Do you always have a life raft for occasional cross channel trip ?

[clutters]

Are you responsible for others on the trip or is it just you? Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable taking anyone with me on a cross channel if i didn't have a liferaft. If it was me alone my appetite for risk would open up a bit more. It maybe an incredibly long shot that it is required but in the event of an incident I'd want to be comfortable with the decisions I made on behalf of others. As others point out there are certainly bigger more likely risks to mitigate and by doing so manage the risk of not having a liferaft (visibility, over reliance on GPS, picking the best weather forecast you can find rather than the worst, poorly serviced engine in light/no wind, poorly breifed crew leaving gas shut off open ...etc).

The irony is that, even with your semi inflated dinghy, in asking this question you are more aware and thus likely to be in a position to help your crew in a dire situation that many others with state of the art liferafts. Safety equipment in good order and at the ready is very different to safety equipment on board; too many people go out happy in the knowledge that they have a liferaft (Box ticked) but oblivious to how inaccesible it is buried under a moutains of other kit as well as having no idea of how to deploy it should it be needed.

 

[clutters]

Good luck with your crossing. I don't think that any amount of "safety" equipment is as important as having a sound boat, a sound crew, and a skipper who has checked everything necessary and who has the right degree of judgement and luck. Competent people tend to be luckier than the others.

Hear Hear.

 

[derekgillard]

Thank you,
I have a number of crossings under my belt as both skipper and crew but not some years but have pondered this life raft issue for some time, I spoke to a skipper recently and he had not serviced his for years, would it work if he ever needed it? Who knows..

I intend to source a PLB .

Delbuoy

 

[Dockhead]

. . . The irony is that, even with your semi inflated dinghy, in asking this question you are more aware and thus likely to be in a position to help your crew in a dire situation that many others with state of the art liferafts. Safety equipment in good order and at the ready is very different to safety equipment on board; too many people go out happy in the knowledge that they have a liferaft (Box ticked) but oblivious to how inaccessible it is buried under a mountains of other kit, as well as having no idea of how to deploy it should it be needed.

Very good point!

Safety is a whole system, and not just something you can buy at the chandler's. Much less good seamanship.

 

[JumbleDuck]

But if you don't want to rely on those fairly decent odds, then it's better to take more serious measures, which will work in a variety of conditions. A life raft is an awfully good thing to have in these cold waters. Very unlikely you'll ever need it, but if you ever do need it, then you REALLY need it.

The trick is not to need it. I'd spend the money on an RTE.

 

[Tranona]

Since you know so much about it can you tell me how many lives have been saved in the last 10 years as a result of deploying a liferaft on a cross channel trip that would have been lost with only a lifejacket and PLB?

The advice is not mine but used to be that given by RYA about 15 years ago.

Suggest you read the many reports of yachts foundering that you will find on the MAIB and the Irish equivalent websites.

You will find the overall numbers over the last 20 years are tiny, with some years no incidents at all. I can think of only two where a dinghy might have worked, but in one case not everybody would have fitted into a dinghy.

There are 3 underlying causes of foundering - structural failure (usually with racing boats), extreme weather, and collision - the last of which is usually catastrophic and the occupants of the boat may not survive. Ouzo is the best know of this type, and although the crew survived in the water, the boat was destroyed and it is not clear that even a hydrostatic released raft would have helped.

So, if you have a sound boat, avoid severe weather and keep away from big ships, the chances of you needing a liferaft are close to zero. However, it is not necessarily a rational decision, but if you think you ought to have one, get a proper one, not rely on something that will not work.

 

[pmagowan]

Look at the Olympic boxing. They have got rid of head guards because the evidence showed that counter intuitively they actually led to greater risk. It is very difficult to verify if liferafts increase or decrease the risk for cruisers, especially in inshore waters. People abandon ship too early in many cases to the more hazardous liferaft when staying with the boat would be better. It would be interesting to see real statistics but these do not seem to be routinely collected. Liferafts may also distract from less sexy solutions that prevent their need such as carrying bungs, extinguishers etc etc. It may be one of these things that equates to wearing your life jacket in the car in case you drive into the sea!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

.... RTE.

What is an RTE please?

 

[Slipperman]

Are you responsible for others on the trip or is it just you? Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable taking anyone with me on a cross channel if i didn't have a liferaft.

For me this was the decider. I did several cross channel trips with a fully inflated dinghy strapped across the transom, but I realised an open dinghy would be pretty hairy in rough weather and once I started taking people with me I thought it was my responsibility to provide the best in terms of safety equipment.

 

[prv]

What is an RTE please?

Radar target enhancer - something like a SeaMe that actively emits a response to an incoming radar pulse instead of just passively reflecting it. Makes you look like a huge target

Pete

 

[Dockhead]

Radar target enhancer - something like a SeaMe that actively emits a response to an incoming radar pulse instead of just passively reflecting it. Makes you look like a huge target

Pete

This device is pretty much obsolete with the advent of AIS.

An AIS MOB beacon is a really good thing to have in the liferaft, by the way.

I have one of these plus a PLB lanyarded in my life jacket.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Radar target enhancer - something like a SeaMe that actively emits a response to an incoming radar pulse instead of just passively reflecting it. Makes you look like a huge target

Pete

Thanks.

 

[Bob Stay]

This device is pretty much obsolete with the advent of AIS.

An AIS MOB beacon is a really good thing to have in the liferaft, by the way.

I have one of these plus a PLB lanyarded in my life jacket.

Hi Dockhead, got to disagree about RTEs being "obsolete with the advent of AIS".
AIS is plagued with troubles and pitfalls, as often discussed in these forums, but all ships use radar in poor viz.
atb Bob

 

[Dockhead]

Hi Dockhead, got to disagree about RTEs being "obsolete with the advent of AIS".
AIS is plagued with troubles and pitfalls, as often discussed in these forums, but all ships use radar in poor viz.
atb Bob

Well, to each his own.

But the commercial mariners I know heavily rely on AIS, to the point of starting to actually ignore targets which do not broadcast AIS. It's poor seamanship, but human nature, when all serious targets broadcast AIS these days.

And what "troubles and pitfalls"? Unless you have defective equipment or defectively installed equipment, the AIS system is extremely effective. New installations of RTE's on high end yachts is almost completely unknown nowadays. IF that's not "pretty much obsolete", I don't know what is.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Suggest you read the many reports of yachts foundering that you will find on the MAIB and the Irish equivalent websites.

They don't report all cases, do they? Though perhaps a liferaft deployment, successful or unsuccessful, would pique their curiosity.

There are 3 underlying causes of foundering - structural failure (usually with racing boats), extreme weather, and collision - the last of which is usually catastrophic and the occupants of the boat may not survive. Ouzo is the best know of this type, and although the crew survived in the water, the boat was destroyed and it is not clear that even a hydrostatic released raft would have helped.

I agree with your conclusions, but I think "fire" needs to be in there. OK, it's basically a structural failure, but so is collision. I think it is worth reassuring the OP that the English channel is not full of liferafts bobbing around!

 

[JumbleDuck]

For me this was the decider. I did several cross channel trips with a fully inflated dinghy strapped across the transom, but I realised an open dinghy would be pretty hairy in rough weather and once I started taking people with me I thought it was my responsibility to provide the best in terms of safety equipment.

I tow a rigid dinghy, which I think would make a reasonable escape pod in good weather (fire, basically) but would not be much use in weather bad enough to sink the mothership. It won't actually sink when swamped, I discovered a few weeks ago, but once you have said that you have said everything. Mind you, I wouldn't put much faith in a six hundred quid plastic liferaft in conditions which had sunk a yacht.

 

[Tranona]

It is very difficult to verify if liferafts increase or decrease the risk for cruisers, especially in inshore waters. People abandon ship too early in many cases to the more hazardous liferaft when staying with the boat would be better. It would be interesting to see real statistics but these do not seem to be routinely collected. Liferafts may also distract from less sexy solutions that prevent their need such as carrying bungs, extinguishers etc etc. It may be one of these things that equates to wearing your life jacket in the car in case you drive into the sea!

Whether you carry a raft or not has nothing to do with the risk of needing it - unless you think that skippers take more risks if they have a raft. The risk of foundering and needing one is random and as I noted earlier is almost always the result of an external factor.

There is absolutely no evidence (except for the 1979 Fastnet) that crews abandon a yacht in favour of a liferaft too early. The lesson from that event was very clear.

Although there are no aggregated statistics, nearly all founderings of yachts in our waters are the subject of an MAIB or MCIB report, and it is not difficult as I suggested earlier to read them for yourself. In addition all founderings of fishing boats are reported on, and make useful reading, although very little of it is transferrable to yachting.

I did in fact summarise all the incidents up to about 2012 and reported them here on one of the many threads on this subject. However, all the information is in the public domain and anybody who is interested can access the reports on the relevant websites, and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Robin]

We crossed the channel multiple times per year for over 20 years before buying a boat that came with a liferaft .Even then we continued to carry the Avon inflated on deck. The raft eventually was replaced after a service showed it was duff and no longer worth repair.. As has been said, weather is not the most likely cause of needing to abandon on a milk run Channel crossing, collision or fire maybe and an available dinghy would suffice but care in maintenance, adequate and available fire extinguishers and of course prudent sailing vis a vis ship traffic are essential. Personally I would not consider taking to a glorified kids paddling pool unless stepping down into it from the mast top. We currently, cruising East Coast USA to Bahamas, do not own a life raft but have a 3,1m RIB hung in davits ( even with 9.9hpoutboard motor in place in non -rough conditions) In the event of a disaster (non perfect storm variety) we could get to dry land rapidly in the RIB ( 20kts and 60 mile range) rather than drift aimlessly in a paddling pool waiting for a CG helo. Very few boats hereabouts carry life rafts probably related to the obscene cost of them here, but many tow dinghies ( not for me) or carry them in davits like us.

This is very much a personal choice decision IMO and 21st century HSE approaches are maybe way OTT. Guilt trip advisories are not helpful either ( duty of care to passengers etc),

 

[Tranona]

They don't report all cases, do they? Though perhaps a liferaft deployment, successful or unsuccessful, would pique their curiosity.



I agree with your conclusions, but I think "fire" needs to be in there. OK, it's basically a structural failure, but so is collision. I think it is worth reassuring the OP that the English channel is not full of liferafts bobbing around!

Fire is very unusual at sea. It mostly occurs in harbour for the obvious reasons related to the (mis)use of petrol and gas. I can recall only two incidents of any magnitude and both involved large powerboats.

Not to say it does not happen - there was one just outside Poole a couple of weeks ago, but the boat did not sink, although the crew abandoned it because there were several boats close by.

The thing about collision is almost always being run down (or overwhelmed by wash) by large ships. Rare given the devices now available to aid collision avoidance.

 

[pmagowan]

Whether you carry a raft or not has nothing to do with the risk of needing it - unless you think that skippers take more risks if they have a raft. The risk of foundering and needing one is random and as I noted earlier is almost always the result of an external factor.

There is absolutely no evidence (except for the 1979 Fastnet) that crews abandon a yacht in favour of a liferaft too early. The lesson from that event was very clear.

Although there are no aggregated statistics, nearly all founderings of yachts in our waters are the subject of an MAIB or MCIB report, and it is not difficult as I suggested earlier to read them for yourself. In addition all founderings of fishing boats are reported on, and make useful reading, although very little of it is transferrable to yachting.

I did in fact summarise all the incidents up to about 2012 and reported them here on one of the many threads on this subject. However, all the information is in the public domain and anybody who is interested can access the reports on the relevant websites, and draw their own conclusions.

I think there is plenty of evidence that people abandon ship to raft too early. Fastnet is one but the fact that so 'often' yachts are found afloat and the crew are never found. Bottom line is that there is very little evidence full stop. MAIB reports offer little with so few incidents that there is no statistically significant information. USA CG does better but still the results are not overly significant. All you can really conclude is that very few yachts sink. In most scenarios liferafts seem irrelevant. There are lots of reasons why a liferaft might, counterintuitively increase your risk including false sense of security, inappropriate use of limited safety funds, focus away from actual problem and many others including those we can't predict. It is the same as helmets in boxing and also helmets in cycling. Seems a great idea but the stats often show the opposite of what you expect.