Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Post 67
If I were an RNLI donor I would not be happy.
- Thread starter Sybarite
- Start date
Post 67
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
King Penquin is on line as I write this. Afraid of a challenge apparently.
[2068]
...
I'm an RNLI contributor, and I'm happy that they get decent boats designed for their requirements, good training in appropriate facilities, and the kit to keep them safe.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
I can't think of a CTT launched from a carriage.
Certainly, areas with large sandy beaches tend to be served by marina based boats with limited operating hours, not with 24/7 availability like the UK.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
I'm trying to envisage the situation. In calm weather a rib would be used on a beach. In a situation of heavily breaking surf, will the Shannon stay in water which is so shallow it will be bouncing up and down on the sand - where it wouldn't be much help to anyone - or whether it will immediately try to gain deep water. In which case it would be in the same position as the French boat. Surely helicopters would be more used in such situations?
The French boat carries a large Rib for shallow water work.
This isn't a cheap dig; it's really to try to understand what the shallow water gain of 2' draft is all about.
robertj
Well-Known Member
I think they do a great job. Funding should be compulsory for businesses out on the water.
If you run a sailing school etc then you should be forced to contribute, too many of these schools run a shoddy business and expect the RNLI to get them out if the muir when they get into difficulties.
Make them pay not ride the backs of us leisure sailors who contribute heavily.
If you run a sailing school etc then you should be forced to contribute, too many of these schools run a shoddy business and expect the RNLI to get them out if the muir when they get into difficulties.
Make them pay not ride the backs of us leisure sailors who contribute heavily.
Searush
Well-Known Member
It's obvious you have absolutely no idea what the Shannon is designed to do so let me illustrate how it works;
On an often dangerous lee shore at Meoles, the Shannon could be carried on it submersible launch system direct from the boathouse, fully manned & driven straight into the surf. The engines will be running as it enters the water & it will launch straight off the turntable as soon as it "almost floats". The tractor & turntable will be largely under water at this point.
It can then go on service at top speed, cutting across & over the sandbanks to reach vessels in trouble in Liverpool bay far faster than any other lifeboat/ launch system in the area. It is a large boat well capable of dealing with the surf & massive tides (12-13 mtr springs) in the area. Its size & kit also make it more useful than a helicopter for standing by, recovering multiple casualties or even towing vessels out of danger.
Recovery, at any state of the tide simply requires the launch system to be in place - almost underwater & regardless of surf or distance from HW (the tide goes out a couple of miles along this coast) and then the Shannon will just drive onto the turntable & the tractor takes it back to the boathouse, rotating ready for disembarking the crew & casualties. It can then be sorted ready for service again. Available 24/7/365 regardless of weather or tide.
No wonder it took some time & money to get the prototype sorted out. But the system will work because it is just a major development of the existing submersible tractor & carriage launch sytem that has been operating effectively there for some years now.
It just doesn't compare with a helicopter (quick but even more expensive & only able to handle a few casualties & no ability to standby for more than a few minutes & unable to tow) or a rib (if open, too small & wet to be much use for more than inshore work, if enclosed, just too small & probably limited range with o/bs).
I understand that you may not meet big tides, lee shores with severe wind over tide issues & sandbanks where you sail, but they exist in many, many places around the UK coasts. It's a lot of money, I agree, but it is purpose built to meet a need that cannot otherwise be served & I expect it to sell well to other rescue agencies worldwide & earn money for the builder & designers (& UK plc). Definitely money well spent too in my mind, altho I fortunately no longer sail in Liverpool bay if I can help it.
maxi77
Well-Known Member
Just answer the questions, stop prevaricating, we wish to make the comparison but you once again shirk away from coming up with the facts.
All fluff and nonsense by the look of it which really makes your argument, which may have value, look foolish.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
The Shannon is not built to be used over shallow water - although that is an advantage of jet drive boats. Yes, the risk of grounding is there, but the boat is built to take it.
The design is to be able to be launched and recovered from such locations - as the carriage launched Mersey class is now - for example, New Quay (Wales), Dungeness, Aldeburgh, etc - where the nearest deep water launch facility may be many miles away from the casualty - as here for the Mersey class - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tETSNLsTo_o
This is currently how beach launched boats are recovered - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG0rBws2YV0
It is labour intensive, and most of all, slow - if we need to retask the boat after one incident, it can be up to 30 minutes before relaunch. With the Shannon, that will be around 5 mins.
Compare the earlier ones with how the Shannon works here - www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiqyxa7NYpE
The crews will also not have to spend time pre-launch grading and bulldozing the beach - the launch system can cope with shingle banks, etc.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
A good description and I hope you right.
What speed does it do if you have to trail the boat 1 mile to the water's edge?
Searush claims it is. Could you two square up your expert opinions?
You missed the bit about the transformer button. The RNLI pinched some technology from the F35 fighter project, 10 seconds after the coxswain hits the "H" button the hull transforms into a hovercraft.
Firefly625
Well-Known Member
well other older designed RNLI Lifeboats can handle that.... with jet drive the shannon should cope that much better with no risk to props, the beauty of in house design, they make what they need.
oh, and I do support the RNLI and nothing in this thread has altered my view...
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that post Firefly. I've just learned something about the use of these boats in practice that I hadn't even imagined.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
No, our opinions match - I should have added "solely" into my statement. The principal design requirement for the Shannon was carriage launching - the by product of that is that it will be good over shallow water. All the RNLI bilge keelers are designed to be able to take the ground, obviously this is even easier with a jet drive. Also the manoeverability jets give over props makes life a lot easier.
PilotWolf
Well-Known Member
One issue with jets that I would hope the RNLI has considered is the loss of thrust/propulsion when there is no water being sucked in. Plus they are a whole different ball game to driving a normal screw vessel...
I can see potential issues with this in short heavy seas, shallow water, etc.
I know of at least one incident where windfarm support vessels have had near misses with jets whilst embarking/disembarking crews from turbines and have lost the thrust to keep the bow against the pylon.
W.
I can see potential issues with this in short heavy seas, shallow water, etc.
I know of at least one incident where windfarm support vessels have had near misses with jets whilst embarking/disembarking crews from turbines and have lost the thrust to keep the bow against the pylon.
W.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
Having driven twin jets for years, including in some pretty interesting seas, I don't think there's too much to worry about, plus the Dutch lifeboat service (and a few UK indies, including the Caister offshore boat) have proven the use of jets.
Yes there is the worry about blocking the intakes, but effective use of the weed rakes and careful driving will deal with this, and the risk is less than picking up a trailing line around a prop. The short seas / shallow water is exactly what the Shannon was designed for, and the trialling has been very extensive.
PilotWolf
Well-Known Member
OK... I've only driven single jets but the wind farm incident(s) were where the waves actually caused the jet(s) to suck air.
The 'company' I worked them for also had issues with impeller damage from gravel and if not used regularly (in the water all the time) fouling required regular lifts to clean it.
W.
The 'company' I worked them for also had issues with impeller damage from gravel and if not used regularly (in the water all the time) fouling required regular lifts to clean it.
W.
glashen
Well-Known Member
No I don't understand it either, but it a very common POV in many walks of life.
Looking at the title of this thread and reading much of it, the answer seems to be that most of the RNLI donors are happy enough to keep on giving, the RNLI is not beyond criticism, but much of the criticism being leveled at it seems to be that it is too rich and too good at raising money, which they then have the cheek to spend on the best equipment.
BTW £3.7m managing expenditure of £171 seems about right to me!
viago
Well-Known Member
i agree with you that a management expenditure of £3.7 million as a percentage of the total budget isnt an excessive amount,a little over 2%.
on the other hand, a cursory look at the figures will tell you that the £3.7 million is merely the amount accrued by 42 managers.
there is a culture in this country of people using charitable organisations as means of earning extortionate salaries and justifying it by claiming that they bring a greater net value. i, for one, happen to find that nonsense quite unsavoury especially as many charities raise very significant amounts whilst the staff claim no rewards whatsoever.
the arguement that one needs to spend huge amounts of money to attract the best has been well and truly debunked over recent years, yet, it seems, that many of the contributors here remain convinced that this misnomer still holds true.
Last edited: