Entering Lymington Harbour without an engine.

Thanks, nothing there that indicates casualties anything like the volume those of the RFC on the Western Front. I think I'll chalk that up as a myth.

I won't even do that, it's utter bollox that doesn't even deserve myth status.
I tend to feel it's malicious with it.
 
You haven’t read your link, have you? It concludes that no more than an eighth died in training.

Have you?:rolleyes:

[FONT=&quot]Shockingly, over half the 14,166 pilots who lost their lives in the war did so in training."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]or 'First World War in the Air' (2012) by Phil Carradice, page 51, which comments:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"It is a sad fact that over 14,000 airmen lost their lives during the Great War. Amazingly, over 8,000 of these fatalities came from accidents during training."[/FONT]
 
To be boring and put this back on the subject, I don't believe sailing in the river is "against the rules".

Then neither is riding groups of push bikes up the A34 in rush hour, there is a time and place for everything.

Much depends on size and draft of vessel and traffic in area, also worthy of note that regardless of your size (dinghy or 50' yacht) you are a sailing vessel in a narrow channel.

As such "A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway."

I would say most mid size yachts and motorboats under engine may not be constrained by their draft but are navigating in a narrow channel.

Good seamanship says if your going to impede others keep your sailing lessons/ antics for practice on quite days or moments when you need to put that practice into operation.
 
Have you?:rolleyes:

Shockingly, over half the 14,166 pilots who lost their lives in the war did so in training."
or 'First World War in the Air' (2012) by Phil Carradice, page 51, which comments:
"It is a sad fact that over 14,000 airmen lost their lives during the Great War. Amazingly, over 8,000 of these fatalities came from accidents during training."

That's right, well done, you made it almost half way through the short post that you quoted from on a WW1 forum. Unfortunately, you managed to miss the whole point that the guy you quoted, a Lt Col Mike Meech, was making. His very next sentence is "What is amazing is that we do have an accurate picture of actual deaths available that authors apparently ignore". Then he explains his research into those actual deaths in training. Only ten lines after where you stopped reading, he concludes:

'It is probable that the maximum total of those that died during training is 1,674 (possibly less). Although a 'high' figure to our eyes,this is rather different than 8,000 pilot fatalities in training that is regularly quoted.'
 
That's right, well done, you made it almost half way through the short post that you quoted from on a WW1 forum. Unfortunately, you managed to miss the whole point that the guy you quoted, a Lt Col Mike Meech, was making. His very next sentence is "What is amazing is that we do have an accurate picture of actual deaths available that authors apparently ignore". Then he explains his research into those actual deaths in training. Only ten lines after where you stopped reading, he concludes:

'It is probable that the maximum total of those that died during training is 1,674 (possibly less). Although a 'high' figure to our eyes,this is rather different than 8,000 pilot fatalities in training that is regularly quoted.'

So, a difference of opinion, wonder who is correct.
 
Top