awol
Well-known member
"there are many more that report firing flares and nobody saw them " Am I alone in wondering how these poor souls were rescued to tell the tale?
Carrying flares
- Thread starter Tranona
- Start date
oldmanofthehills
Well-known member
I have seen Rescue Helicopters and CG use smoke flares in practice and very recently but distantly seen the RN Marines use them also on training outside Plymouth Sound.
The smoke is much more obvious than flashing light.
What is more seeing a pile of smoke and fire out to sea will be obviously significant to your coastal walker or farmer as compared with distant flashing light that might after all just be an odd reflection.
First see if you can fix it, then try VHF to CG, and if that fails as often it will think about flares
Tranona
Well-known member
Again, like Gary's incident a one off. It is not clear whether the flare was the only indication that the boat was in trouble as later on there is a comment that the crew had been out of radio contact for an hour. It may well be that the initial call was by radio.
The problem with using videos (and incidents) like this is that they do not tell the whole story and people tend to pick up the bits that support their arguments. For example note that flares were not used to locate either the boat or the person in the water, whereas many supporters of the use of flares claim this is one of their big advantages.
When I asked for evidence I don't necessarily mean individual examples, but statistical analysis that shows for example the proportion of emergency calls that came as a result of sighting of a flare or the proportion of times a rescuer cited a flare as the only way a casualty could be located. Realistically it is impossible to collect such data so we tend to fall back on individual examples that support our position and reject any other singular examples that indicate the opposite.
If a visual indicator is useful then the secondary question is whether pyrotechnics are the best or are there alternatives. There is some support for LEDs as an alternative and also that PLBs and EPIRBs if with the casualty are an accurate indicator of position.
The whole argument about pyrotechnic flares is that the growth in other methods of communication between rescuers and casualty has made them increasingly irrelevant to the point where their usefulness is outweighed by their downsides.
Tranona
Well-known member
Someone obviously saw them at a later time or they were able to communicate by other means so could be a variety of reasons. The point is that using a flare as a primary means of communicating distress assumes there is somebody who will see it and take the necessary action to instigate a rescue. The alternatives now available are much more reliable means of direct communication with rescue services.
Mark-1
Well-known member
They don't, it's just recorded that a flare was seen, it instigated a search, and nothing was found.
Very, very common back in the day looking through the shout records of my local RNLI station.
Hard to imagine an EPIRB or PLB resulting in a total failure to find *anything*.
Gary Fox
N/A
They can sink..
Mark-1
Well-known member
And flares can't? But if an activated PLB/EPIRB sinks at least you know where to go to find out what happened. A search for a flare that you don't find leaves no clue what happened. It might even have been in the imagination of the reporter.
We should probably give up these threads. I suspect we all know the pros and cons of the various communication methods at our disposal. Periodically squabbling about one of them isn't really adding anything. (Except the idea of flares as a way of getting yourself clearly visibly on a FLIR camera which came up recently in one of these debates and seems unique advantage of 'fire light' over 'electric light'.)
Gary Fox
N/A
I'm concerned that flares will be phased out and become unavailable.
Tranona
Well-known member
That is unlikely to happen while they remain compulsory either by law or because race and rally organising bodies insist that participants carry them. Demand from those who have the option is probably declining rapidly.
What would be useful is for those organisations who insist on carrying flares were to disclose their evidence that participants have actually used them and lives have been saved because of flares. However doubt they even keep any records, relying on the "everybody knows" approach to such matters.
"Safety" causes rigorous thought and analysis to go out of the window.
oldmanofthehills
Well-known member
VHF has a range of 10 miles and often less. CG coverage is poor in many parts of Eire and GB coast. Trundling along 12 miles or more off shore on way to Scilly or Ireland, the DSC button will do nothing. So no means of calling from help unless another ship is in range and answers- this is not Solent we are talking about here. Often I sail with no boat in sight so second option no use.
Yet smoke can be seen for miles, sometime I can hear nothing on VHF but see folk on the shore.
Flares are then my only step before perhaps the liferaft is needed. Obviously a calm conversation with CG is best but if I cant here their great big transmitters they cant hear my 25W thing
Praxinoscope
Well-known member
#50
As the Irish Sea is my usual area of activity, I am fully aware that other shipping traffic can be far and few between, but unlikely to be outside the range of VHF, however I do carry a PLB which I think will be far more efficient than any pyrotechnic.
As the Irish Sea is my usual area of activity, I am fully aware that other shipping traffic can be far and few between, but unlikely to be outside the range of VHF, however I do carry a PLB which I think will be far more efficient than any pyrotechnic.
Gary Fox
N/A
A PLB is another tool used in a different way, describing it as 'more efficient than any pyro..' is meaningless.
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
Amongst the ignorant, yes. However safety engineering has very structured processes to identify hazards, risks and consequences, with and without statistical data.
Flares would easily fall into a hazard that could be eliminated with existing technology while improving alerting functionality with existing tech. That analysis would likely not require any statistics based just on consequences.
The reluctance is around paying for tech such as EPIRBs, PLBs, SatPhones, SSB, h/h VHFs and having redundancy.
Praxinoscope
Well-known member
That my be your opinion but I still regard the PLB as the next emergency device after a 'mayday' on the VHF, and a lot more use than letting off a badly made firework in the middl of the Irish Sea.
The PLB will advise the authorities of a problem and identify to within a few meters the position.
Tranona
Well-known member
I should have qualified that by saying in relation to yachting because there is so little reliable data on which to base decisions.
Juan Twothree
Well-known member
There's a bit in that film where the rescued lifeboatman mentions that the helicopter flew over him twice, without seeing him. As a result of that incident, we now carry PLBs and day/night flares on our lifejackets.
There was also a suggestion, never followed up, that we might wear yellow helmets rather than white, for conspicuity.
Gary Fox
N/A
Why are you pathologically opposed to pyros? Did you have a nasty fright one time, or is it the risk of them falling into the wrong hands? Why such urgency to shift the status quo?
The above quoted post demonstrates that you inhabit a fantasy world, where pyros are en-route to inevitable and justified extinction, and where this 'progress' is obstructed by dangerously ill-informed and irrational dinosaurs, clinging to their ancient customs and unaware of superior technology in the field.
The reason I argue with such nonsense is that it is contagious, and recklessly nudging the Overton porthole results in foolish RYA proclamations, public misperception, and maybe worse things to come.
'Demand from those who have the option is probably declining rapidly' is clearly wishful thinking, and an attempt to dissuade others from carrying flares; but why exactly are you, personally, so intent on putting off potential and current flare users? Do you have shares in LED winky-twinklers... or is it something deeper? Only you can answer that question.
Gary Fox
N/A
What makes flares a 'hazard', to be 'eliminated', in comparison to their obvious and unique utility in lifesaving? If you're nervous about loud noises, or you think flares are unstable explosives, then just don't use them!
awol
Well-known member
Identifying risks is great but without data the probability of the shite happening becomes wet finger stuff. As yet, despite carrying the things for years, I have never let a flare off in extremis; neither have I called a Mayday nor a Pan-pan; the EPIRB flashes once a month and gets replaced or a hideously expensive battery every 5 years; the liferaft lurks on the foredeck unused apart from an embarrassing (and expensive) bid for freedom in rough weather; and so it goes on.
Tranona
Well-known member
Sorry you do not seem able to follow my arguments in a rational way and seem to see conspiracy in anything that you do not agree with.
I am not "pathologically opposed to pyros", just presenting the counter argument to those that blindly stick to the past and do not seem to recognise the advancements in alternative means of communication. The views I express reflect a growing body of opinion as illustrated by both the RYA and to a lesser extent the MCA.
I have no financial interest in LEDs, although I do have one on my boat (along with an EPIRB and 2 VHF. Why this rather than flares? Four reasons. First I have never been happy with having pyros on my boat. Second I don't think they are an effective way of alerting the rescue services that I am in trouble and need help. Third I sail in an area where it is highly unlikely I will get into a situation where flares would be useful to pinpoint my exact location. Finally if I did then I am pretty sure that my LED would do the same job, given that you would only use it when you knew somebody was specifically looking for it.
Demand will naturally decline as it does for all products when rational thinking consumers decide that a product no longer meets their needs. Some demand will though, remain while there are still regulations that require their fitment. This demand will ensure that somebody will always make them so you will be able to buy them if you want to.
Why do you have so much difficulty in accepting that others have different views from you and are able to present reasoned arguments rather than resorting to hyperbole?