How many coastal cruisers have a life raft?

[Gary Fox]

For the record virtually all glider pilots wear parachutes in the UK. Over 99% I would say.

Never worn one in a two seater, always in a single seater.

 

[Graham376]

We've had a life rafts with hydrostatic releases for most of the time we've had boats. Mandatory where we're based now, along with lots of other stuff not needed in UK.

 

[Graham376]

Never worn one in a two seater, always in a single seater.

Having witnessed two mid air collisions with gliders (one a fatal) I wore one in both and insisted pupil wore one as well.

 

[JumbleDuck]

For the record virtually all glider pilots wear parachutes in the UK. Over 99% I would say.

Where and when I flew in the UK I reckon it was a bit less than that. 80%, maybe. It depended on the day, of course - if you're bashing circuits and always below the height at which a parachute could be of any conceivable use there really is no point in wearing them out.

 

[Gary Fox]

Two thoughts come to mind

Firstly, reports on here of liferafts not working or being found to have been defective so that they would not work are not uncommon.

Secondly, when you last bought a car last did you specify all the collision avoidance systems? Imagine being injured (or worse) in an accident which they could have avoided or mitigated...

Yes I don't trust liferafts anyway, I have had two instances of canister rafts, not overdue for service, found to be rotting away when opened. Each was an Ocean Safety ISO charter spec, and water had got in. The definition of an illusory comfort blanket.

Both mounted on the coachroof, the only place they could possibly float free from if the HRU operated. Impossible to keep dry.
It's a good question, how hiring works if you are going somewhere else..

 

[Greenheart]

Most life-raft owners seem either to have inherited the thing despite not wholly believing in the justification, and they slightly grudgingly pay for its upkeep rather than make the confident step of embracing the virtually-vanishing improbability of ever needing it; or they have acquired it and added its cost to the others of yachting, on the basis that doing so keeps at bay both the clear and the intangible (and therefore ineradicable) fears in their own or their crew’s minds.

The possibility of having to end up inside a life-raft in rough seas strikes me as a good reason never to go to sea in weather that can’t be predicted, and I won’t care what limits that puts on my passage-planning.

I believe I’d rather rely on a first-choice tender and rapid easy launching arrangements. So many people tolerate awkward or inconvenient tender arrangements which would be far from ideal in an emergency, just as they’re a pain in everyday predictable use. But a tender that is always ready to launch would also make a better lifeboat, that happens to justify its cost on almost every trip.

 

[capnsensible]

No. There was a variety of reasons. First and foremost I'm tall and I was always near the weight limit anyway; wearing a parachute would have ruled me out of a lot of aircraft. Secondly, you only really need a parachute if the glider breaks up mid-air and by far the most common ways for that to happen (out of a very small number of incidents) are ...

• hitting other people in crowded thermals, usually while racing (I didn't race and I would avoid crowded thermals)
• hitting other people in clouds, where parachutes were mandatory under BGA rules (I never qualified in cloud flying)
• having the wings fall off doing aerobatics (I only ever did gentle stuff, from 0 to 4g)

There are other accident scenarios when having a parachute wouldn't help at all. I once had an RAF Tornado get so close to me that I was shaken about by it but never saw it, and another once passed me about two of my wingspans (100') away. If one of them hits you the parachute is just going to be another cloud of dust floating towards the ground.

I did normally wear one, if I could, for annual spinning checks, but that usually meant me finding a skinny little instructor and flying from the back seat. Which was fine, because I liked spinning, and liked to go inverted in the recovery if I could.

It's been a ten years since I flew or owned a glider. If I ever take it up again, and buy again - both of which are very unlikely - I will look for glider which can take me with a parachute. I would also seriously consider a ballistic recovery system (BRS) which is a Big Red Button which, when pressed deploys a parachute which brings the whole aircraft down. You're guaranteed to crash, but not too badly.

I'd also certainly want a FLARM, which is a sort of AIS for aircraft. It broadcasts your position, height, speed, direction and rate of turn and analyses broadcast from other FLARM units to predict close approaches. It was only just coming in when I left gliding, but seems to be very common now - and of course the more people who have it, the more sense it makes. If it had to be one or the other I think would buy a FLARM rather than a parachute.

Sorry about the long rambling reply. It's an interesting question which I hadn't thought about for many years but which did occupy me quite a lot at one time.

Thanks for taking the time. My extremely limited experience of flying out of Lee on Solent taught me to wear one all the time. I did wonder why, but trusted my instructors.

 

[capnsensible]

I wonder if Etap owners read these life-raft threads, just to make them feel smug? ?

Some years ago I delivered an Etap 39 from Miami to Gibraltar. It had a liferaft.

 

[dunedin]

For coastal cruising in crowded areas, like the South Coast, and when doing short hops (where ending up in a severe gale is optional, rather than a significant risk), perhaps a set of dinghy davits to carry the dinghy fully inflated and ready to go would be a better investment. Gives value all season long, and ideal escape option for fire or collision in moderate weather.

 

[capnsensible]

Most life-raft owners seem either to have inherited the thing despite not wholly believing in the justification, and they slightly grudgingly pay for its upkeep rather than make the confident step of embracing the virtually-vanishing improbability of ever needing it; or they have acquired it and added its cost to the others of yachting, on the basis that doing so keeps at bay both the clear and the intangible (and therefore ineradicable) fears in their own or their crew’s minds.

The possibility of having to end up inside a life-raft in rough seas strikes me as a good reason never to go to sea in weather that can’t be predicted, and I won’t care what limits that puts on my passage-planning.

I believe I’d rather rely on a first-choice tender and rapid easy launching arrangements. So many people tolerate awkward or inconvenient tender arrangements which would be far from ideal in an emergency, just as they’re a pain in everyday predictable use. But a tender that is always ready to launch would also make a better lifeboat, that happens to justify its cost on almost every trip.

Try your tender in gale force winds. In the shelter of a harbour and wear a life jacket!

 

[dgadee]

First sailing boat I was on (1980) was a delivery trip from Ramsgate to Poole. Everything went wrong - e.g. we had to go into Brighton under sail when the engine wouldn't start, diesel all over the boat etc. - but I had no idea what was happening anyway. We had a liferaft on board, The new owner, when we got to Poole, had it serviced. There was a note inside from the previous service company saying they had put it back into the cannister at the owner's request though the liferaft was not serviceable nor would function. Not sure that would have covered them.

 

[Greenheart]

That sounds like a Thelwell cartoon...crew swimming beside the open canister, reading the note.

 

[Gibeltarik]

See Owning a boat

And MGN 499

 

[Strikeliner]

MGN499 has been withdrawn and replaced by MGN548.

MGN's are not regulatory. Merchant Shipping Regulations and dispensations are.

 

[Strikeliner]

Ooop's pressed the key too quickly. Leisure users should take note of MGN553 but if you don't bother with a liferaft, don't bother with MCA guidance either.

 

[DownWest]

It depends. If you are going one way, how do you get the liferaft back from where you are? Hiring is ok for a couple of weeks but not if you end up 1000 miles away with a flight home.

Young couple sailed a 20ft ply boat from N France to Tahiti via Panama. One thing they commented on was the big cost of shipping the rented LR back .

 

[Gary Fox]

Ooop's pressed the key too quickly. Leisure users should take note of MGN553 but if you don't bother with a liferaft, don't bother with MCA guidance either.

I say, steady on old chap.

 

[Strikeliner]

Why what's the problem Mr Fox?

 

[Gary Fox]

Why what's the problem Mr Fox?

I don't 'bother' with a liferaft, as detailed above, but I do 'bother' with MGN's in general.

 

[Strikeliner]

If you bothered with MGN's and had any understanding of them, you would possibly have known about ClassXII leisure vessels needing to comply with Merchant Shipping regulations and their dispensations. Rather than saying elsewhere on this thread that Liferafts are not compulsory on ClassXII vessels (that's one longer than 13.7m) "round here".

Perhaps being sure of your facts before sounding off would be wise?

Carrying or not carrying a liferaft on a leisure vessel is still entirely voluntary, other than a Class XII vessel. On any commercial vessel it is mandatory.

That's how it should be. People are entitled to make their own choice and that is for them to decide. Oh and by the way quite a few light aircraft carry liferafts too. But if people think that rafts aren't needed on boats, I cant think why you'd want one on a light aircraft! But then again I am not a pilot and have no knowledge of ditching in the sea