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

[RupertW]

I go to sea for a living and have done since a billion tides ago. Every yacht I sail is properly equipped with safety gear including a liferaft and my crew are always properly briefed in its use and deployment.

What am I doing wrong?

Carrying something pointless?

 

[DJE]

The OP and I both until recently sailed "unsinkable" Sadlers. I never carried a liferaft in mine but thought very hard about fire prevention and fire fighting.
My new boat came with a liferaft so I got it serviced and store it in the top of one of the cockpit lockers when sailing offshore.
I don't envy him his decision. Mine was made for me but I think I would have bought a raft if there wasn't one with the boat.
I don't think anyone has mentioned the use of a liferaft to aid the recovery of a MOB. Any views on that?

 

[westhinder]

Everyone has to do their own risk assessment.
If you do only shortish trips in reasonable weather and have a well found boat, you may in all probability never need a liferaft.
If you do longer trips out of sight of land, where it is not reasonable to hope for a speedy assistance, it is safer to have one.
Add to this the fact that as a skipper you take responsibility for your crew, and that swings the argument for me. So I have a liferaft, which of course remains on board, also on trips for which alone you would not buy one.
But as I said, everyone must make their own decisions, and I fully support the view that it is much more important to do everything to avoid ever having to use the raft.

 

[bedouin]

I go to sea for a living and have done since a billion tides ago. Every yacht I sail is properly equipped with safety gear including a liferaft and my crew are always properly briefed in its use and deployment.

What am I doing wrong?

Overconfidence - one of the most dangerous traits in a skipper.

As this thread shows there isn't a correct answer to the question. A good skipper will be aware of all the risks associated with sailing and take a balanced response to those risks. A bland assumption that a liferaft is necessary shows a lack of understanding of the true risks of sailing.

 

[Tranona]

I looked on the MAIB site for info regarding the incident I mentionned above (Aug 2014) but it wasn't included. What are the criteria, UK waters and/or UK registered boat?

Yes, UK waters or UK registered boats involved. Not all leisure incidents are referred unless there is a public interest or a commercial vessel is involved. However that excludes very few founderings as usually there are lessons to be learned or (as in collisions) commercial vessels are involved.

As has already been mentioned, in the uS reporting of even relatively minor incidents is compulsory, Analysis of their statistics show a similar pattern. Very small numbers of serious incidents in coastal waters and fire is very rare. Not rare overall but as here most incidents involve boats in harbour, either gas related or more likely fuelling petrol engined boats.

 

[Tranona]

I go to sea for a living and have done since a billion tides ago. Every yacht I sail is properly equipped with safety gear including a liferaft and my crew are always properly briefed in its use and deployment.

What am I doing wrong?

Nothing. Just your risk profile in what you do is different and the consequences potentially more severe.

That is the whole point of risk assessment - adopting strategies appropriate to the risk. If you want any chance of surviving in the middle of the Atlantic (like you do) you need a means of contacting rescue services and a means of surviving for some period of time.

In British coastal waters, VHF/DSC and even a mobile phone gives you instant access and within minutes (for many) of rescue services. Even before that you have much more choice about where and when you sail and can avoid mostly severe weather which is the cause of many founderings.

 

[bitbaltic]

We have a lot of conversations here about risk assessment where people speak authoritatively without actually outlining the series of actions which properly constitute a risk assessment. In my experience (long days spent in oil industry risk register design sessions, intended to ensure we don't blow up an oil rig with a hundred people on board or start an environmental catastrophe) we have three steps which must be completed for Severe risks, that is, where the consequence is loss of life:

1 identify the risk (in this case, the risk of the boat sinking and consequent loss of life)

2 mitigate the risk (minimise the likelihood of the risk occurring- in this case, ensure the boat is well maintained and sound, plan trips in good weather, etc etc- all the stuff mentioned on this thread),

AND:

3 remediate the risk, which means, having taken all steps to make the probability of a Severe risk occurring infinitesimally small, we still MUST have a plan to deal with it if it actually happens, or else we don't do whatever operation we're assessing. In this case, there is absolutely no remediation other than carrying a life raft.

Most of the 'risk assessment' talk on this thread is using grand language to get no further than points 1 and 2. That's fine if the risk is not regarded as severe: for instance, an oil company might mitigate but not remediate an operational risk of the worst possible consequence was only a small loss of time or money, rather than stop an operation for it. But for those on here that are only getting as far as mitigation- value your life as you wish, but I would regard death as a pretty severe event and am happy to both mitigate and remediate the risk. Hence I always carry a raft.

Cheers

 

[pmagowan]

We have a lot of conversations here about risk assessment where people speak authoritatively without actually outlining the series of actions which properly constitute a risk assessment. In my experience (long days spent in oil industry risk register design sessions, intended to ensure we don't blow up an oil rig with a hundred people on board or start an environmental catastrophe) we have three steps which must be completed for Severe risks, that is, where the consequence is loss of life:

1 identify the risk (in this case, the risk of the boat sinking and consequent loss of life)

2 mitigate the risk (minimise the likelihood of the risk occurring- in this case, ensure the boat is well maintained and sound, plan trips in good weather, etc etc- all the stuff mentioned on this thread),

AND:

3 remediate the risk, which means, having taken all steps to make the probability of a Severe risk occurring infinitesimally small, we still MUST have a plan to deal with it if it actually happens, or else we don't do whatever operation we're assessing. In this case, there is absolutely no remediation other than carrying a life raft.

Most of the 'risk assessment' talk on this thread is using grand language to get no further than points 1 and 2. That's fine if the risk is not regarded as severe: for instance, an oil company might mitigate but not remediate an operational risk of the worst possible consequence was only a small loss of time or money, rather than stop an operation for it. But for those on here that are only getting as far as mitigation- value your life as you wish, but I would regard death as a pretty severe event and am happy to both mitigate and remediate the risk. Hence I always carry a raft.

Cheers

So where is your laser defence shield for meteor strikes! You absolutely do not need to 'remediate the risk' no matter how infinitesimally small it is! You could do nothing in that case! You should make a reasonable assessment of the risk, do 1 and 2 as seems reasonable and then judge if 3 is also reasonable. Your method would have us not leaving the house!

 

[[70521]]

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

No

 

[Dockhead]

We have a lot of conversations here about risk assessment where people speak authoritatively without actually outlining the series of actions which properly constitute a risk assessment. In my experience (long days spent in oil industry risk register design sessions, intended to ensure we don't blow up an oil rig with a hundred people on board or start an environmental catastrophe) we have three steps which must be completed for Severe risks, that is, where the consequence is loss of life:

1 identify the risk (in this case, the risk of the boat sinking and consequent loss of life)

2 mitigate the risk (minimise the likelihood of the risk occurring- in this case, ensure the boat is well maintained and sound, plan trips in good weather, etc etc- all the stuff mentioned on this thread),

AND:

3 remediate the risk, which means, having taken all steps to make the probability of a Severe risk occurring infinitesimally small, we still MUST have a plan to deal with it if it actually happens, or else we don't do whatever operation we're assessing. In this case, there is absolutely no remediation other than carrying a life raft.

Most of the 'risk assessment' talk on this thread is using grand language to get no further than points 1 and 2. That's fine if the risk is not regarded as severe: for instance, an oil company might mitigate but not remediate an operational risk of the worst possible consequence was only a small loss of time or money, rather than stop an operation for it. But for those on here that are only getting as far as mitigation- value your life as you wish, but I would regard death as a pretty severe event and am happy to both mitigate and remediate the risk. Hence I always carry a raft.

Cheers

That's very interesting.

We yachtsmen sort of slouch towards this kind of result, but mostly by copying each other and not by actually thinking through all the risks.

But I don't think any of us really ignores "remediation". There are catastrophic events which we decide to just not worry about (meteorite strike, nuclear war, maybe even lightning strike), and then there are catastrophic events which are unlikely, but just possible enough that we decide we DO need to worry about them, at least a little. Flooding, fire, gas explosion.

My own personal assessment is that there are a few things which are unlikely but concretely possible which could make me want to have a way to escape the boat without going into the water myself. If life rafts cost 20 000 pounds I might decide it's more rational to take the small risk (if it were not otherwise required), but since they cost less than 2 000 plus a hundred or so a year in maintenance, this seems like a reasonable precaution, to me.

One area of risk remediation where I think most of us pay far too little attention to is pumps. Flooding is also very unlikely, but it is possible and does happen to someone every year. My guess is that less than 1% of yachts have pumps capable of keeping up with a significant leak for any period of time, including a period of time which might be required to locate and stem the leak. The normal bilge pumps on yachts are really only good for maintenance -- getting rid of the rainwater which comes down the mast. Not only is the realistic (as opposed to nominal) capacity inadequate, but normal bilge pumps are prone to clogging on the debris which will be in bilge water in a flooding situation. So I have taken the trouble to install more powerful secondary pumps (a pair of Rule 4000's), and I now also carry a 50 000 litre per hour heavy duty construction site macerating trash pump, a massive thing weighing 40kg, with a folding fire hose.

This is not in lieu of regular inspections and maintenance of sea cocks, hoses, exhaust system, etc.

It's very unlikely I'll ever need these pumps, but balancing the risk against the modest cost (in total less than the cost of a liferaft), it seemed to me to be really worthwhile. And if I were deciding what to start with -- life raft, or decent pumps -- I might start with the pumps, since they can significantly reduce the risk that you will ever need the life raft.


P.S. -- One thing not mentioned in this discussion is the REQUIREMENT to carry life rafts, for vessels over 13.7 metres. This applies to me and I have no choice in the matter:

"(5) Every ship of 13.7 metres in length or over but less than 24 metres in length and
engaged on a voyage to sea in the course of which it is more than 150 miles from the
coast shall carry:
(a) one or more inflatable liferafts with a total capacity to accommodate at least the
total number of persons on board; the liferaft(s) provided should be equipped to a
level equivalent to that of a "SOLAS A PACK" (this may, where necessary, include
a "grab bag" to supplement the equipment integral to the liferaft) and the liferaft
should be one of the following:
i) constructed to SOLAS standard, Wheelmarked or DfT approved; or
ii) built to the ISO 9650-1:2005 – Small Craft Inflatable Liferafts Part 1 Type 1
Group B standard provided the vessel is not operating in waters colder than
0° Centigrade and the liferaft (s) are fitted with a boarding ramp; or
iii) built to the ISO 9650-1:2005 – Small Craft Inflatable Liferafts Part 1 Type 1
Group A standard provided the liferaft (s) are fitted with a boarding ramp . . . "

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../268868/mgn489-amendment-pleasure-vessels.pdf

 

[bitbaltic]

So where is your laser defence shield for meteor strikes! You absolutely do not need to 'remediate the risk' no matter how infinitesimally small it is! You could do nothing in that case! You should make a reasonable assessment of the risk, do 1 and 2 as seems reasonable and then judge if 3 is also reasonable. Your method would have us not leaving the house!

The requirement for the remediation is dictated by your understanding of the severity of the risk at the start, during 1). In formal risk assessment, you are not at liberty to reassess after 2) whether 3) is needed or not if 1) identifies the risk as carrying a high severity. Moreover, risk assessment is about considering the consequences of your own actions (like going to sea) and obviously not about attempting to mitigate outside 'act of God' type events (like the arrival of the Vogons mid-cruise). You don't have to like it, or agree with it, or follow it, but it IS (in simple terms) the formal risk assessment process to ISO standard, and the point I was making is people are banging on about risk assessment with clearly little understanding or experience of what that actually is.

 

[bitbaltic]

That's very interesting.

We yachtsmen sort of slouch towards this kind of result, but mostly by copying each other and not by actually thinking through all the risks.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make, and the allied point that it is easier for a skipper to think his risk assessment through if he knows how he is supposed to be thinking, and the questions he is supposed to ask himself to get his balance of mitigation and remediation right for him.

There are catastrophic events which we decide to just not worry about (meteorite strike, nuclear war, maybe even lightning strike), and then there are catastrophic events which are unlikely, but just possible enough that we decide we DO need to worry about them, at least a little. Flooding, fire, gas explosion.

Yes but as I mentioned in another reply, outside catastrophes are not part of risk assessment, it is concerned with the consequences of your own actions (going to sea in this case) not with the consequences of being in the world per se. So your gas system is part of it, nuclear war is not.

My own personal assessment is that there are a few things which are unlikely but concretely possible which could make me want to have a way to escape the boat without going into the water myself. If life rafts cost 20 000 pounds I might decide it's more rational to take the small risk (if it were not otherwise required), but since they cost less than 2 000 plus a hundred or so a year in maintenance, this seems like a reasonable precaution, to me.

Yes. Look at it this way: it is because life rafts are affordable and available that the loss of life can be regarded as such a severe risk in the first place. If they did not exist, or were impossibly expensive, you would design your (personal, sailing) risk severity levels such that loss of life did not cause you not to go to sea. This is where the parallels to risk assessment in industry break down; we are legally far more responsible for the lives of the people involved in, say, an oil operation than the sailing skipper is for his own, and as such have to regard loss of life as a massive must-avoid in the design of the risk assessment. The sailing skipper is not so constrained, (but as cheap life rafts exist, I think we agree that he may as well be). This is why each skipper's risk assessment is his own, and whilst I'm not insisting the 'industrial' view on severity I outlined is always appropriate, I think the three-step assessment model is a helpful way of thinking for us all.

One area of risk remediation where I think most of us pay far too little attention to is pumps. Flooding is also very unlikely, but it is possible and does happen to someone every year. My guess is that less than 1% of yachts have pumps capable of keeping up with a significant leak for any period of time, including a period of time which might be required to locate and stem the leak. The normal bilge pumps on yachts are really only good for maintenance -- getting rid of the rainwater which comes down the mast. Not only is the realistic (as opposed to nominal) capacity inadequate, but normal bilge pumps are prone to clogging on the debris which will be in bilge water in a flooding situation. So I have taken the trouble to install more powerful secondary pumps (a pair of Rule 4000's), and I now also carry a 50 000 litre per hour heavy duty construction site macerating trash pump, a massive thing weighing 40kg, with a folding fire hose.

This is not in lieu of regular inspections and maintenance of sea cocks, hoses, exhaust system, etc.

It's very unlikely I'll ever need these pumps, but balancing the risk against the modest cost (in total less than the cost of a liferaft), it seemed to me to be really worthwhile. And if I were deciding what to start with -- life raft, or decent pumps -- I might start with the pumps, since they can significantly reduce the risk that you will ever need the life raft.

Agree 100%. That's an excellent example of mitigation (not remediation btw, but the terms do get confused a lot).

Mitigation = what do I do to prevent this boat sinking (actions you can take before and during the occurrence of the risk event)

Remediation = what do I do now it has sunk (actions you can take after the event has occurred)


Cheers

 

[Dockhead]

. . .
Agree 100%. That's an excellent example of mitigation (not remediation btw, but the terms do get confused a lot).

Mitigation = what do I do to prevent this boat sinking (actions you can take before and during the occurrence of the risk event)

Remediation = what do I do now it has sunk (actions you can take after the event has occurred)


Cheers

Wouldn't that be remediation of the risk of flooding?

Mitigation would be sea cock maintenance, inspection, changing hoses, etc., wouldn't it? To stop the flooding from happening in the first place. But pumps to deal with flooding if it somehow already happened.

 

[pmagowan]

The requirement for the remediation is dictated by your understanding of the severity of the risk at the start, during 1). In formal risk assessment, you are not at liberty to reassess after 2) whether 3) is needed or not if 1) identifies the risk as carrying a high severity. Moreover, risk assessment is about considering the consequences of your own actions (like going to sea) and obviously not about attempting to mitigate outside 'act of God' type events (like the arrival of the Vogons mid-cruise). You don't have to like it, or agree with it, or follow it, but it IS (in simple terms) the formal risk assessment process to ISO standard, and the point I was making is people are banging on about risk assessment with clearly little understanding or experience of what that actually is.

That is fine but what you stated did not make sense without many other caveats. I would still argue with it since if you are not allowed to reevaluate then you should treat every boat as if it was a sieve and simply never go to sea. It is completely reasonable, and remember this is not in context of business but of private individuals, to reevaluate the risk of something after you have made changes to lessen that risk and then decide on any remediation that might be required in light of that 'real' risk as apposed to the risk that existed when your boat had a whopping big hole in it, for example. Now, such dynamic risk assessments may not have been encouraged in your industry, probably to avoid companies trying to reduce cost through loopholes, but there is no reason to think that your industrial method of risk assessment is the only one (it isn't) or the best one for sailors (IMO it isn't)

P.s. As I typed this it seems you agree that this industry standard is not always appropriate

 

[bitbaltic]

Wouldn't that be remediation of the risk of flooding?

Mitigation would be sea cock maintenance, inspection, changing hoses, etc., wouldn't it? To stop the flooding from happening in the first place. But pumps to deal with flooding if it somehow already happened.

Yes, absolutely. This is an example of how you can break down a big risk (boat sinks, everyone dies) into a number of smaller risks (boat sinks through flooding, boat sinks through fire) and it is helpful to do this to design the mitigations. However you should 'add up' the consequences of these risks to the most severe possibility, in the event that your mitigations fail, in order to design the appropriate remediation. Which remains carrying a life raft..... Then you can start thinking of the risks posed to the life raft by fire or weather
Or impact, and try to mitigate them by choosing where to place it, etc etc. Thinking about one risk, in this sort of formalised way, often leads you to identify two or three new risks to hadn't brought into the conversation.

 

[pmagowan]

I looked at the bilge pump side of things but for most boats significant pumps capable of keeping up with a hull breach are not feasible. Larger boats may be able to do this. You can get a clutched engine driven trash pump. I think the order of importance is:

1)Don't leak
2)detect leaks early
3)have ability to fix leaks quickly
4)pump out water once leak is fixed

Somewhere in there are the options to have a boat which has positive buoyancy irrespective of leaks and the ability to pump out as fast as leaks come in. For most people neither will be feasible. Also, for most people a leak will be from a designed penetration of the hull such as a through hull or the rudder stock and as such methods for repairing such breaches can be prearranged.

 

[bitbaltic]

That is fine but what you stated did not make sense without many other caveats. I would still argue with it since if you are not allowed to reevaluate then you should treat every boat as if it was a sieve and simply never go to sea. It is completely reasonable, and remember this is not in context of business but of private individuals, to reevaluate the risk of something after you have made changes to lessen that risk and then decide on any remediation that might be required in light of that 'real' risk as apposed to the risk that existed when your boat had a whopping big hole in it, for example. Now, such dynamic risk assessments may not have been encouraged in your industry, probably to avoid companies trying to reduce cost through loopholes, but there is no reason to think that your industrial method of risk assessment is the only one (it isn't) or the best one for sailors (IMO it isn't)

P.s. As I typed this it seems you agree that this industry standard is not always appropriate

Yes, no problem. My first post was necessarily a simplification to be concise and get the point across. I think much of what you say is covered in my reply to dockhead.

Cheers

 

[pmagowan]

Yes, absolutely. This is an example of how you can break down a big risk (boat sinks, everyone dies) into a number of smaller risks (boat sinks through flooding, boat sinks through fire) and it is helpful to do this to design the mitigations. However you should 'add up' the consequences of these risks to the most severe possibility, in the event that your mitigations fail, in order to design the appropriate remediation. Which remains carrying a life raft..... Then you can start thinking of the risks posed to the life raft by fire or weather
Or impact, and try to mitigate them by choosing where to place it, etc etc. Thinking about one risk, in this sort of formalised way, often leads you to identify two or three new risks to hadn't brought into the conversation.

Their remains a point when the risk is so small as to not justify the solution of a life raft (other solutions are available). One must also calculate the risk having a liferaft might pose such as happened in the Fastnet disaster where if liferafts were not carried more people may have lived! The better solution MAY be to have a dingy for when you absolutely must leave the ship (such as fire) and to have a method of calling the rescue services.

 

[pmagowan]

Yes, no problem. My first post was necessarily a simplification to be concise and get the point across. I think much of what you say is covered in my reply to dockhead.

Cheers

Yes, I understand. No worries!

 

[Dockhead]

I looked at the bilge pump side of things but for most boats significant pumps capable of keeping up with a hull breach are not feasible. Larger boats may be able to do this. You can get a clutched engine driven trash pump. I think the order of importance is:

1)Don't leak
2)detect leaks early
3)have ability to fix leaks quickly
4)pump out water once leak is fixed

Somewhere in there are the options to have a boat which has positive buoyancy irrespective of leaks and the ability to pump out as fast as leaks come in. For most people neither will be feasible. Also, for most people a leak will be from a designed penetration of the hull such as a through hull or the rudder stock and as such methods for repairing such breaches can be prearranged.

I agree with all of this, but I also think that reasonable pump capacity is not actually that hard to arrange. A really good electric bilge pump is the UK-made "Bilge Predator", which is macerating, and I think could be fit in nearly any yacht, certainly any one over 30 feet or so. A maintenance pump low down and something like this a little higher would give a huge improvement in pumping ability.

A portable crash pump is more complicated because you have to power it somehow. I have a diesel generator mounted well above the waterline, so for me straightforward. Otherwise can be a challenge.

Engine-driven pumps are nice because they do not require electricity, but are expensive and complex to install, and are not all that high capacity.