Do I need a liferaft?

[Ripster]

Safety and survival at Sea is surely about firstly, taking precautions, avoiding problems but after that giving yourself every possible chance by employing all sensible and affordable measures. If you believe this then having a liferaft on board surely must give you more chances than not having one. OK.. so it "might" not work, but then again it just may do and may make the difference.

 

[PaulGooch]

Safety and survival at Sea is surely about firstly, taking precautions, avoiding problems but after that giving yourself every possible chance by employing all sensible and affordable measures. If you believe this then having a liferaft on board surely must give you more chances than not having one. OK.. so it "might" not work, but then again it just may do and may make the difference.

If you don't have one, it can't save your life. If you do, it might. Thing is though, i can't see one good reason for NOT having one.

 

[Thepipdoc]

It was reported to be a new liferaft.

In general rafts have a poor history of reliability. Defects are often the result of poor servicing rather than manufacturing defects, but the reality is that they are fragile devices as a consequence of trying to achieve a demanding role and still be light enough and compact enough to use on board.

Read the reports of the relatively few occasions they have been used in anger and you will find just as many failures as successes. This is because when they are used in extreme conditions their shortcomings show up very quickly. Difficulty in launching because of size and weight, failure to inflate, inflating upside down, difficulty in boarding, loss of equipment, loss of buoyancy, structural failures. Many of these shortcomings are obvious just practising in a pool - and deployment is usually in survival conditions. The image of stepping off your sinking boat with your children and into the safety of a liferaft is just that. An image, not the reality.

So, enjoy the illusory comfort you get from owning a liferaft - and just make sure you never have to use it!

Does anyone want to buy a brand new liferaft??!!

 

[Searush]

Does anyone want to buy a brand new liferaft??!!

Don't let our teasing put you off, but do read the Fastnet '79 report & remember that techniques & materials HAVE improved since.

The general consensus is that you board a liferaft when you have to step upwards into it! The lessons of the Fastnet '79 are still relevant today.

Quite a few people think "I've got a Liferaft so I am safe." However, the best safety device is the one between your ears so use it to try to avoid getting into the situation where your only way out is your life raft.

 

[AndieMac]

Not sure about that one Steve. I bought 2 x 4 man Seasava coastal rafts 5 years ago, religously serviced every 12 months with the same reputable service agent (the only one in the state!), but last years service found one raft had leakage in both the upper and lower chambers. They are both stored very carefully in pampered conditions.

I felt a little 'let down' when i read the report (excuse the pun)

 

[Doghousekeeper]

In general rafts have a poor history of reliability.

Read the reports of the relatively few occasions they have been used in anger and you will find just as many failures as successes.

Everything I've read suggests the opposite, that rafts have a generally very good performance record. Where did you get your information from?

Defects are often the result of poor servicing rather than manufacturing defects

From my discussions with the servicing agents, they would argue that poor storage is the biggest problem. For example, many people don't realise that the movement of the gas bottle inside the container as the boat moves can cause damage to the liferaft fabric, and the raft should always be stored with the bottle at the lowest point. If you keep your raft in a cradle - as most of us do - you should let your service agent know if it's stored flat or on it's side so that they can pack it properly)

The image of stepping off your sinking boat with your children and into the safety of a liferaft is just that. An image, not the reality.

I can speak with a little experience here, having twice had to abandon ship to the liferaft. One occasion for 45 minutes in reasonable conditions (not too bad), once for several hours in fairly horrible conditions (not what I'd recommend anyone looking for holiday ideas) and I can promise you that when the liferaft becomes a safer place than the boat it is very definitely a reality

So, enjoy the illusory comfort you get from owning a liferaft - and just make sure you never have to use it!

Unfortunately we don't get the choice of whether or not we have to use it. We hope not to, but if that time ever comes you will thank God for your foresight in fitting a liferaft. Of course, for the other 99.9% of the time, you'll wonder if you really should have spent so much money on something you aren't using

 

[rubberduck]

We have a self righting liferaft, tender, epirb,handheld vhf & plotter,spare batteries,flares etc etc & we make sure the mother boat is meticulously maintained. Always stack the odds in your favour wherever possible.

 

[Tranona]

Doghousekeeper

Suggest you read the MAIB (and Irish equivalent) reports. Two liferafts failed to inflate through defective servicing, one the survivors wrote a long report on the difficulties they encountered in launching and entering the raft. The most detailed account of using rafts in extreme conditions is the report of the abandonment of the Maxi yacht Creightons Naturally. Sobering reading.

Of the "successes", two were organised abandon ship in benign weather and a third was partially successful (foundering of racing yacht Hooligan) where one crew member was lost in poor but not extreme conditions. Again sobering reading.

These are all examples from well documented accident reports, but as the example in the Pacific this week shows the pattern is similar in incidents elsewhere in the world - but rarely is there enough detail published to rely on the conclusions.

In many ways the issue is not whether liferafts are any good for their intended use, but whether leisure boaters in coastal and cross channel waters (ie most of us) will ever need to use one. To that the answer has to be no, but one can see the attraction of having one "just in case" given that they are now so cheap!

 

[PaulGooch]

Doghousekeeper

Suggest you read the MAIB (and Irish equivalent) reports. Two liferafts failed to inflate through defective servicing, one the survivors wrote a long report on the difficulties they encountered in launching and entering the raft. The most detailed account of using rafts in extreme conditions is the report of the abandonment of the Maxi yacht Creightons Naturally. Sobering reading. <snip>

You can't count examples of defective service as liferaft failures, neither can you include cases of survivors having difficulty using the equipment as failures. If these examples had been correctly serviced and the users properly trained in their deployment, they would have been different stories.

You keep quoting MAIB and drawing statistics from what you have read there. MAIB will not get involved in the majority of leisure incidents, did they do a report on the two incidents the Doghousekeeper was involved in, for instance ? Unless you are looking at reports of every single incident where a liferaft was deployed, you cannot formulate any statistics. IMO

 

[Searush]

True enough, Paul, I suspect the MAIB will only get involved in cases where things go badly wrong - so the situations where the L/R does exactly as expected may not get counted at all. Still, as an RNLI Shoreline member I don't notice a high proportion of incidents wher L/R's are deployed - but then a proportion of RNLI's rescues are stuff like canoes/ floating toys/ walkers/ swimmers & dinghy fishermen etc.

 

[Doghousekeeper]

You can't count examples of defective service as liferaft failures, neither can you include cases of survivors having difficulty using the equipment as failures. If these examples had been correctly serviced and the users properly trained in their deployment, they would have been different stories.

You keep quoting MAIB and drawing statistics from what you have read there. MAIB will not get involved in the majority of leisure incidents, did they do a report on the two incidents the Doghousekeeper was involved in, for instance ? Unless you are looking at reports of every single incident where a liferaft was deployed, you cannot formulate any statistics. IMO

Absolutely correct. A high percentage of a small number of cases doesn't make for a strong case. MAIB were not involved in either of my abandonments (and I read every one of their reports for years past - it's a tragedy that they are no longer available).

I accept that there are cheap rafts now available, and having seen inside some of them when they've been in for service - I would counsel strongly against buying on price. Would you buy a cheap parachute??

 

[alant]

We have a self righting liferaft, tender, epirb,handheld vhf & plotter,spare batteries,flares etc etc & we make sure the mother boat is meticulously maintained. Always stack the odds in your favour wherever possible.

What make/type is your self righting?

 

[alant]

Doghousekeeper

Suggest you read the MAIB (and Irish equivalent) reports. Two liferafts failed to inflate through defective servicing, one the survivors wrote a long report on the difficulties they encountered in launching and entering the raft. The most detailed account of using rafts in extreme conditions is the report of the abandonment of the Maxi yacht Creightons Naturally. Sobering reading.

Of the "successes", two were organised abandon ship in benign weather and a third was partially successful (foundering of racing yacht Hooligan) where one crew member was lost in poor but not extreme conditions. Again sobering reading.

These are all examples from well documented accident reports, but as the example in the Pacific this week shows the pattern is similar in incidents elsewhere in the world - but rarely is there enough detail published to rely on the conclusions.

In many ways the issue is not whether liferafts are any good for their intended use, but whether leisure boaters in coastal and cross channel waters (ie most of us) will ever need to use one. To that the answer has to be no, but one can see the attraction of having one "just in case" given that they are now so cheap!

"The most detailed account of using rafts in extreme conditions is the report of the abandonment of the Maxi yacht Creightons Naturally. Sobering reading."

Which was found abandoned & drifting some days later, reatively undamaged.

Hence step up into a raft, since the mothership is a much better bet for survival.

 

[alant]

Absolutely correct. A high percentage of a small number of cases doesn't make for a strong case. MAIB were not involved in either of my abandonments (and I read every one of their reports for years past - it's a tragedy that they are no longer available).

I accept that there are cheap rafts now available, and having seen inside some of them when they've been in for service - I would counsel strongly against buying on price. Would you buy a cheap parachute??

Does anyone actually deploy one to check, when newly bought, or just take them entirely upon trust?

Again, the parachute is a good analogy.

 

[Watson47]

What make/type is your self righting?

In advance of rubberducks reply, I know this one is;

http://www.zodiacliferafts.com/html/class.html

 

[Tranona]

You can't count examples of defective service as liferaft failures, neither can you include cases of survivors having difficulty using the equipment as failures. If these examples had been correctly serviced and the users properly trained in their deployment, they would have been different stories.

You keep quoting MAIB and drawing statistics from what you have read there. MAIB will not get involved in the majority of leisure incidents, did they do a report on the two incidents the Doghousekeeper was involved in, for instance ? Unless you are looking at reports of every single incident where a liferaft was deployed, you cannot formulate any statistics. IMO

That is not true. Read the MAIB remit - any incident involving a British ship (including leisure craft) or occuring in British territorial waters is reported, but not all are investigated at the same level of detail - dependent on the degree of severity and the public interest. Any incident serious enough to involve the deployment of a liferaft would result in a report. Of course what is not included is incidents not covered by their remit.

Of course failures as a result of bad servicing are failures - it is only the person to "blame" that is different from a manufacturing failure. Equally difficulties in deployment are a result of the design of the raft - if it inflates upside down, is too heavy to be got out of a locker in an emergency, difficult to board because of instability, poorly designed ladder or whatever - it has failed in its purpose.

You will find the reports often give recommendations for improvements and manufacturers spend a lot of time and effort trying to improve their products. However, it is a product that is used in unpredictable and extreme conditions and it is difficult to design a vessel that, when you think about it has to be more robust than the parent yacht - but still be light enough to use.

It is not a question of "statistics" because there are so few deployments, but there are common factors in both the reasons for deployment and the performance of rafts to make some informed observations.

 

[Tranona]

"The most detailed account of using rafts in extreme conditions is the report of the abandonment of the Maxi yacht Creightons Naturally. Sobering reading."

Which was found abandoned & drifting some days later, reatively undamaged.

Hence step up into a raft, since the mothership is a much better bet for survival.

Yes, you may criticise the decision to abandon ship, but that was the decision and the rafts were launched (with great difficulty) to aid the rescue.

 

[alant]

Yes, you may criticise the decision to abandon ship, but that was the decision and the rafts were launched (with great difficulty) to aid the rescue.

Who criticised?

Just stating the facts.
Unless you were on the boat, no-one else can question the decision!

However, this incident & 1979 Fasnet, does again question why anyone should get into a rubber raft, when the mothership may still be viable.

 

[rubberduck]

What make/type is your self righting?

Its an ocean safety 6 man, not tested and hopefuly never will.

 

[Tranona]

Who criticised?

Just stating the facts.
Unless you were on the boat, no-one else can question the decision!

However, this incident & 1979 Fasnet, does again question why anyone should get into a rubber raft, when the mothership may still be viable.

I assume you were otherwise why make the comment that the boat survived?

I was using as an example of how poorly the liferafts peformed, not about the decision whether to abandon or not. That issue was fully covered in the report.

I agree (from the sidelines!) that most of the accounts of abandon ship suggest staying with it might have been better. However, who are we who have never faced the situation to criticise those who were?