Are flares legally required if

[Tranona]

Think you will find that when there is a serious discussion on this subject on this forum there is a strong argument that flares are not effective as a means of attracting attention and rendered largely obsolete by EPIRBs and DSC.

It would be interesting to see some valid research to identify situations where flares made a contribution to a successful rescue. Don't have the energy to do it myself, but suspect might find little evidence. It often happens when "received wisdom" is tested by evidence that it is found wanting!

As to the law bit, I was just illustrating how unlikely that a private yachtsman would be sued for negligence, never mind just because of a lack of flares!

 

[flaming]

I did exactly that on the last flares thread.
I named, from the top of my head, two high profile cases where the means of attracting attention had been flares.

But then I was told that one didn't count because they normally carried an EPIRB that they'd forgotten....

 

[Twister_Ken]

I also quoted two occasions when I saw red paras, which resulted in instantaneous mayday relays from other folk (and goodness how many 999 calls from the shore)

 

[oakum]

"Do you carry everything that may save yours or someone else's life? "

What a daft question, the topic is about flares and yes I do carry them along with other means of signalling, warning or attracting attention.

"If it doesn't interest you just ignore it rather than posting your purile (sp) nonsense"

But it does interest me - I just wonder why the law's got to creep into a topic that's basically common sense - ie carry them whether you are obliged to or not (they might just save someone's life).

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wonder why the law's got to creep into a topic that's basically common sense

[/ QUOTE ]

You wonder why the law has to creep into a topic entitled "Are flares legally required"!!!!???

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[oakum]

"As to the law bit, I was just illustrating how unlikely that a private yachtsman would be sued for negligence, never mind just because of a lack of flares"

Fair enough but in a do or die situation questioning the legal niceties would be the furthest thing from my mind.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be interesting to see some valid research to identify situations where flares made a contribution to a successful rescue. Don't have the energy to do it myself, but suspect might find little evidence. It often happens when "received wisdom" is tested by evidence that it is found wanting!

[/ QUOTE ]

100pc agree.

Epirb's are well tested and thier performance is well known. We all know exactly how well VHF and Mobile phones work for the kind of sailing we do.

What's missing is evidence of how well Flares work. A few test firings in different areas of the UK (remote and busy areas) with the accuracy of the position and the percentage chance of getting spotted recorded must have been made at some time. Also figure for numbers of injuries at flare demos must be available. That's all that would be required to define exactly how good flares are and exactly how dangerous they are.

I've always been reluctant to accept "received wisdom" without evidence and being half way through 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies has made me more determined to check facts than ever before.

 

[oakum]

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif my foot and shot come to mind /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[flaming]

[ QUOTE ]
"As to the law bit, I was just illustrating how unlikely that a private yachtsman would be sued for negligence, never mind just because of a lack of flares"

Fair enough but in a do or die situation questioning the legal niceties would be the furthest thing from my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admire your sentiment but not carrying flares does imply a desision made at an earlier time, not at the time of most peril.

When people die in UK waters the courts do take an interest. There was the incident in the north (I forget where) where the skipper was charged with manslaughter when entering harbour in horid conditions against the advice of the port authaurities and the coastguard resulted in his boat being overwhelmed and fatalities. I don't remember the outcome, but the fact remains that acting negligently can get you charged.

It's not inconcieveable that if someone drowned awaiting rescue, and there were no flares on board (against the advice of bodies that should know, like the RNLI etc) that this could be deemed negligant. Espcecially if the fatality was due to not being seen.

 

[oakum]

"I admire your sentiment but not carrying flares does imply a desision made at an earlier time, not at the time of most peril"

Flaming, I'm not sure what you're saying - deciding not to take flares aboard is, in my mind, irresponsible, you never know when they could be a lifesaver and on that basis alone I carry them.

 

[EdWingfield]

"There was the incident in the north (I forget where)" - Tyne entrance.

"where the skipper was charged with manslaughter when entering harbour in horid conditions against the advice of the port authaurities and the coastguard" - Not so, Port Authority advised against sailing.

"resulted in his boat being overwhelmed and fatalities. I don't remember the outcome" Entry back into port is when this happened.

"resulted in his boat being overwhelmed and fatalities" Three drowned. Skipper charged with manslaughter but not convicted.

This incident happened in direct daylight view of the then Coastguard Stn. Your flares example is a red herring

 

[flaming]

I agree.

But to my mind not to take any safety kit is a desision that has been made before sailing.
If the worst happens you will have to justify this to a coroner, and then possibly a Jury.
When the RNLI, RYA, RORC, MCA etc advise taking flares, how would you persuade a coroner and a jury who probably don't sail that you're justified in not taking them?

 

[Refueler]

There seems to be a half understanding of flares use here.

Flares are not only for initially drawing attention to your situation - but also to guide rescuers to you.

It's no good firing of flares if there's no-one to see them. But once a rescue mission is mounted - they can be used to home the rescuers into your location and find you.

IMHO if anyone considers that flares have no use as designed - then I'm glad that I will not be sailing on that vessel. The lack of flares may just be enough to delay rescue enough for death to be the result. You may not be in your sail / power boat that can present a visible and radar target - you may be in your liferaft or dinghy - hidden by waves / swell .... helicopter / ships searching and not able to see you. WHOOSH a paraflare goes up ..... far more indicative of actual positiion than a VHF radio that could be anywhere horizon wide ... epirb that only locates by general area etc.

People ask for actual incidents. I would suggest that despite few answers to that - that there are probably far more actuals than we realise.
I cannot believe that for so many years flares have been required on ships and reccommended for pleasure craft for nothing. And I certainly do not accept they are out-dated now.

My rant over.

 

[EdWingfield]

"I would suggest that despite few answers to that - that there are probably far more actuals than we realise."

Evidence?

 

[flaming]

[ QUOTE ]
"There was the incident in the north (I forget where)" - Tyne entrance.

"where the skipper was charged with manslaughter when entering harbour in horid conditions against the advice of the port authaurities and the coastguard" - Not so, Port Authority advised against sailing.

"resulted in his boat being overwhelmed and fatalities. I don't remember the outcome" Entry back into port is when this happened.

"resulted in his boat being overwhelmed and fatalities" Three drowned. Skipper charged with manslaughter but not convicted.

This incident happened in direct daylight view of the then Coastguard Stn. Your flares example is a red herring

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand me.
This was not an example of the use of Flares, but the issue of legal procedings pertaining to a disaster involving a pleasure boat, which has also been discussed in this thread.

Surely it's not too great a leap to imagine someone having to defend the lack of Flares on their boat in the light of an incident where someone drowned due to not being able to be found?

 

[bootleg]

i read this thread incredulous that when undisputed international experts ie SOLAS, the RNLI the RYA and the MCA all reccomend that pleasure vessels carry distress Flares how is it that a bunch of amateur weekend warrior sailors have the arrogance to think that they know better and risk putting peoples lives at risk by ignoring expert advice.

 

[l'escargot]

Why stop at flares? If you are going down the legal argument road, what about liferaft and epirb (a personal one for everyone onboard?). Are you going to get sued for not carrying these? You don't have to justify anything to a coroner, he is only trying to establish the cause of death, he holds an inquest not a trial. The cause of death will never be "an absence of flares".

Setting aside the "sensible" argument there is absolutely no legal requirement to carry any of these items on small pleasure boats and consequently I don't believe a court would be able to take the absence of any such item into account. To begin with they would have to prove that the outcome would have been different if you had them - not easy to "prove" no matter what opinions may be held.

What next, start prosecuting people who drive cars without airbags? We all know they save lives but there are a lot of cars that don't have them.

 

[beneteau_305_553]

I dont carry flares anymore.

I think they are dangerous and unnecesary.

I do have DSC with gps output, Epirb beacon, seame radar reflector, octahedral radar reflector, stobe lights, ssb radio handheld waterproof vhf radios x 2, liferaft, mobile phone etc.

anyone untrained setting off a flare especially a parachute flare while a helicopter or lifeboat nearby would be dangerous in my opinion.

 

[pennycar9]

Spot on.

I have posted an item earlier this evening which proves beyond doubt that flares work in coastal waters and further offshore. An event which act ualy happened tonight albeit an exercise.
I think if people dont want to carry flares , then that is their (unwise ) decision. The problem is, if any thing happens to them because they had no flares, then we wouldnt be able to say 'See told you so'
If commercial vessels have to carry flares by Law, then there surly must be good reason for that, so I dont understand why some of these hoorays think that proven distress signals have no use in todays boating activities.

 

[EdWingfield]

If a crewman goes over the side, a horseshoe buoy attached to a floating lamp, attached to a dayglo flag on a pole, might be more appropriate than fireworks from the yacht?

If you are attempting to recover a man overboard, surely you'll need your night vision? Remember, time is the essential factor.