Do I need a liferaft?

PaulGooch said:
My question was, "How will having a liferaft endanger my life" ?
Click to expand...

1) It will lull you into a false sense of security, causing you to undertake passages in marginal conditions.
2) It will increase the number of road journeys you make, both taking it to be serviced and going to the boat to make dubious passages (see 1 above).
3) It is heavy and puts you at risk of back injury when lifting it
4) It contains pyrotechnics and is an additional source of fire aboard your boat
5) It contains a large cylinder of compressed CO2, which presents both a risk of explosion and of global warming

Does that answer your question, Paul?
 
Tranona said:
It is only rubbish because the comparison is invalid.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. If, for example, the chances of dying in the 30 or so car journeys that might be associated with owning and maintaining LRs over a lifetime are 1:9,000,000 and the chances of dying due to lack of a liferaft over a lifetime of sailing are 1:10,000,000 then it's safer not to have a liferaft. (Ok, over simplistic, and made up numbers, but good enough to demonstrate the question.)

It's not rubbish, the comparison *is* valid.
 
Wiggo said:
1) It will lull you into a false sense of security, causing you to undertake passages in marginal conditions.
2) It will increase the number of road journeys you make, both taking it to be serviced and going to the boat to make dubious passages (see 1 above).
3) It is heavy and puts you at risk of back injury when lifting it
4) It contains pyrotechnics and is an additional source of fire aboard your boat
5) It contains a large cylinder of compressed CO2, which presents both a risk of explosion and of global warming

Does that answer your question, Paul?
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope these remarks are in jest.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
No it isn't. If, for example, the chances of dying in the 30 or so car journeys that might be associated with owning and maintaining LRs over a lifetime are 1:9,000,000 and the chances of dying due to lack of a liferaft over a lifetime of sailing are 1:10,000,000 then it's safer not to have a liferaft. (Ok, over simplistic, and made up numbers, but good enough to demonstrate the question.)

It's not rubbish, the comparison *is* valid.
Click to expand...

Made up numbers & made up logic, as usual!
 
alant said:
made up logic
Click to expand...

Made up logic?

Explain how. (How can you? You'd have to demonstrate a higher chance of death is better then a lower chance of death.)

If you can't justify the flaw in the logic you claim you can see, then you're not worth debating with & I'm probably going to put you on ignore. I don't think that's unreasonable.

If my logic is flawed I'll have learned something.

Over to you! :D
 
Wiggo said:
1) It will lull you into a false sense of security, causing you to undertake passages in marginal conditions.
2) It will increase the number of road journeys you make, both taking it to be serviced and going to the boat to make dubious passages (see 1 above).
3) It is heavy and puts you at risk of back injury when lifting it
4) It contains pyrotechnics and is an additional source of fire aboard your boat
5) It contains a large cylinder of compressed CO2, which presents both a risk of explosion and of global warming

Does that answer your question, Paul?
Click to expand...

Well, it's certainly no dafter than some of the posts in this thread :D
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
Paul. I don't want to teach you to suck eggs but your posts aren't actually developing your arguments or defeating anyone else's. Saying something is 'Rubbish' or 'Daft' is just blatently commiting the "Appeal to Ridicule" fallacy.

Try harder.

HTH.

:)
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in "developing an argument" here. Too many of the posts have just become a load of nonsense. Bottom line is, there is no downside to having a liferaft, other than the cost, which is minimal. Therefore, if someone wants one, there is no argument against him doing so.
 
Head, Sand, In, attitude! Unbelievable!

Tranona said:
No, you made a comment to the affect that the requirement for liferafts on coded boats was a consequence of superior knowledge or experience of the people making that decision. I was merely pointing out that there was no evidence to support that because all the information is in the public domain and none of this shows that in small leisure boats, those chartered out (and therefore coded) are at any different risk than those that are not.

There are all sorts of reasons why liferafts are compulsory, as much to do with society's attitude to allocating responsibility, other than to deal with a "real" risk.

Creightons Naturally and Megawatt are not good examples in the effective use of liferafts. We have already noted that in the former there was probably no need to abandon ship (although one can understand the reasons) and the liferaft deployment was problematiuc. In the latter, the liferaft simply failed to do its job and the crew were fortunate in that they were sailing in company with a very substantial yacht that had a large tender capable of performing a rescue.

You are, of course right about the number of incidents involving Sail Training vessels and this is a real cause for concern. However the issues related to those founderings are, like fishing boats, very different from those facing yachts. There are, of course some commonalities and lessons to be learned. For example many developments in safety equipment come from experiene in these fields as it is there that the risks are played out much more frequently. Finding degradation of glue on the Asgard raft would be a good example. It was 13 years old, had been properly maintained and tested, but still failed. If it had not been used in anger, the potential failure would probably never have come to light.
Click to expand...

1) Are you so entrenched in your argument, that you are seriously advocating that boats should not have a liferaft onboard, because there have been some with glue failures?
Surely, it would be more appropriate to have a ban on any over a certain age, or a more rigorous service regime.

2) "There are all sorts of reasons why liferafts are compulsory, as much to do with society's attitude to allocating responsibility, other than to deal with a "real" risk."

Sorry, that is rubbish.
Forget about incidents concerning sail training vessels, lets concentrate on yachts.
I refer you to -

"2.14 PREVIOUS SIMILAR ACCIDENTS
In the course of the investigation, the MAIB’s accident database was searched for relevant similar cases. In the last 10 years, there had been 87 hazardous incidents between yachts and merchant vessels in open sea conditions, and 14 collisions"

Are you just going to ignore this evidence, of only one risk category, or are they "society's attitude to allocating responsibility?

Did MAIB differentiate between either coded or not?
These incidents reported by MAIB, including that of Ouzu, took place in sea areas considered by many on this thread, to be ok to sail without any raft, citing mid-Atlantic as of greater risk, throwing in any spurious statistic imagined or 'real' covering seatbelts/helmets/parachutes.

If singlehanded, you want to take the risk, on your own heads be it.
However, just remember that you as a skipper, have a responsibility to anyone else onboard. Just imagine facing a Coroner, then any relatives, because you ignored common sense precautions & declined a liferaft. If you are ever in that unhappy situation, remember, you cannot hit the rewind button!

Safety at Sea, is neither academic, or negotiable.
 
toad_oftoadhall said:
Made up logic?

Explain how. (How can you? You'd have to demonstrate a higher chance of death is better then a lower chance of death.)

If you can't justify the flaw in the logic you claim you can see, then you're not worth debating with & I'm probably going to put you on ignore. I don't think that's unreasonable.

If my logic is flawed I'll have learned something.

Over to you! :D
Click to expand...

Toad, we have been over your obviously warped attitude to conventional safety, ad nauseum.

You have on this & other threads, stipulated that you ignore the use/good practice of wearing (or even owning a LJ), would not carry a liferaft (because of some bizzare statistics), can swim for a whole day in ice cold water, probably carrying the Lusitania on your chest, etc.

Perhaps you should change you name to 'my brother Sylveste', that was a music hall comedy song, just as some of your posts are starting to become!
 
alant said:
Toad, we have been over your obviously warped attitude to conventional safety, ad nauseum.

You have on this & other threads, stipulated that you ignore the use/good practice of wearing (or even owning a LJ), would not carry a liferaft (because of some bizzare statistics), can swim for a whole day in ice cold water, probably carrying the Lusitania on your chest, etc.

Perhaps you should change you name to 'my brother Sylveste', that was a music hall comedy song, just as some of your posts are starting to become!
Click to expand...

Ok, I gave you a chance. You claimed there was a flaw in the logic in post 146. You can't state what it is and instead resort to personal attacks and clowning.

I notice you've removed the website (for an employer?) from your profile. I wonder if they didn't want to be associated with your posts on here?

Thank goodness for the ignore button. Bye for now, Alant.
 
Last edited:
toad_oftoadhall said:
Ok, I gave you a chance. You claimed there was a flaw in the logic in post 146. You can't state what it is and instead resort to personal attacks and clowning.

I notice you've removed the website (for an employer?) from your profile. I wonder if they didn't want to be associated with your posts on here?

Thank goodness for the ignore button. Bye for now, Alant.
Click to expand...

?
You reading the correct profile?
I have no 'employer', other than the Revenue.
 
You clearly need two liferafts in case one of them fails in some way.

For MCA coding to cat 0, you need two liferafts each one of suitable size to take the entire crew.

I have two RFD 8 man liferafts on my boat. They are supposed to be serviced every year. I service them every two years, on alternate years. Just in case some incompetent in the service center is screwing up.
 
Last edited:
I've been reading the posts on this subject with interest. I wonder why the pro-liferaft posters seem to be more strident than those they disagree with?

The attitudes of some of the pro-liferaft camp make me less inclined to have one. Discourtesy undermines their case.
 
alant said:
1) Are you so entrenched in your argument, that you are seriously advocating that boats should not have a liferaft onboard, because there have been some with glue failures?
Surely, it would be more appropriate to have a ban on any over a certain age, or a more rigorous service regime.

2) "There are all sorts of reasons why liferafts are compulsory, as much to do with society's attitude to allocating responsibility, other than to deal with a "real" risk."

Sorry, that is rubbish.
Forget about incidents concerning sail training vessels, lets concentrate on yachts.
I refer you to -

"2.14 PREVIOUS SIMILAR ACCIDENTS
In the course of the investigation, the MAIB’s accident database was searched for relevant similar cases. In the last 10 years, there had been 87 hazardous incidents between yachts and merchant vessels in open sea conditions, and 14 collisions"

Are you just going to ignore this evidence, of only one risk category, or are they "society's attitude to allocating responsibility?

Did MAIB differentiate between either coded or not?
These incidents reported by MAIB, including that of Ouzu, took place in sea areas considered by many on this thread, to be ok to sail without any raft, citing mid-Atlantic as of greater risk, throwing in any spurious statistic imagined or 'real' covering seatbelts/helmets/parachutes.

If singlehanded, you want to take the risk, on your own heads be it.
However, just remember that you as a skipper, have a responsibility to anyone else onboard. Just imagine facing a Coroner, then any relatives, because you ignored common sense precautions & declined a liferaft. If you are ever in that unhappy situation, remember, you cannot hit the rewind button!

Safety at Sea, is neither academic, or negotiable.
Click to expand...

It really is difficult to deal with "arguments" that are so randomly put together and do not respond to points others are making, but simply regurgitate "conventional" thinking.

Please try and be objective and don't bring it the pulling at hearts strings arguments.

I have read every single MAIB report on yachts foundering and I do not see the things you seem to. Firstly the reports make it clear whether the yacht is coded or not if it is relevant. However, you generally do not need this because each incident is described in enough detail to know what sortt of yacht it is and how it is equipped. The fact remains that very few of the incidents involve yachts out on charter or being used commercially.

Not sure about why you are making a comment about the glue failure. That is a fact. I was only using it to show how difficult it is even for a firm like RFD to make a robust reliable product when there is so little "real" testing. Definitely would not a be a sensible reason for not buying one. You obviously have not read the report or you would know that they issued a service bulletin advising a more rigorous test.

As I have tried ad nauseum (and clearly failed with some) to suggest that reports should be read with a view to learning the practical lessons they contain. In this case they paint a very clear picture of circumstances in which liferafts are, or could be deployed. It becomes equally clear that the vast majority of leisure sailors will never get anywher near those situations - and the truth of that is in the figures - tiny numbers compared with the population. It is also clear, both from a theoretical point of view that yachtsmen adopt appropriate strategies to avoid those situations - having sound boats, keeping clear of other ships and avoiding extreme weather.

That does not mean these extreme events will not occur, and it is quite reasonable that some should take the view that even that small risk should be allowed for. However, it is also very clear from the reports that liferafts do not always (for whatever reason) perform correctly.

Therefore from my perspective, I think avoidance is the best strategy, but I recognise that is not everybody's view, and if some feel happier having a liferaft that's fine - just don't get all self righteous about it or accuse others who have a different view of all the horrible things they have been accused of here.


BTW, please stop using the word "rubbish" - that is a sure sign of a person with entrenched views they can't explain rationally.
 
rubberduck said:
Is any body else reading this thinking "Oh my god, what a load of idiots (excluding a small minority) or is it just me.
Click to expand...

Yes I'm reading it but I don't think 'what a load of idiots'.
You can substitute the word 'liferaft' for a whole bunch of other items e.g. defibrillator and go through exactly the same arguments yet peoples position will change.

To be controversial I think a number of people are conditioned into their believes without actually thinking it through for themselves. There are balances to be had and like religion any sense of logic gets thrown out and damn the people who challenge the faith.
 
Coaster said:
I've been reading the posts on this subject with interest. I wonder why the pro-liferaft posters seem to be more strident than those they disagree with?

The attitudes of some of the pro-liferaft camp make me less inclined to have one. Discourtesy undermines their case.
Click to expand...

:D:D It's the zeal of the "converted" I think.

As has already been pointed out, no-one has actually said one shouldn't have a L/R. We are simply trying to bring a bit of perspective to the levels of risk and suggest that it can never be a cure all. Interestingly I bought my first liferaft earlier this year. But It doesn't make me feel any "safer" or less at risk - and nor should it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top