Do I need a liferaft?

[Croak]

I think you need to move that question to the lounge.

 

[alant]

very selective "serious disaster situation"

The point I'm trying to make is that anything you do in a serious disaster situation is only likely to gain you some time. Rags/ sail/ ply patch over a hole will buy you a few hours extra, but probably not the weeks you would need to cross half an ocean.

I repeat that, close to UK (except Scottish Isles) you are within an hour or two of serious help so are likely to manage without a L/R. In an ocean, even with EPIRB, you need to stay afloat for a lot longer before a ship can be diverted to your position - planes can't help much as there are no seaplanes in service with the range since WW2 and Choppers don't have the range either.

Is that any clearer?

Fires are a bit of a special situation & your only chance is probably to deal with it VERY quickly before it gets a grip. Once it gets a grip, you may not even have time to deploy a L/R - if it isn't burnt or the other side of the fire to where you are!

If you don't agree with me that's fine. But I hope you can see the reasoning now.

Nope, I don't agree with you.

"I repeat that, close to UK (except Scottish Isles) you are within an hour or two of serious help so are likely to manage without a L/R."
1) What makes you so sure, YOU (or any crew) can survive an hour or two in the sea?
2) What makes you so sure, that "in a serious disaster situation" any mayday you 'might' have made, has been heard?
3) What makes you so sure, that this "serious disaster situation" will not include fire (which apparently, you can deal with "VERY quickly")? On that point, if you have ever been on a maritime fire fighting course, you will be aware than one of the early actions is to ensure the liferaft is ready to deploy, should you have to abandon quickly (ever seen a yacht burn?).
4) what makes you sure, that YOU, will be easier to locate swimming in the sea, than a liferaft?
5) Ah, I know, presumably you are going to make sure all this drama & rescue, takes place conveniently in clear daylight, not at night or bad visibility, within sight of a lifeboat station.

"The point I'm trying to make is that anything you do in a serious disaster situation is only likely to gain you some time. Rags/ sail/ ply patch over a hole will buy you a few hours extra,"
But you don't need to buy time, help is near at hand, apart from the scottish isles of course.

 

[alant]

Under every stone!

You asked the question.

How observant Toady.

Best contribution you could make?

Or still busy trying to consider if your life is worth the £60 you would need to purchase a lifejacket?

 

[alant]

I think you need to move that question to the lounge.

?
Don't do crosswords on here!

 

[prv]

"Do you wear a helmet when you are driving a car?"
No, but if I were crashing a car, I would wish I was wearing one!

But, what the F does this have to do with L/Rafts?

It's an analogy.

So if you would want to be wearing a helmet when crashing a car, why don't you wear one just in case you do?

I don't have the figures, but I find Croak's assertion - that a car crash and head injury is more likely than a boat accident requiring a liferaft - to be very plausible. (For the avoidance of doubt - do you dispute these assumed probabilities?)

Given this, why do you consider it to be self-evidently necessary to mitigate against the smaller risk, but absurd to mitigate against the larger one?

Pete

 

[Searush]

Nope, I don't agree with you.

"I repeat that, close to UK (except Scottish Isles) you are within an hour or two of serious help so are likely to manage without a L/R."
1) What makes you so sure, YOU (or any crew) can survive an hour or two in the sea?
2) What makes you so sure, that "in a serious disaster situation" any mayday you 'might' have made, has been heard?
3) What makes you so sure, that this "serious disaster situation" will not include fire (which apparently, you can deal with "VERY quickly")? On that point, if you have ever been on a maritime fire fighting course, you will be aware than one of the early actions is to ensure the liferaft is ready to deploy, should you have to abandon quickly (ever seen a yacht burn?).
4) what makes you sure, that YOU, will be easier to locate swimming in the sea, than a liferaft?
5) Ah, I know, presumably you are going to make sure all this drama & rescue, takes place conveniently in clear daylight, not at night or bad visibility, within sight of a lifeboat station.

"The point I'm trying to make is that anything you do in a serious disaster situation is only likely to gain you some time. Rags/ sail/ ply patch over a hole will buy you a few hours extra,"
But you don't need to buy time, help is near at hand, apart from the scottish isles of course.

OK, so you ARE being deliberately obtuse. Fairy Nuff. May I respectfully suggest you stop digging? I've lost interest in trying to explain stuff to someone who choses to misrepresent what I say. Ciao.

 

[alant]

There are statistics, more statistics & damn stupidity!

It's an analogy.

So if you would want to be wearing a helmet when crashing a car, why don't you wear one just in case you do?

I don't have the figures, but I find Croak's assertion - that a car crash and head injury is more likely than a boat accident requiring a liferaft - to be very plausible. (For the avoidance of doubt - do you dispute these assumed probabilities?)

Given this, why do you consider it to be self-evidently necessary to mitigate against the smaller risk, but absurd to mitigate against the larger one?

Pete

"I don't have the figures, but I find Croak's assertion - that a car crash and head injury is more likely than a boat accident requiring a liferaft - to be very plausible. (For the avoidance of doubt - do you dispute these assumed probabilities?"

1) You "don't have the figures", so on what basis are you offering any possible judgement?
2) "but I find Croak's assertion ----to be very plausible" - hope that makes you both very happy!
3) "For the avoidance of doubt - do you dispute these assumed probabilities" - I deal with reality, not doubt & assumed probabilities theory!

Forget probabilities, I don't care if its a once in a 1000 years occurance!
When any boat I'm on starts sinking, I do not want to be floundering around in the sea, either with or without a lifejacket, when it is entirely sensible (mandatory for any coded vessel, even a RIB) to have a Liferaft to get into until hopefully rescue takes place.

This is anywhere 'at sea', regardless of whether I can see the nearest beach, or in mid atlantic.

The MCA, require coded vessels - even a RIB operating within the Solent - to have a liferaft on board.
They, presumably with the expertise of experience in dealing with incidents at sea, have made that decision.

I am not aware, that the Ministry of Transport/DVLA/et al, have yet considered that crash helmets are a safety requirement for private motor cars drivers.

So my answer still is, I would prefer a liferaft, not an analogy, when my boat is sinking!
Since it is my life at stake not yours, particularly since you are unlikely to be present, your opinion is dismissable.

 

[alant]

Stupid Cavalier attitude!

OK, so you ARE being deliberately obtuse. Fairy Nuff. May I respectfully suggest you stop digging? I've lost interest in trying to explain stuff to someone who choses to misrepresent what I say. Ciao.

No, I'm not being "deliberateley obtuse".

Try reading my post with an open mind & stop being so f---ing cavalier about safety.

"May I respectfully suggest you" do what you like in your own boat, but stop trying to indoctrinate the more inexperienced on these forums, with opinions which border on foolhardy!

 

[oceanfroggie]

Sadly experience teaches us that few folks who end up in the water at sea survive the shock of exposure, some dying in hospital even after rescue from water. Past evidence suggests staying out of the water at all costs is key to survival. PFDs in such circumstances has a time problem.

 

[paul salliss]

I think this is simple,

you dont NEED one, but you DO have a moral responsibility to buy one.

Just buy one, then you can sleep well,

and a good night's sleep put's everything into perspective.

 

[Searush]

Sadly experience teaches us that few folks who end up in the water at sea survive the shock of exposure, some dying in hospital even after rescue from water. Past evidence suggests staying out of the water at all costs is key to survival. PFDs in such circumstances has a time problem.

I see Alant has dragged you into his nonsense too. The whole point is not to jump in the water (or a L/R) unless you absolutely have to. And I have at no point whatsoever even suggested it - despite his daft & irrelevant comments.

Keeping the mother ship afloat is a far better bet anywhere and, particularly in most populated UK coastal waters, one generally only needs to buy a few hours before rescue is likely. It's about risk assessment, the big boat is easier to see, easier to find, contains warmth, food, water & clothing. You L/R is unlikely to have much of any of those. Offshore is a bigger problem as rescue is likely to be days away & getting yourself to safety would take weeks, consequently a L/R would be much more likely to be needed.

 

[PaulGooch]

Apart from the relatively small cost, can anyone give me ONE good, sound reason for NOT having a liferaft please ?

If i carry one, are there some circumstances where it will threaten my life, where NOT having on wouldn't pose that threat ?

Seriously gentlemen, one reason please for why having a life raft might be dangerous ?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Seriously gentlemen, one reason please for why having a life raft might be dangerous ?

Interesting question. I wonder how many people have died abandoning a boat that wasn't sinking (I can think of a handful off the top of my head) and how many people have died for lack of a liferaft?

Or I wonder if the drive to pick up a Liferaft from a chandlers might be more dangerous than an entire sailing career without a liferaft.

It would be interesting to see if the numbers support the conclusion that carrying a liferaft was actually more dangerous than not carrying it. [1]

No idea what the numbers are, but it would make me chuckle if either of these were the case, and it wouldn't totally surprise me.

[1] In much the same way there was a longish period a few years back where the fire service killed more people in RTAs than they saved by attending shouts.

 

[PaulGooch]

Interesting question. I wonder how many people have died abandoning a boat that wasn't sinking (I can think of a handful off the top of my head) and how many people have died for lack of a liferaft?

Or I wonder if the drive to pick up a Liferaft from a chandlers might be more dangerous than an entire sailing career without a liferaft.

It would be interesting to see if the numbers support the conclusion that carrying a liferaft was actually more dangerous than not carrying it. [1]

No idea what the numbers are, but it would make me chuckle if either of these were the case, and it wouldn't totally surprise me.

[1] In much the same way there was a longish period a few years back where the fire service killed more people in RTAs than they saved by attending shouts.

I suppose if i died in a car crash while i was taking the liferaft for a service................

 

[Croak]

There was a tv program, a while back, that tried to prove that there were more injuries created by wearing seatbelts than the seatbelts stopped. I think they succeeded.

Funny thing, playing with figures.

The people who can give a correct answer to the OP's question, Will be those with the most experience of needing to use a liferaft for real.

But I would not want to be on a boat with any of those people, never mind take advice about boating safety from them.

As has been said before, there is not enough data to to make a statistical decision so it has to be subjective.

There is no right answer until after the event.

But it is always nice to see what other peoples opinions are.

Please note I am not an expert, if I said I was, I would expect you to ignore most of what I say.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I suppose if i died in a car crash while i was taking the liferaft for a service................

It's an interesting thought. The chances of needing a liferaft are nigh on Nill. The chances of a life raft saving your life are less than even that (It would need a sinking where you dinghy was of no use for a start, I doubt a large percentage of sinkings occur in seas a dinghy can't handle.) In contrast the 30 odd car journeys that might be involved in a lifetimes liferaft ownership have a very real risk of killing you.

I can't put a figure on it myself but I'd love it if someone else did.

The more I think about it the more I think it's not just possible, but likely, that on average it's safer not to have a liferaft, purely due to the extra road usage that would be involved in owning/supplying liferafts.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

There was a tv program, a while back, that tried to prove that there were more injuries created by wearing seatbelts than the seatbelts stopped. I think they succeeded.

I'd be amazed if they managed to prove that over any meaningful period of time. Seatbelts are pretty effective.

Air bags increase your chance of leg injury in a crash. Pretty obvious really - without the airbag you often die. With the airbag you live, so all the other injuries start to matter and get recorded.

 

[oceanfroggie]

I see Alant has dragged you into his nonsense too. The whole point is not to jump in the water (or a L/R) unless you absolutely have to. And I have at no point whatsoever even suggested it - despite his daft & irrelevant comments.

Keeping the mother ship afloat is a far better bet anywhere and, particularly in most populated UK coastal waters, one generally only needs to buy a few hours before rescue is likely. It's about risk assessment, the big boat is easier to see, easier to find, contains warmth, food, water & clothing. You L/R is unlikely to have much of any of those. Offshore is a bigger problem as rescue is likely to be days away & getting yourself to safety would take weeks, consequently a L/R would be much more likely to be needed.

Agree stay put till there is no option.

Old Chinese proverb "always climb UP into a life raft, never step down into one"

But if forced to abandon, better up into a raft than into water with PFD.

 

[oceanfroggie]

I see Alant has dragged you into his nonsense too. The whole point is not to jump in the water (or a L/R) unless you absolutely have to. And I have at no point whatsoever even suggested it - despite his daft & irrelevant comments.

Keeping the mother ship afloat is a far better bet anywhere and, particularly in most populated UK coastal waters, one generally only needs to buy a few hours before rescue is likely. It's about risk assessment, the big boat is easier to see, easier to find, contains warmth, food, water & clothing. You L/R is unlikely to have much of any of those. Offshore is a bigger problem as rescue is likely to be days away & getting yourself to safety would take weeks, consequently a L/R would be much more likely to be needed.

Agree stay put till there is no option.

Old Chinese proverb "always climb UP into a life raft, never step down into one". (eg 1979 Fasnet)

But if forced to abandon, better up into a raft than into water with PFD.

 

[Searush]

Agree stay put till there is no option.

Old Chinese proverb "always climb UP into a life raft, never step down into one". (eg 1979 Fasnet)

But if forced to abandon, better up into a raft than into water with PFD.

Absolutely. But the chances of being FORCED to abandon are fairly low I reckon. Which is why a L/R is quite low on my list of useful safety eqt for the sailing I do. Maybe I'll be proven wrong soon, but I won't hold my breath while waiting.

Please don't be upset because I've only answered once.

(silly server capacity issues - should we sack Dan?)