Has the RNLI lost the plot?

If it is common sense about launching in a storm, then would some form of travel lift have greater restrictions?
Especially as the boat could bounce about inside.
 
rotrax said:
I have an enormous sense of deja vue.

This is done to death every season with the same result.

The economics mean little to the RNLI. They take on a major role in SAR services for the UK and Eire.

As they are a well funded rich charity they spend whatever they need to carry out their function.

IIRC the rules for charities mean they have to spend minimum amounts in proportion the capital deposits.

They are in the fortunate position to be able to exceed these parameters should they wish to.

There is, IMHO, no point in making comparisons with any other SAR service, or being critical of how the RNLI is run UNLESS THEY FALL DOWN ON THE JOB!

As far as I can see they have never done that in their history.

We are fortunate to have the RNLI in its current form.

A little truism I am fond of is that it is easy to know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

IMHO, of course..........................
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

I've just returned to this forum after a number of years. One reason I stopped logging on was a thread which seemed to me aggressively and unreasonably anti RNLI, so forgive me if I've skipped through most of this thread.

The RNLI is a charity which is very successful at fundraising, and is substantially manned by courageous volunteers which provides an essential service. It's quite right that their priority should be providing their volunteers and their employees with the best equipment and facilities that they can afford. I really don't care if they could have found cheaper solutions.
 
Frogmogman some of us are prepared to enter into a discussion to find out if it is possible to do things cheaper.
So far I have not seen anything other than wishful thinking, that without the extra costs (rebuilding boathouses).

I have not even started on extra risks to crew.

It is only by challenging the cheap option that we can show the RNLI has a safe workable system at an affordable price.
 
Last edited:
Frogmogman said:
I couldn't agree more.

I've just returned to this forum after a number of years. One reason I stopped logging on was a thread which seemed to me aggressively and unreasonably anti RNLI, so forgive me if I've skipped through most of this thread.

The RNLI is a charity which is very successful at fundraising, and is substantially manned by courageous volunteers which provides an essential service. It's quite right that their priority should be providing their volunteers and their employees with the best equipment and facilities that they can afford. I really don't care if they could have found cheaper solutions.
Click to expand...

Do you equate best as being the most expensive?

What if the expense was accumulated as the result of poor financial management.?
 
I would imagine that best is a proven system that works.

You have shown no evidence of another system that just might work. Yet still falsely claim something you have no evidence of.
If you want to show money being ill spent then show real costs for an alternative system that works.
 
Sybarite said:
Do you equate best as being the most expensive?
Click to expand...

No I don't But I do think that in view of the fact that the RNLI is well funded, they don't have to accept the cheapest option. They are perfectly entitled to go for what seems to be the best solution.

For example, the last RNLI row I endured on Scuttlebutt was about whether the RNLI were having it away by building the Shannon class at vast expense, whereas the SNSM in France have been building much cheaper boats. The arguments totally ignored the fact that the Shannon is a water jet propelled vessel suitable for beach launch and recovery, whereas the SNSM vessels are not designed to the same requirements, and that the SNSM is not so flush with cash and therefore more obliged to compromise.
 
Frogmogman said:
No I don't But I do think that in view of the fact that the RNLI is well funded, they don't have to accept the cheapest option. They are perfectly entitled to go for what seems to be the best solution.

For example, the last RNLI row I endured on Scuttlebutt was about whether the RNLI were having it away by building the Shannon class at vast expense, whereas the SNSM in France have been building much cheaper boats. The arguments totally ignored the fact that the Shannon is a water jet propelled vessel suitable for beach launch and recovery, whereas the SNSM vessels are not designed to the same requirements, and that the SNSM is not so flush with cash and therefore more obliged to compromise.
Click to expand...

The SNSM have jet boats where their operation is justified. The two local boats where I am are both jet boats.

It's true that the topography of France is such that few beach launches are required. However no place along the French coast is more than one hour away from a CTT (the coast of SW France has few stations because there are few boats in the area. Previously it was a zone only accessible to boats authorized to sail up to 200 miles from a shelter.) and less when you take into account the other classes of "vedettes". As far as the Rade de Lorient is concerned (where at last count there were five boats. The French services are also well joined up and a SAR ooperation can count on good helicopter coverage as well as the boats of the Gendarmerie de Mer, les Affaires Maritimes and La Douane.

It is well seen that you have just dipped back into the discussion because you have failed to grasp that the new generation French boats are superb - they are state of the art vessels and not built down to a compromise.

I have shown that the (wave-piercer) pantocarene hull design is more efficient in that it reduces pitching and therefore allows the boat to maintain a higher speed into the waves. (See post #166) The 58' CTT has the same engines as the 44' Shannon but both have the same top speed. That says something about hull design.

The French boats are cheaper, not because they are built down to a price but because they use outside architects and yards specialized in the area and do not try to reinvent the wheel. That's why they were able to go from concept to delivery in under 4 years compared with the 13 years it took the RNLI with the Shannon. Thirteen years development costs make for a very expensive boat - but not necessarily a better one. It was also twice as long as it took for the "Oasis of the Sea" the world's largest cruise ship.
 
Last edited:
I'll bet there was another accountant somewhere in the world who thought BA got excellent value for money from their IT suppliers- last week. Might even still think so this week, but the stakes are much higher in the RNLI's game.
 
dogleg said:
I referred your enquiry to our Engineering department who have informed me that we wouldn’t define this a wave height but can advise the maximum water depth that the SLRS rig is capable of operating to – that is 2.4 metres. Wave height would bring a breaking wave energy that may be excessive at well below 2 metres[/I]

I too have through a third party posed the question: this is the response. I trust you would agree that the Clogher and Newcastle launches previously referred to were in extreme conditions by a carriage system that the SLARS is designed to replace and improve upon.
Click to expand...


Here is the response I have just received from the RNLI operations manager :

"In short, the Shannon class is an All Weather Lifeboat so can be Launched into all weather, the unit itself has a wading depth of around 2.5 mtr’s if there is a heavy swell pushing onto the beach the boat can launch once it has enough water to clear the jets."
 
NorthUp said:
I'll bet there was another accountant somewhere in the world who thought BA got excellent value for money from their IT suppliers- last week. Might even still think so this week, but the stakes are much higher in the RNLI's game.
Click to expand...

You would think then that they would choose the best hulls....
 
After we get past the cost of a workable system for launching, then we can move on to the cost of alterations to the boat houses.
Then any extra potential risk to the crews.

If we are going to do a proper job of this discussion then all aspects including costs have to be considered before any rational person can claim poor financial management.
 
So one of your oft repeated erroneous claims has now been categorically proven to be totally wrong

I'm tempted to start in on a number of other obvious targets but I'd rather be sailing. Ooo look, I AM :D
 
Sybarite said:
Here is the response I have just received from the RNLI operations manager :

"In short, the Shannon class is an All Weather Lifeboat so can be Launched into all weather, the unit itself has a wading depth of around 2.5 mtr’s if there is a heavy swell pushing onto the beach the boat can launch once it has enough water to clear the jets."
Click to expand...

So will you be dropping your previous (many) incorrect assertions about 2 metres?
 
chanelyacht said:
So will you be dropping your previous (many) incorrect assertions about 2 metres?
Click to expand...
Oh dear, how embarrassing for you.

I suggest you read a definition for "Wave" before rejoining this debate if not then answer this question. If the tidal height is 1.5m and the wave pattern is 1.5m can the lifeboat be launched?

Anyhow why is everyone obsessing about wave height. It is obvious to anyone not afflicted by the condition of RnliLapdogginess, that this overpriced piece of fragile RNLI-designed toytown-mechano will be wrecked by modest amounts of wave energy that could be present in wave patterns lower than 2m. This RNLI boat launching trolley should be condemned and exhibited alongside Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose in a museum under a banner titled "20th and 21st century design follies.
 
jonjo said:
Oh dear, how embarrassing for you.

I suggest you read a definition for "Wave" before rejoining this debate if not then answer this question. If the tidal height is 1.5m and the wave pattern is 1.5m can the lifeboat be launched?

Anyhow why is everyone obsessing about wave height. It is obvious to anyone not afflicted by the condition of RnliLapdogginess, that this overpriced piece of fragile RNLI-designed toytown-mechano will be wrecked by modest amounts of wave energy that could be present in wave patterns lower than 2m. This RNLI boat launching trolley should be condemned and exhibited alongside Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose in a museum under a banner titled "20th and 21st century design follies.
Click to expand...

Must be time for your meds again.

Remind me how many times you've launched and recovered using one, to be able to speak so authoritatively on its build quality and operation?

A reply with just a number in it will be fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top