Has the RNLI lost the plot?

jonjo said:
Some things are not meant to be though in the following example I reckon the travelhoist proposal would have faired better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCYADeobHaI

Accepting you don't have a capability is preferable to pretending you have it.
Click to expand...

I would hope that any modern technology would be better than something that is 22 years old!

Whilst I agree with very little (none?) of Sybarite's RNLI knockings, at least he is talking about the RNLI's latest technology - not something from the Dark Ages.

Completely pointless posting that link IMO.
 
jonjo said:
Some things are not meant to be though in the following example I reckon the travelhoist proposal would have faired better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCYADeobHaI

Accepting you don't have a capability is preferable to pretending you have it.
Click to expand...

Prop boat - in that situation the forward water intakes on the Shannon would have enabled it to gain propulsion at a much lower water depth.

One of the reasons Caister, and a lot of Dutch stations, use jets.

In short, a false comparison.
 
We still do not know if a travel hoist would work in those circumstances let alone how much it would cost.
Maybe jonjo could shed some light about those points.
 
Angele said:
I would hope that any modern technology would be better than something that is 22 years old!
Click to expand...
Up until this point of the discussion I had not realised that the RNLI had also modernised the science of a breaking wave.

Now that I am informed that the RNLI is blessed with Moses like powers to command the surf to part and make way for launch I now retract all prior posts.
 
Last edited:
jonjo said:
Up until this point of the discussion I did realise that the RNLI had also modernised the science of a breaking wave.
Click to expand...

But the science of energy absorption and deflection does change. The old Mersey carriage was very much an open platform, with a much lesser tilt angle than SLRS - and carried a very different boat.
 
jonjo said:
Some things are not meant to be though in the following example I reckon the travelhoist proposal would have faired better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCYADeobHaI

Accepting you don't have a capability is preferable to pretending you have it.
Click to expand...

See post 146 for explanation of this incident which dates from 1993 I think, this station has launched successfully since then in worse conditions




Read more at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...RNLI-lost-the-plot/page15#H2Dd0jr6ofXZ7Y4G.99
 
jonjo said:
Up until this point of the discussion I did realise that the RNLI had also modernised the science of a breaking wave.

Now that I am informed that the RNLI is blessed with Moses like powers to command the surf to part and make for launch I now retract all prior posts.
Click to expand...

Such a silly post the RNLI have changed how they deal with the waves.
Do you have any better modern ideas and what is the cost?
 
chanelyacht said:
So will you be dropping your previous (many) incorrect assertions about 2 metres?
Click to expand...

It was not my assertion; it was the information I was previously quoted by the RNLI. The term used is "wading depth" - does that represent the maximum wave height it can deal with ?

Seems like inflation has added 25% to the depth.
 
Last edited:
Sybarite said:
It was not my assertion; it was the information I was previously quoted by the RNLI. The term used is "wading depth" - does that represent the maximum wave height it can deal with ?

Seems like inflation has added 25% to the depth.
Click to expand...

it means the depth of water it can operate in governed b y the height of the driver's cabin
 
jonjo said:
Up until this point of the discussion I did realise that the RNLI had also modernised the science of a breaking wave.

Now that I am informed that the RNLI is blessed with Moses like powers to command the surf to part and make way for launch I now retract all prior posts.
Click to expand...

How many times does one have to say that it could not possibly be anything other than cheaper?

It is a far simpler structure which does nor require a tractor capable of working underwater or a balanced turntable on a trailor.

Have you no concept of value?
 
Sybarite said:
So you are saying that the RNLI's claim has been categorically proven to be wrong?

A bit like their budgets?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying you have been proven wrong

Your claim of a fixed 2m wave height operational limit was wrong, as I and others have repeatedly told you
 
Sybarite said:
That was RNLI information as I keep repeating.
Click to expand...

No, that was RNLI information that you kept wilfully misrepresenting

They told you the SLS had been tested in 2m waves, you kept on claiming that the SLS had an operational limit of 2m

Man up, admit you were wrong
 
Sybarite said:
It was not my assertion; it was the information I was previously quoted by the RNLI. The term used is "wading depth" - does that represent the maximum wave height it can deal with ?

Seems like inflation has added 25% to the depth.
Click to expand...

And yet you never once gave us the exact source of the alleged 2M operating limit, which never existed.

As others have said, wading depth is a different thing to launch wave height.
 
chanelyacht said:
Prop boat - in that situation the forward water intakes on the Shannon would have enabled it to gain propulsion at a much lower water depth.
Click to expand...
Can you provide the video evidence of the RNLI successfully launching a modern lifeboat off the £1.5 million meccano trolley in the same conditions as seen in the YouTube link I provided above?
 
jonjo said:
The onus on you is to demonstrate that the RNLI did not squander £ millions on a technical flop.
Click to expand...

I rather think the onus is on you to back up your unsubstantiated claim that the SLS is a technical flop

And I'm still waiting for Sybarite to fess up :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top