If I were an RNLI donor I would not be happy.
- Thread starter Sybarite
- Start date
maxi77
Well-Known Member
If you have been looking at it for 5 years have you managed to resolve the costs given for each type of boat you are comparing to a common baseline. As I am sure you know published costs can be very misleading either including amortised R&D or not. Some can be based ot year 200 costs and others on 2012. really are a lot of variables and until they are resolved the prices mean very little. Of course they could be to the same baseline. Then all we have to do is resolve the carriage launch problem which you really have to have difficulty with. You keep claiming an all weather boat can be replaced with a RIB, which even you have admit is asking one heck of a lot from the RIB crew, and where do they put all the survivors.
I remember now, that would be the 13 page thread which I entered at page 8 to express support for the RNLI coxswain who admonished a rescued captain calamity sailor for heading out to sea again from a harbour with a difficult exit.
My intent was to remind people that I was no RNLI lapdog but on this occasion I thought the criticism of a front line crew unjust.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Yes, I can see that you really do express your support in a charming way.
jonjo5 said:
I'm sure that the coxswain appreciates your comments.
TimBennet
Well-Known Member
Obviously not, but they were the logged conditions for that particular service. It highlights the fact that these are offshore boats that happen to be launched from the beach, not 'beach and shallow water rescue boats'. So the comments about helicopters and small RIBS being more suitable is nonsense. In the UK where RIBS and helicopters are more appropriate they use . . . well, RIBS and helicopters.
FishyInverness
Well-Known Member
+1
Sybarite, while I actually feel that some of your arguments have merit, it has been effortlessly explained and justified that the cost of the Shannon is relevant to what it is. And you are starting to look deliberately obtuse which is a shame.
Your post claiming that the Shannon has been declared by the RNLI and posters on here, to be a Shallow Water boat, is flawed, and you have to see logically that it's flawed - even with the most basic understanding of it (me!) you can see it's an all weather offshore boat which has been developed to operate within shallow waters - I'd like to see you stand up and say "I was wrong" about that, then people might feel your humbleness credits you with a more gentle ear for other statements you make with good facts behind them.
Incidentally - How many Helicopters do either the RNLI or the SNSM have? I think the answer is Zero - and thus isn't the idea of naming them as a resource, in the context of comparing these two organisations, a bit moot?
I'm sure if either organisation could afford to purchase and fund a full SAR helicopter, then this whole thread would grow exponentially!
(Incidentally, i'm "on the fence" about the RNLI's spending - in the majority, I think the service is amazing. I am aware that there are elements of that spending that are questionable, and that at higher echelons there can be an arrogance - I don't want any donations I make going to the PR managers, but then I also see the merit of shouting about what they do best to keep people interested - On the whole, I think they, as an organisation do a fantastic job, but as with any organisation, there are foibles...)
Last edited:
Sailfree
Well-Known Member
You raise an interesting basic question. Should the RNLI put to sea in dangerous conditions (however good the ligfeboat is) and is a helicopter a better, safer solution?
The impression I have is that the UK government has cut back on sea rescue helicopter cover and consequently rescues are more reliant on the RNLI.
Don't want to start a thread on whether the RNLI should operate helicopters but wonder going from basics in very bad conditions is the helicopter a better rescue vehicle or i fact the opposite that in bad conditions only a boat can hack it. Be interested in hearing informed opinions.
FishyInverness
Well-Known Member
I can chip in from the ambulance service point of view, in that the Air Ambulance helicopters get grounded pretty quickly into a poor weather situation (civilian Flight regulations as I understood it) and it then remains the domain of the Coastguard SAR choppers to deal with any casualty needing extraction by air.
Choppers often get called off in Heavy Fog, such as the Loch Awe drowning incident. So I wouldn't expect them to be an immediate alternative to using boats.
Choppers often get called off in Heavy Fog, such as the Loch Awe drowning incident. So I wouldn't expect them to be an immediate alternative to using boats.
Keen_Ed
Well-Known Member
Angry palm trees aren't too good at towing boats.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
It was explained that the significant technical difference, that which gave it an outstanding advantage over the similar sized French boats were the Hamilton Water Jets.
Well on the RNLI's appeal page, Mr Chris Eves, Shannon Project Manager, says textually " They (the water jets) give increased manoeuvrability and they allow us to operate in shallow waters..." (see the video on their site).
If I have misunderstood this statement then I am sorry.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
I have been challenged to join the governors so that if I don’t like things I can tell them so myself.
That’s not going to happen but, after looking at the accounts for the last 6 years somebody might feel inclined to develop the following.
Total incoming resources 2006 - 2011 £ 991.5m out of which:
Investments directly spent on boats : 6%
Employer’s contributions to staff pensions: 6% (excluding dependant relatives)
Surplus (Income less expenditure) 2006 – 2011 £ 114.8m
Amount spent on boats 2006 – 2011 £ 59.8m
Increase in annual incoming resources 2011/2006 15.5%
Increase in staff costs 2011/2006 35.9%
Increase in staff numbers 25.6%
Increase in number paid >£60k 133.3%
The RNLI annual accounts are available on the Charity Commission’s site.
(Sorry I don't know how to space this out in a proper table on here.)
2011/
2006 (%) Total 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
Incoming resources 15,5% 991,5 172,7 163,5 167,9 170,5 167,4 149,5
Total expenditure 13,2% 876,7 150,4 155,3 156,4 148,1 133,6 132,9
34,3% 114,8 22,3 8,2 11,5 22,4 33,8 16,6
Capex Boats 59,8 16,4 13,8 10,5 1,1 8,2 9,8
Other 138,4 17,1 23,7 33,8 37,9 14,6 11,3
198,2 33,5 37,5 44,3 39,0 22,8 21,1
Boats / Incoming resources % 6,0% 9,5% 8,4% 6,3% 0,6% 4,9% 6,6%
Staff Pensions : employers contributions 59,1 9,8 10,1 10,0 9,6 10,1 9,5
% of incoming resources 6,0% 5,7% 6,2% 6,0% 5,6% 6,0% 6,4%
Staff costs 35,9% 300,8 56,4 56,1 53,3 48,9 44,6 41,5
% of incoming resources 30,3% 32,7% 34,3% 31,7% 28,7% 26,6% 27,8%
Staff numbers 25,6% 1619 1609 1544 1422 1332 1289
Staff > £ 60k 133,3% 42 44 40 25 26 18
That’s not going to happen but, after looking at the accounts for the last 6 years somebody might feel inclined to develop the following.
Total incoming resources 2006 - 2011 £ 991.5m out of which:
Investments directly spent on boats : 6%
Employer’s contributions to staff pensions: 6% (excluding dependant relatives)
Surplus (Income less expenditure) 2006 – 2011 £ 114.8m
Amount spent on boats 2006 – 2011 £ 59.8m
Increase in annual incoming resources 2011/2006 15.5%
Increase in staff costs 2011/2006 35.9%
Increase in staff numbers 25.6%
Increase in number paid >£60k 133.3%
The RNLI annual accounts are available on the Charity Commission’s site.
(Sorry I don't know how to space this out in a proper table on here.)
2011/
2006 (%) Total 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006
Incoming resources 15,5% 991,5 172,7 163,5 167,9 170,5 167,4 149,5
Total expenditure 13,2% 876,7 150,4 155,3 156,4 148,1 133,6 132,9
34,3% 114,8 22,3 8,2 11,5 22,4 33,8 16,6
Capex Boats 59,8 16,4 13,8 10,5 1,1 8,2 9,8
Other 138,4 17,1 23,7 33,8 37,9 14,6 11,3
198,2 33,5 37,5 44,3 39,0 22,8 21,1
Boats / Incoming resources % 6,0% 9,5% 8,4% 6,3% 0,6% 4,9% 6,6%
Staff Pensions : employers contributions 59,1 9,8 10,1 10,0 9,6 10,1 9,5
% of incoming resources 6,0% 5,7% 6,2% 6,0% 5,6% 6,0% 6,4%
Staff costs 35,9% 300,8 56,4 56,1 53,3 48,9 44,6 41,5
% of incoming resources 30,3% 32,7% 34,3% 31,7% 28,7% 26,6% 27,8%
Staff numbers 25,6% 1619 1609 1544 1422 1332 1289
Staff > £ 60k 133,3% 42 44 40 25 26 18
Last edited:
viago
Well-Known Member
how dare you try to misrepresent the rnli in this way?
you make it look like a gravy train when it certainly isnt!
reginaldon
Well-Known Member
No criticisms of front line crews, but the amazingly well-paid army sitting on their backs.
FishyInverness
Well-Known Member
But you have used that passage to make the statement that it's a shallow water boat! I really think you know this, but you're pulling the "Boris" card of affable misapprehension rather than admitting you translated "allow us to" to mean "operate solely in". As I mentioned before, I think more people would cut you slack and credit more of your argument if you stood up and said "Ah yes, I made that statement, but I can see now after the facts have been presented that I was wrong, I withdraw it"
The water jets allow an increased capability of operating in shallow water. You have repeatedly taken this to mean that it's a craft intended for shallow water use, when in fact it's an All Weather Boat with increased shallow water capability....not wanting to go all Paxman on you here but, will you please acknowledge that you accept that fact?
Example to point : semi-Knobbly tyres allowed my KLR650 motorcycle to Off-Road - I used it offroad once in the 4 years I Owned it - It didn't make it a vehicle designed solely for offroad use
The water jets allow an increased capability of operating in shallow water. You have repeatedly taken this to mean that it's a craft intended for shallow water use, when in fact it's an All Weather Boat with increased shallow water capability....not wanting to go all Paxman on you here but, will you please acknowledge that you accept that fact?
Example to point : semi-Knobbly tyres allowed my KLR650 motorcycle to Off-Road - I used it offroad once in the 4 years I Owned it - It didn't make it a vehicle designed solely for offroad use
Last edited:
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
I have quoted figures. Where are they wrong? I have not made any appreciation of them. Gravy train is your expression.
Last edited:
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
I think we are talking at cross purposes. It is the shallow water capability which others have used as the principal reason (I admit that it's not the only one) to justify why it is so much more expensive than the French boat, where if they are both operating solely in a deep water context then they can be validly compared. Comparison does not mean identical values.
maxi77
Well-Known Member
Try actually reading some of the comments rather than re-echoing yur own distorted view of the facts.
FishyInverness
Well-Known Member
Not Wholly at cross purposes.
Yes, that is the argument being presented (shallow water capability in an all-weather boat being a justified expense). Your counter argument then tends to be that the French use a RIB for shallow water, the "opposition" counter-argument then presents that a RIB is not an All-Weather boat and you have then made the point (which I believe to be incorrect and is what i'm getting at) that the Shannon is a shallow water boat, and the impression you are giving is that it is solely a shallow water boat. I am going to quote one of your responses directly now, and I can't see how your response is stating anything but "The RNLI and posters on here claim this to be a shallow water boat"
The fact does remain that the Shannon is an expensive boat - but it does both the job of the French RIBS which you are using as the solution to shallow water and Offshore All-Weather Boats, it is truly dual purpose where the French would need to use two boats to achieve the same purpose (Shallow water launching of an All Weather rescue capability) - The French don't seem to have a boat which can do both jobs to the best performance, and so the cost, it would appear, is justified.
Will you PLEASE clarify that you admit the Shannon is a dual purpose boat, and not designed solely for shallow water rescue - as this has been your apparent position so far? I did ask you to do that previously and you said I was talking at cross purposes without answering the question...
Last edited:
Keen_Ed
Well-Known Member
Also, the sort of places where they use a carriage launched boat tend to be drying harbours. So actually, they're saving lots and lots of money, because the only other way to have a lifeboat available at all states of tide is to have a long and massively expensive pier with a ramp launched boat at the end of it - as they do at Bembridge, for instance.
King Penguin
Well-Known Member
Dear Sybarite,
I think you've established, without any question of doubt, that 'if you were an RNLI donor you wouldn't be happy'...............therefore, as you are not a donor you must be 'happy', esp. as you neither sail in areas covered by the RNLI or are likely to need their fabulous services.
So what is the point of carrying on with your 'campaign' apart from upsetting people who are happy donating to the RNLI and think the service they provide to be first class.
I think you've established, without any question of doubt, that 'if you were an RNLI donor you wouldn't be happy'...............therefore, as you are not a donor you must be 'happy', esp. as you neither sail in areas covered by the RNLI or are likely to need their fabulous services.
So what is the point of carrying on with your 'campaign' apart from upsetting people who are happy donating to the RNLI and think the service they provide to be first class.