Are flares legally required if

[flaming]

[ QUOTE ]
Why stop at flares? If you are going down the legal argument road, what about liferaft and epirb (a personal one for everyone onboard?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well quite. Difference is that neither the RNLI or the RYA rank either of the above necessary for coastal sailing. They do rank flares in that category though.

I'm not saying that not having flares, or lifejackets, or a VHF, or a danbuoy or whatever, would result in legal action, as we know there are no laws specifying what pleasure craft must carry.
My point is that we live in an ever increasing blame culture, and anyone who thinks that having a serious incident whilst flouting the voluntary code that the RYA and RNLI recomend for pleasure craft, which by the way is much less severe than the code for the same boat on commercial duty, will definitely not result in lawsuits or prosecutions is not being honest about the times we live in.

 

[flaming]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, who said anything about an MOB? Though of course if was carrying a personal flare...

In all the recent Flare threads the oponents of flares seem to think that it is being argued that Flares are the only safety kit it is necessary to carry.
This simply isn't the case, and no one is claming it is.

But the argument that they are innefective and not worthy of a place on board also does not hold water. Specific examples of Flares saving lives in the post EPIRB and post DSC world have been quoted, and then ignored by those who claim Flares to be old technology.

 

[Krusty]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You want research? Well here is some evidence:
4th September 1999: Entered Corryvreckan from the west with W'ly wind against a W-going tide and patchy fog; no other vessel in sight. I glanced abeam to check distance off Scarba, and noticed what looked like a plume of grey smoke spewing from the water, then realised and said to my partner ''That could be a flare gone down!'' Next moment we saw a mini-rocket and red flare rise from close to the shore; I hove-to and grabbed binoculars; two canoe-ists close in.
To cut it short: they were both exhausted by fighting the stream, one hypothermic and unable to help himself out of his kayak; we had to lash him alongside and lift him out (while spinning in the turbulence).
But for their pyrotechnics they might well have died, and they knew it.

'But yachts are different, they can carry radio equipment! etc...'
Certainly: but electrics can, and sometimes do, fail. I continue to carry flares.

Further back in time, in Shetland waters, I was indirectly involved in a similar incident; a small fishing boat, engine failed, swamped, and all electrics 'Out'. Flares
saved him. I can't lay hands on my log of that one.

 

[Tranona]

Yes, of course you can find examples where flares have been instrumental in a rescue in just the same way that you can find examples of flares being used in sight of other ships and not being seen. What is lacking is systematic evidence that they are effective in real life. Remember they came in when there was no radio, no mobile phone, no EPIRBs, no GPS etc and ships foundered close to shore - a shore that had regular lookouts posted to look for danger.

That is a world that does not exist any more, but we still carry flares - the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mantra does not stack up. I have read countless accident reports and I struggle to remember one where flares were an important, positive factor.

One of the problems we have in yacht safety is a shortage of well evidenced research of what actually happens. Regular forumites may remeber my research on lferafts which clearly showed that the chances of a yachtsman actually needing one is so close to Zero that it can't be measured statistically. Just the same with the "statistics" on accidents caused by drinking that the government is using in the current consultation - simply not a sustainable case that there is a problem.

Just because "official bodies" make recommendations does not mean they are right or should not be questioned. Many of their recommendations such as don't fall overboard - and if you do wear a lifejacket, are self evidently right because there is plenty of evidence to support this. However, I am not sure that carrying flares falls into this category.

Happy to be proved wrong, but not by "You know it makes sense" - because it does not on the evidence so far available.

 

[flaming]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read countless accident reports and I struggle to remember one where flares were an important, positive factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read this.
Then imagine no flares.

Hooligan MAIB report

Read this.
Note the EPIRB failed, and then imagine No Flares. The important bit from the point of view of this discussion is on page 17.
Wahkuna MAIB report

These are just two examples of flares meaning being pulled from the water that I can remember because they were highly publicised due to how the people came to be in the liferafts.

 

[ShipsWoofy]

[ QUOTE ]
Me too. Can anyone point to such a case? Personally I have my doubts but a report in the sailing (or other) press would confirm it.

Incidently, can anyone point to some cases of British Residents prosecuted for out of date flares in France? Crops up periodically but I've never seen a report, be nice to have a read.

[/ QUOTE ]Look pal, it is simple, you don't carry them, we don't care what you do.

 

[Refueler]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try keep that in sight on windy stormy night ..... but MOB is not the usual scenario envisaged in a Flare use - its the distress of a boat.

Funny that when a Cadet and also when in training to go up the Officer ladder in Merch. We were taught to conserve flares for use to pinpoint us as casualty - as I described earlier. Coastal - can raise alarm hopefully by another on land as Brigid-Mary has amply described incidents - seeing the flare. Off-shore by conserving where possible to show SAR where you are as they are searching.

A darn sight more better than trying to get a radio message over of what wave crest you just plummeted of !

We were taught that SAR would EXPECT to see a flare or smoke signal of some description.

To add the comment - firing of a paraflare at a lifeboat / helicopter is plain stupid and not worth reply to be honest.

I consider that experienced Merchant Navy Instructors having taught use of Flares and other safety apparatus may have a more wider understanding of the issue of flares than the average yachtsperson.

Lets take an example of an abandonment to a liferaft. There you all are ... epirb blipping away ... battery dieing - wish I'd serviced and changed the cell. SAR is in the area trying to find you but EPIRB is now dead. Grab VHF ... I'm here - can't you see me ??? I'm that tiny dot on the 10th wave etc. etc. Hey Nige - what about this flare ? No Fred - YBW guy said no good - forget it. Ok Nige. Fred ignores you and me - he sticks head and arms out of canopy ... strikes and WHOOOOOOSH !

Blimey what's that noise ? Do I hear a helicopter ? Oh Glory be ... hallelujah ....


Ok - fantasy tales apart ... I would suggest to those who are not carrying or consider flares unnecessary - instead of asking here about evidence of use and effectiveness - to go to local RNLI station or CG and talk to them. Get the real story and opinion of those who have to deal with us idiots every day ...

Flares are one of the only alternatives left when all else is dead due to no electrics etc.

 

[RAI]

I thought it was articles like this one:-

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.u...il/article.html

That started this debate.

 

[footsoldier]

flaming

I've just returned to this thread after being away 24hrs. Sorry you have ended up as the voice of reason trying to justify the thought I proferred in my response to the original enquiry, which seems to have provoked a bitter argument.

Just to make it clear to all, I was struck by the word "legally" in the original enquiry. I was trying to point out that in the modern world "legally" is not just limited to the direct obligations and prohibitions implied by a specific law. It also embraces indirect legal consequences. As other posters have pointed out, the failure to carry flares in the various circumstances suggested where they could be the only viable means of summoning help/attracting attention and demonstrably in defiance of the advice of RNLI, RYA, SOLAS etc, most certainly would be used as a stick to beat you by lawyers pusuing a claim for negligence. That is what I meant.

As a very simple example, it is legal for me to use a hands-free phone in the car, but if I was involved in a fatal crash, the fact that I had been using it and had allowed my concentration to wander would be sufficient to support a civil action against me for causing the death by my negligence.

What strikes me about this (and a previous) debate is that the carrying of flares has somehow become a matter of ideology rather than simple pragmatism. Believers and non-believers at each others throats! For my part, I'll carry the bloody lot - EPIRB, radios, phones, flares, flags, mirrors - without particulary trusting in the effectiveness of any of them, but in the hope that they might just be the thing to save my arse in a particular set of circumstances.

 

[Tranona]

The hands free phone is an interesting one as there has just been a case almost identical to your scenario. The conviction was careless driving, not dangerous driving as per charge and the hands free phone bit did not play much part. Interesting to see if the victim's estate take out a civil action.

As to legal action against a private yachtsman, this is highly unlikely. The claim would have to be for negligence and the plaintiff would have to show that a duty of care existed. This is entirely possible on, for example a charter boat where coding requirements demand the fitment of all sorts of safety equipment.

Don't think it is a question of believers and non-believers as the subject is not about belief but rational thought and action based on the available information. Trouble is that the information is not good therefore difficult to make a rational choice so many fall back on belief!

 

[flaming]

[ QUOTE ]
Trouble is that the information is not good therefore difficult to make a rational choice so many fall back on belief!

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly how many first hand examples and MAIB reports would it take to provide "good information" in your view?
10?
20?
100?

Just asking.....

Oh and a duty of care does exist. If you are the skipper of a boat you do have a duty of care over everyone aboard. That is part of being a skipper.

 

[Tranona]

Hi Flaming

Missed this cos 2 threads running!

I think you will find that they are the ONLY two!. Both were unusual circumstances. Only 5 yachts have been in colllision with a ship to the point that they were sunk in the last 15 years. Only three had survivors. One was in Cork harbour Ireland and the one survivor was picked up almost immediately from the wreckage. Another was in the North Sea but the yacht stayed afloat and crew was rescued by an oil rig support vessel. The last was Wahkuna where the flare did play a significant part - but you have to remember that it was flat calm, in the middle of the shipping lanes and it is likely the raft would have been spotted earlier if it had not been for the fog!

As to Hooligan - yes this is a classic example where the flare was key - but in the next capsize caused by a keel falling off the rescue services were called on a mobile phone!

We need to be clear that the incidence of yachts foundering to the point that liferafts and flares come into play is very, very low; there is little pattern about them except for the causes, structural failure, collision and overwhelmed by conditions - no more than 5 cases in each category. In only two cases were flares used. There may well, of course be other cases and examples have been quoted, but little systematic recorded evidence.

It is therefore not surprising that some question whether the high cost and operational problems of flares is justified by their usefulness (or otherwise).

 

[Refueler]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was articles like this one:-

http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.u...il/article.html

That started this debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are 2 important points in that article :

a) They are talking about Land-based use ONLY. This is where the question mark really comes because there are few occasions that land-based would be called for except say mountain / desolate moors rescue ?
b) They go on to say that in-date will be donated to RNLI - further indicating the continued waterborne use.

It is interesting that CG on the ground are not agreeing though with MCA bosses in the article.

 

[flaming]

I agree, the crew of the Wakhuna were probably in no immediate danger, but their EPIRB had failed, and they would have been out there for much longer without their flares. The shipping lanes are of course not the ideal place to bob around in a liferaft. They'd already been in a collision with one ship, and now were floating around in the busiest shipping lane in the world in a rubber ring.

I do however entirely disagree that these are the only 2 incidences where flares were important in recent years. On these threads you have heard first hand accounts from several forumites who have rescued people either because of sighting a flare, or with the aid of a flare to locate the exact position of the people in trouble.

It is true that in the next case of a keel falling off, Bounder, a mobile phone was the key to rescue. They were of course very lucky that it was daylight as once they were upside down they didn't have a GPS, so no accurate position. Searching that area at night without flares to guide the choppers in (which they wouldn't have had) would be very tricky.

You class both of these events as unusual, but seem to do so on the basis of how the accidents occured, rather than the rescue? In which case I agree with you, incidences of yachts being struck by ships or their keels falling off are thankfully very rare.
However, incidences of Yachts calling on the services of the coastguard and lifeboats are sadly not so rare.

The point about flares is that they do a job which is covered in part by other safety kit, but not in full. And nothing in the armoury of the yachtsman is so tolerant of being packed in a liferaft and forgotten about until you need it.
Yes if I ever have to take to a liferaft I would ideally be taking with me a VHF, an EPIRB, a mobile phone and a handheld GPS, but I'd also want Flares, so when I sight anyone that might be able to help I can attract their attention in an immediate and utterly unambiguous way.

 

[flaming]

They are also talking about white flares used to light up an area, fired by the rescue services, not flares used by the person in distress to indicate their position.

The important distinction being that you are relying on the light produced by the flare to illuminate the surrounding area, rather than using the light itself as a position fix. And in many ways I sort of agree, night vision and thermal immaging kit has largely replaced the illuminating flares, but not the position indicating ones used by the person in distress.

 

[Refueler]

Sorry Tranona - but you are being very selective and I cannot understand your reasoning.

Modern technology is fine all the time it works, but there are times when old needs to be backing it up. It is a total picture that needs to be looked at not specific items.

Safety is taking into consideration all eventualities and making best provision for. Covering 'all bases' by having modern techn. + flares has to be fair reasoning.

And why concentrate on only shore seeing a flare ? Do you have DF equipment to home in on a VHF signal ? Which by the way is a widely inaccurate method and only indicates general direction, crossed with another - we get an area - not a spot. The hand and para-flares are specific locators.

I'm ready to embrace new technology, but not to replace. I prefer to marry and benefit from both.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Epirb + VHF versus flares = chartplotter vs charts?

Gizmologists vs Traditionalists?

 

[flaming]

Hardly, I'm a gizmologist!

 

[maxi77]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you deliberately go to sea without devices that can indicate to a rescue helicopter the direction and strength of the wind when he comes to your rescue.

Just a comment on strobe lights which I agree in the right circumstances can be good visual aids. When returning up the Clyde in one of Her Majesty's black tubes the OOW reporte a US SSBN coming down thew river towards us (at that time only US SSBNs used strobe lights) A short time later he reported the SSBN had turned right and dissapeared over Bute. With a shore background your light can be mistakedn for a something on the shore.

At the end of the day the rescue services expect you to have pyrotechnics, they are trained on the basis that you do have them. Not having them just makes the job that little bit more difficult

 

[Tranona]

No, I am not being selective - I am just reflecting the paucity of hard information available. Yes, there are probably many incidents where flares have been used, but no sytematic way of recording them so that one can make an assessment of the facts.

Remember flares date from a time when there was no other form of communication. The world has changed and they are simply less relevant than in the past. As to whether they are completely irrelevant is open to debate, partly because there is so little information on their real effectiveness in action.

The real advances in safety have come from prevention rather than cure - that is avoiding getting into a dangerous situation in the first place - and minimising the negative consequences. All this means that the number of situations where the last ditch action, such as firing a flare, is needed is very small. I think people recognise this, and the variable record of success and concentrate their efforts of avoidance.