Jan 09 WNS

[TonyJones]

hlb

As I've said in my 'Wrap' post the outboard was added after most people had come up with perfectly reasonable solutions to the original scenario. If you read my previous posts on the subject you will see that this was intended as effectively a second scenario. I was curious to see how people would respond to this new situation. I really don't see why that should be a problem.

PLEASE go back and re-read my Wrap post which deals specifically how I would keep the towrope clear of the props. It isn't a 'damn big tow rope' anyway. It's a polypropylene warp - so it would float and cause minimum drag.

The roughness of the sea is only in my mind? The scenario says: The rock is nearly awash and unless something is done very shortly they will shortly be swept off into the surf. So yes it would be shallow but not such that two small children could wade ashore safely. If you aren't able to deduce that from the facts provided I'm sorry.

'...some grown up to wade out and get them'. Again the scenario specifically says: 'No one else is in sight'. And if you think that isn't feasible I suggest you read some Coastguard reports.

Haydn, by now you should surely realise that I put quite a lot of thought and effort into these scenarios and am disappointed when people make criticisms that only go to show they haven't bothered to read the brief properly.

Best wishes
TJ

 

[JackBartlett]

FWIW
I reckon one of the big advantages of anchoring is that there is no risk of getting the rope round the props -- as it might, if you were using the engines to manoeuvre.

And if you secure the rope to the "mother ship", and take the coil in the dinghy and feed it out from there, you aren't dragging the rope through the water at all.

In other situations, you can even row out an anchor on a chain cable, so long as you put the cable in the dinghy first, rather than feeding it out from the parent vessel.

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Tony - no anchor. Do you think the RNLI engaged in this scenario would deploy the anchor close to rocks? Of course not. The crew were experienced and therefore the helmsman could keep the boat on point and be ready to get out quick from the rocks if needed. An anchor would see you knackered if you had to move swiftly.

Anchoring for me in my situation would have had me in the same precarious situation as the people I rescued. BTW, there were 4 of them (inc MOB) and none of them had a blimmin clue (or life jacket!).

 

[TonyJones]

Deleted User and Dave Snelson,

To anchor or not to anchor, that is the question. I feel it's a judgment call. I can see your objections and I can see why Spook thinks it a good idea. An RNLI lifeboat probably wouldn't anchor as they are highly manoeuvrable and have plenty of professional crew. FWIW, my anchor is always secured to the ring bolt in the anchor locker with a line that can be easily cut as it's long enough to emerge on deck.

So while I don't think anchoring is essential, I don't think it's a complete 'No Go' either. If you do, I guess we will have to agree to differ. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Which I trust we can do in good humour.

Thanks for the 'FWIW' bit, incidentally.

Best wishes
TJ

 

[JackBartlett]

The RNLI, in this situation, probably *would* deploy the anchor.
In fact, if there was enough water to float an Atlantic at the foot of the rocks, one of the "standard" drills is to anchor off, and back down, using one engine, but controlling the approach by controlling the anchor cable, rather than the engine.
That way, if you ding one prop, the anchor will pull you out of danger, and you've got an undamaged engine in reserve.

 

[awol]

[ QUOTE ]
I put quite a lot of thought and effort into these scenarios and am disappointed when people make criticisms

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to try a bit harder - next time don't just lazily use "usual equipment" and don't decide on a notional but crucial sea state. In other words define the boundary conditions. If the skipper can see the casualties, he can see the sea state; if he knows he has a polypropylene rope and 2 buoyancy aids in the lazarette, surely he knows what other warps and things, including an outboard motor (and its reliability), he has on board. So stop trying to be so clever, give a complete set of information as would be available to the skipper and then perhaps the criticism wouldn't flow.

And I'm not sure about your level of sexism. Why is the skipper male, the couples not same sex - and your salivating description of the Adonis is highly suggestive.

 

[hlb]

Tony, the point is, were trying to guess things that we cannot see. Only you know the full story. My tow rope is about 25mm and to heavy to pick up when wet.

There is no way of collating your perseption of the difficulty or ours. Only being there would form any decision. Of course, if it looked difficult, one would inform coastguard first, but if it looks very simple??

The answers your getting are just the percepions of how folk read the problem, which is ill defined and always will be, because it's imaginary.

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Done in good humour as always! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[TonyJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Tony, the point is, were trying to guess things that we cannot see. Only you know the full story. My tow rope is about 25mm and to heavy to pick up when wet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry Haydn but YOUR own tow rope on your own boat is utterly irrelevant to this scenario which specifically says '70ft of polyprop'. So I expect solutions to take this into account. I really don't think that is being unreasonable.

Best wishes
Tony

 

[TonyJones]

[ QUOTE ]

You need to try a bit harder - next time don't just lazily use "usual equipment" and don't decide on a notional but crucial sea state. In other words define the boundary conditions. If the skipper can see the casualties, he can see the sea state; if he knows he has a polypropylene rope and 2 buoyancy aids in the lazarette, surely he knows what other warps and things, including an outboard motor (and its reliability), he has on board. So stop trying to be so clever, give a complete set of information as would be available to the skipper and then perhaps the criticism wouldn't flow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I think the term 'normal equipment' is a perfectly adequate way to indicate that there would be lifejackets and mooring warps onboard.

As to the sea state, I feel that the firm indication of shallow water, on onshore F3/F4 and the word 'surf' is sufficient for readers to deduce the conditions and it was worded that way quite deliberately.



[/ QUOTE ] And I'm not sure about your level of sexism. Why is the skipper male, the couples not same sex - and your salivating description of the Adonis is highly suggestive.

[/ QUOTE ]

The skipper has to be one sex or the other. In this case he is male because most WNS contributors seem to be - and go boating with someone called SWMBO. So no sexism there. But I think your last suggestion could reasonably be regarded as homophobic. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

TJ

 

[TonyJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Tony, the point is, were trying to guess things that we cannot see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haydn
Notwithstanding my previous response, I accept that this can be a problem. So I'll prefix all future scenarios with words to the effect that if anyone wants more information or clarification before submitting their suggestion they should ask for it and I'll supply it.

But, as we have seen in the past, people are also capable of interpreting things in different ways. In other words, it's blindingly obvious to one person that 'blah, blah' means A, while equally obvious to another that it means B.

I rather expect we will always struggle with one or the other, but I assure you that I'm not trying to catch anyone out or trying to be a smartass.

Best regards
TJ

 

[Dave_Snelson]

Ding-ding. Seconds away, round 4 /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[TonyJones]

[ QUOTE ]
Ding-ding. Seconds away, round 4 /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, 3 rounds only. I really must get on and do some other work! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Cheers
TJ