandler once wrote a letter to the Atlantic Monthly, which was corrected prior to publication by a young copy editor. Chandler's words of thanks went something like this:

" I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split, and when I interrupt the velvety smoothness of my more or less literate syntax with a few sudden words of barroom vernacular, this is done with the eyes wide open and the mind relaxed but attentive."

​

 

[Triassic]

That, like other conclusions of yours, is misleading.

You apply the word "frivolous" to this Mayday with not the slightest justification for doing so. You were not onboard the vessel affected, the RNLI have given no information that suggests the Mayday was unwarranted at the moment it was made and by the skipper who made it; and rely on gossip and hearsay to judge in hindsight that it should really have been a Pan Pan or just a heads up to the CG.

I think that is a little harsh. The Op has referred us to a Mayday incident that he overheard and linked it to the subsequent RNLB report. He explains that as he was sailing in the area at the time and as the conditions appeared favourable he had been curious as to the justification for the Mayday but says he was generous enough to assume at the time that there must have been other circumstances that he was unaware of. When he later read the report he realised this appears not to have been the case so he has raised the subject for discussion on here, and popular it has indeed been.

I might be out on a limb here but I suspect that if there had been some circumstance that had placed the yacht and crew in imminent and grave danger the RNLB would have mentioned it in their report. Sometimes the lack of information says it all.

 

[chanelyacht]

I think that is a little harsh. The Op has referred us to a Mayday incident that he overheard and linked it to the subsequent RNLB report. He explains that as he was sailing in the area at the time and as the conditions appeared favourable he had been curious as to the justification for the Mayday but says he was generous enough to assume at the time that there must have been other circumstances that he was unaware of. When he later read the report he realised this appears not to have been the case so he has raised the subject for discussion on here, and popular it has indeed been.

I might be out on a limb here but I suspect that if there had been some circumstance that had placed the yacht and crew in imminent and grave danger the RNLB would have mentioned it in their report. Sometimes the lack of information says it all.

The problem with all these "autopsy" threads about incidents is that only two people know the truth - the skipper and the CG operator - and they only know their half each. It's not until you put the two together that you get the whole picture.

I've seen threads on here slating "multiple lifeboats, over the top, compulsory rescue" blah blah blah but when I looked up the ViSion CG system incident, some of the assets quoted in posts weren't even launched to the incident!

Some seem to have an issue with how the CG coordinate things, that's fine, that's their right. But equally, it's my right to point out they've never done the job, never been trained or qualified, and don't know the full picture - which may make their comments slightly less valid.

 

[jimi]

A year ago, I got my rudder jammed on semi submerged pot markers as below, we were in a tidal stream of 2 knots on the edge of a sandbank about 10 miles offshore. Wind was F4 seastate slight. I'd dropped the anchor immediately it was apparent the rudder was jammed solid.

The rudder is not accessible from the deck and one would have to dive to clear it. We tried to wiggle it a few times but no movement at all and I was concerned at causing further damage. I called Thames CG to advise them of our situation and as for advice, I was sort of hoping a passing yacht would tow us back (I've helped out myself before with a couple of yachts that had broken down). The CG asked if we wanted help, I said yes please so they sent the lifeboat which I was pleased to see. One of the crew members donned a drysuit and dived to try and clear the rudder with no luck so they towed us back.

1) Had I attempted to dive and clear this myself this could rapidly have turned into a mayday as there was only the two of us on board.
2)Had there been a commercial charge for the tow back I would certainly have attempted to find out which criminally irresponsible idiot was laying pots with these markers

The difference between this situation and the yacht calling because of engine failure is a bit grey IMHO. On a windless day close to the IoW getting swept along by the current, engine dead, SWMBO looking worried. Yes I'd be calling the CG, Mayday? probably not .. but perception of danger depends on one's experience and knowledge .. what might appear a mere worry to some of us may be very scarey to someone less experienced. Bet you, though, he(or she) has booked a diesel maintenance course after this episode .. and probably prompted a few others to do likewise.

 

[capnsensible]

The problem with all these "autopsy" threads about incidents is that only two people know the truth - the skipper and the CG operator - and they only know their half each. It's not until you put the two together that you get the whole picture.

I've seen threads on here slating "multiple lifeboats, over the top, compulsory rescue" blah blah blah but when I looked up the ViSion CG system incident, some of the assets quoted in posts weren't even launched to the incident!

Some seem to have an issue with how the CG coordinate things, that's fine, that's their right. But equally, it's my right to point out they've never done the job, never been trained or qualified, and don't know the full picture - which may make their comments slightly less valid.

Spot on and for me a very good post.

 

[Resolution]

Maybe if the RNLI adopted the USCG model of saving the people and sinking the boat attitudes might change.

In this context it might be better to sink the people but to save the boat??

 

[Triassic]

I think looking through the other reports in the link originally provided by the OP it is fairly clear that the Solent lifeboats are used far more as a recovery/breakdown service than I had originally expected. Wether this is due to the nature of the environment and the subsequent level of seamanship that it tolerates, or due to "local expectation" of both the CG and those that call them I don't know, but I'm the older and wiser for reading this thread.

Personally I'm quite content to keep the issuing of a Mayday and my personal expectation of lifeboat assistance to when my life may actually be in jeopardy, rather than merely inconvenienced.

 

[[70521]]

This national obsession with eliminating risk is ultimately arresting our development, causing mental atrophy at a national level and ultimately turning us into an uncompetative nation of underdeveloped incapable loosers.

Perhaps we already have reached that point?

I know that I spend a lot of time working out how the stuff that we make does not kill people, land us in jail and gives the lawyers big fat wallets! Look at what happened with PPI; a whole industry based on nothing. Of course you may prefer thousands being killed every year because we have not engineered out risk. Personally, I prefer to get home at night and have my tea.

 

[fireball]

Of course you may prefer thousands being killed every year because we have not engineered out risk.

Engineering out risk is different to engineering out stupidity ...

I'll give you a simple workplace H&S issue ...

I work in IT .. it sometimes involves opening up a PC to change components .. theoretically I should
1) disconnect the power
2) earth the unit
3) open the case
4) change the component
5) close the case - replacing all the screws
6) reconnect the power
7) power up the machine

bit of a pain if I'm troubleshooting - so usually I just pop open the case - I may disconnect the power depending on what I'm working on (it's all low voltage stuff - except the power supply), do what I need to do, power up the machine to check it's all working before replacing the cover ...

Because I "know what I'm doing" I wouldn't put my fingers into a working machine - you've got fans going round and there are plenty of contact points which although they won't give you a shock, you could bust the board ...

You'd hope that most intelligent adults would consider an open PC to be a no-go-zone unless invited - but it didn't stop my (then) boss from shuving his hands in - uninvited - and getting a sharp word from me about it ... he (in charge of H&S) suggested that I should have the case on - I politely suggested that he shouldn't be so stupid as to put his hands into a machine that he knows nothing about ...
Nothing more has been said on the matter
I continue to operate as I have done for the last 20 years.

Why would he think of putting his hands into a PC? He had no knowledge as to it's operational status (it was turned on at the time - iirc I was ghosting the HD onto a new one). Closing up a case each time you test/change a component can be a huge waste of time just to prevent the few odd occaisions an absent minded boss puts his hands in ... isn't it better that he thinks about what he's going to do rather than me having to pre-empt stupidity?

Rather more boaty - signage on a slipway - "Caution, Slippery when wet" ... well duh, it can also be slippery when it's got mud and/or seaweed on it, but the sign doesn't say that ... you also have to take care when there are boats on the slipway with the sails up .. but the sign doesn't say that either ... can't we reasonably expect people to know that a concrete slipway regularly covered in seawater is liable to be slippery?

IMHO, cautions and accident prevention measures should be for the exceptions, not the rule - that way people may actually take note and think about what they're doing...

 

[l'escargot]

...he was sailing in the area at the time...

He infers that but was he? The mayday was reportedly 5 miles south of Ventnor and the OP only says he "...continued on his way to Portsmouth". He could have been 20 or miles away, the other side of the IW and in totally different conditions. Wind weather and tide can vary considerably in a mile or two around the island...

 

[Triassic]

He infers that but was he? The mayday was reportedly 5 miles south of Ventnor and the OP only says he "...continued on his way to Portsmouth". He could have been 20 or miles away, the other side of the IW and in totally different conditions. Wind weather and tide can vary considerably in a mile or two around the island...

Fair point, but I think it's also reasonable to conclude that there wasn't a force six south easterly blowing either putting the caller onto a dangerous lee shore......

 

[Giblets]

The initial report was that the yacht was 5 miles south of Ventnor which is probably why the merchant ship offered to help. However when the LB r/v'd with the yacht it was actually only just over a mile south of Ventnor.

 

[awol]

He infers that but was he?

[pedant]He may have implied that but it was Triassic that inferred it.[/pedant]

 

[l'escargot]

Fair point, but I think it's also reasonable to conclude that there wasn't a force six south easterly blowing either putting the caller onto a dangerous lee shore......

It is, the report was that there was no wind. But the tides can be significant, the effects of which can be of more significance in such circumstances - particularly in terms of avoiding other shipping...

 

[Triassic]

It is, the report was that there was no wind. But the tides can be significant, the effects of which can be of more significance in such circumstances - particularly in terms of avoiding other shipping...

So do those that sail boats not fitted with engines declare a Mayday every time the wind drops? I'd better read Roger Taylor and Charles Stock's books again, I must have missed that bit......

It seems to me that my main gripe here is with those that seem to accept that whatever happened off Ventnor that day it's just fine because the lifeboat attended and sorted it all out. As far as I'm concerned it's not all right, the individual should either have not got themselves into a situation where an engine failure warranted a mayday, or they weren't in such a situation and shouldn't have called one. Either way several people had to put themselves out and burn a considerable amount of public funded diesel simply because of a lack of basic seamanship skills.

Anyway, I've said my bit and I don't suppose I'm going to influence those that disagree with me so it's not worth losing sleep over.

 

[Giblets]

In my book the term "public funded" implies that the government pays for whatever which is not the case here.

 

[l'escargot]

So do those that sail boats not fitted with engines declare a Mayday every time the wind drops? I'd better read Roger Taylor and Charles Stock's books again, I must have missed that bit......

It seems to me that my main gripe here is with those that seem to accept that whatever happened off Ventnor that day it's just fine because the lifeboat attended and sorted it all out. As far as I'm concerned it's not all right, the individual should either have not got themselves into a situation where an engine failure warranted a mayday, or they weren't in such a situation and shouldn't have called one. Either way several people had to put themselves out and burn a considerable amount of public funded diesel simply because of a lack of basic seamanship skills.

Anyway, I've said my bit and I don't suppose I'm going to influence those that disagree with me so it's not worth losing sleep over.

No I'm sure they don't but I am equally sure that boats without functioning engines will have needed to call mayday when the lack of wind was compounded by other dangers. I would suspect that it was more than the wind dropping and lack of engine that caused the skipper to call a mayday that day.

If you look back to my first post you will see that I said that I though that it probably didn't warrant a mayday, based on what I had read. But like everyone else on this thread, I wasn't there and don't have anything but scant knowledge of the actual situation that caused the person who was there and did have all the information to declare a mayday.

I don't think you have sufficient knowledge of the actual circumstances to make such a definitive statement on the incident. No one was put out, no publicly funded diesel was burnt and you have no idea of the level of seamanship of anyone concerned with issuing a mayday. Your "gripe" is based purely on a number of assumptions that may or may not be true...

 

[Resolution]

. Your "gripe" is based purely on a number of assumptions that may or may not be true...

I thought that was what we all do?:encouragement:

 

[l'escargot]

I thought that was what we all do?:encouragement:

Most of the time. Some of us realise it and some others don't - who then get narky when it's pointed out to them...

 

[Triassic]

I don't think you have sufficient knowledge of the actual circumstances to make such a definitive statement on the incident. No one was put out, no publicly funded diesel was burnt and you have no idea of the level of seamanship of anyone concerned with issuing a mayday. Your "gripe" is based purely on a number of assumptions that may or may not be true...

Actually I said very on in this thread that I didn't feel able to pass judgement on the specifics of this particular case based on the information available. I say again, my gripe is with those that think WHATEVER went on off Ventnor it's fine because the lifeboat attended and sorted it all out. They seem to think it is not our place to question or challenge the use of this valuable resource because if the CG or even the LB themselves thought it necessary then it is above reproach.