Flares-again proof they work

P

pennycar9

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 Nov 2006
Messages
488
Visit site
I am sitting on my berth here in Lowestoft and listening to the local lifeboats on exercise. Lowestoft Lifeboat called the CG to inform them that they were about to fire white parachute flares as a training exercise. The pyros were deployed and rightly, the LB told the coastguard that the exercise had been completed. During the time that the flares were being fired the coastguard reported 11 triple 9 calls with an unspecified response on 16.
When I used to demonstrate flare deployment, wherever I was, the local coastguard would always receive triple 9 calls.

I think, as I always have and always will, stick to flares.
If it aint broke, dont fix it.
 
You are making the assumption that the need for flares in an emergency occurs close to shore where people are watching. Not sure this is the case!
 
[ QUOTE ]
During the time that the flares were being fired the coastguard reported 11 triple 9 calls with an unspecified response on 16.

[/ QUOTE ]

An EPIRB, Mobile or VHF would have worked just as well and would have had the advantage that a decent position would have been given. If I'm in the poo, I don't want to instigate a search, I want to be rescued.

Of course you haven't proved that flares work, you've proved they *can* work.

Your story doesn't prove flares do work any more than this story of a flare being let off *in front of a vessel* proves they don't: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/3661410.stm

The fact is the performance & risk of flares, unlike the alternatives seems to be totally unquanitified.
 
"The Pains Wessex Red Parachute Rocket, a handheld day/night distress signal, ejects a parachute-suspended red flare at 984 feet (300m) altitude visible up to 30 miles (48km) for 40 seconds"

So, radius of 30 miles, area of a circle is pi x radius squared, gives 2827 square miles of visibility. Even if the effective range is only 20 miles, you're still looking at 1250 sqm viz. In most european waters there's going to be someone around who'll see it, and recognise it.
 
Err, no. Over 90% of epirb alerts are false alarms, so it takes a while for a coastie to look up the registration details then phone around the contacts and make sure from your Auntie Flo that you are actually out sailing. Only then do they phone the big blue and orange boat keeper.
 
Ok, I'm going to have one last go at this....

The point that was being made here is that contrary to popular belief the public does seem to be able to identify a flare, and reports them, even when in fact white flares are not actually distress signals. This is good news for those of us who carry them, as if we ever need them there's a decent chance that it'll be seen and reported.

EPIRBs are great bits of kit, and most of my sailing is done with one aboard. However, I recognise the limitations of the device. Firstly it can take up to half an hour for the signal to get to those who want to know, and secondly it does nothing to alert the people in your immediate vicinity that you are in distress, you are relying on the coastguard telling them. A ship doing 30 knots is going to be 15 miles away before the message reaches them.
EPIRBs are amazing offshore, where help is unlikely to be close by, but even then they don't help with the final locating of the casualty. Immagine an EPIRB alert, and a ship responding. There you are sitting in your liferaft, but the position they're working off can be a few hours old. A few hours at a knot or two drift can put them a few miles away. And compared to a liferaft a ship is an easy thing to see, especially at night. So the idea is, you see a ship and fire a parachute flare, followed a minute later by a hand held flare. This guides the ship (and most importantly) the eyes of the crew to you.

VHF - again, ALL of my sailing is done with a VHF on board, and almost all of this with a DSC set. It's obviously the very first line of defence in any distress situation and overcomes the two major drawbacks with the EPIRB. It's immediate and it gets through to the people closest to you. Assuming of course that the people closest to you have a set, and have it switched on. It's not out of the relms of posibility that the closest people to you, and the only people in range, are on land. And common to the EPIRB the VHF suffers from another flaw, it is run by electricity, and no matter what anyone may claim is therefore faliable.

I know I mentioned this in another thread, but consider this. In the case of Hooligan V, the alarm was raised only by flares, because their other high tech bits of kit were still with the boat and the crew were in the liferaft. 3 vessels responded immediately. They work.

The point is that flares do a job, they're good at the job and they deserve a place on board any boat. Just because they're not perfect and other bits of kit have been invented doesn't mean they should get consigned to history, they form part of the inventory that I hope never to have to use in anger.
 
And just for balance, the crew of Wahkuna (Moody in collision with a container ship in the Channel in 2003) used a flare to attract attention from passing Condor ferry. Radio was wiped out in collision and mobile phone did not work

No doubt if I trawled through all the reports I could find examples of flares being seen, not being seen, not used, not usable and all other variations. This is because most extreme events are both rare, have peculiar individual characteristics and it is difficult to see any pattern.
 
[ QUOTE ]
And just for balance, the crew of Wahkuna (Moody in collision with a container ship in the Channel in 2003) used a flare to attract attention from passing Condor ferry. Radio was wiped out in collision and mobile phone did not work

[/ QUOTE ]

And their EPIRB failed.
 
This second half?

[ QUOTE ]

No doubt if I trawled through all the reports I could find examples of flares being seen, not being seen, not used, not usable and all other variations. This is because most extreme events are both rare, have peculiar individual characteristics and it is difficult to see any pattern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course flares are not infalable. NOTHING IS. Which is why most eperienced mariners carry multiple methods of attracting attention.

Your argument is that flares serve no purpose in today's high tech world. To prove this you would need to show that in no time since the advent of DSC and EPIRBs have flares been the difference between rescue and not rescue. Especially where the boats were equiped with both these technolgy.

My argument is that flares form part of a wide means of calling for help that is available to the yachtsman, and that they still have a place on board as both a locating aid after the initial distress has been raised through other means and as a last resort of raising the alarm.
To prove my argument I would need to state examples in recent times, since the advent of EPIRBs and DSC, that flares have made the difference between rescue and not rescue.
To which I enter the examples above.

Now would you like to comment on the cases above, when flares were clearly very important, if not critical, to rescue?

EDIT - Oops, just realised that the examples I meant were in the other thread, but I'm sure you've read that too. I mean the MAIB reports I quoted there.
 
Why are you so determined that we remove our flares from our boats?

I don't give a flying fig what you deem necessary, so who are you trying to convince and why?

What I do care about are people starting out in sailing and may stumble in here and read your posts, some may think you are an experienced old sea dog, you have to laugh, and decide to save some money based on your rather odd assumptions regarding a vital component of our safety arsenal.

If you carry on stemming the tide for the sake of being contrary you could end with blood on your hands.

This may be an internet forum, it may be a big jolly game to you, but the outcome of your advice in the real world is far from a game, and I find you from from funny. If you must troll, at least choose a subject with less serious consequence, at least when you were cobra25 people knew to ignore any of your pathetic rambling.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you so determined that we remove our flares from our boats?

I don't give a flying fig what you deem necessary, so who are you trying to convince and why?

What I do care about are people starting out in sailing and may stumble in here and read your posts, some may think you are an experienced old sea dog, you have to laugh, and decide to save some money based on your rather odd assumptions regarding a vital component of our safety arsenal.

If you carry on stemming the tide for the sake of being contrary you could end with blood on your hands.

This may be an internet forum, it may be a big jolly game to you, but the outcome of your advice in the real world is far from a game, and I find you from from funny. If you must troll, at least choose a subject with less serious consequence, at least when you were cobra25 people knew to ignore any of your pathetic rambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

DW and I have had our moments. But here I have to agree 101% with DW .....

For anyone to make posts that could influence newcomers or others in boating - that could lead to serious consequences is insane.
Preaching NOT to carry safety gear is just plain idiotic.

I may not have all the latest gear - but my flare drum is just inside the companionway easily reached. My Collision avoidance whites are in clips behind cockpit bulkhead easily snatched by cockpit person.
 
My twopennyworth.

I was involved in the rescue of a foundering 30' sailing boat near Nab Tower at night.

The boat in question sank when the rudder was forced back and through the hull. As you can imagine she went down very quickly, the 2 man crew managed to get a Mayday off by VHF and the Coast guard acknowledged.

Though I had the casualty's position when she sank, visually locating the liferaft was difficult as it was a dark night and against the lights of Portsmouth.

I asked the casualty to fire a red flare. They were pinpointed immediately and rescue affected.

Without the flare, rescue would have taken much, much longer.
 
In an emergency I would be happy with an EPIRB but happier with an EPIRB and flares and even happier with an EPIRB, flares and DSC VHF and yet more happy with............................

This is a no brainer, why argue about restricting methods of communicating?

I would have thought the more media the better ?
 
... and on at least 2 occasions last season I overheard Solent coastguard ask vessels in distress in the Solent to deploy orange smoke to enable the helo to locate them.

John
 
I really don't want to get involved in a pointless argument with some one who is completely intransigent. Of course flares work either in the middle of the North Sea or English Channel. Try using a mobile Phone when you are there. Epirbs are good but not, as you seen to think, instantaneous. A Red Para flare will be seen for miles, the watchkeeper on the bridge of a possible rescue craft will see it, and proceed to the general vicinity, at that point the distressed vessel will be able to deploy a pinpoint flare, whats the problem there. I agree with other posters on the topic of conflicting information,
Flares are are tried and tested reliable complimentary source of distress indication. Whats the problem with that. If you think that search and rescue services will come straight to your position and rescue you then you are very naive, they will ask you to deploy an orange smoke in day light or a red pinpoint at night time. They can then positivly identify you as the casualty saving much of thir time in the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top