Lifeboats .... Again
- Thread starter Sybarite
- Start date
Searush
Well-Known Member
He certainly does seem to have an axe to grind & hates being corrected on his invalid assumptions. We had all this nonsense a year ago & he ended up all on his todd trying to tell us we are being robbed blind by the people that risk their lives to save us.
FishyInverness
Well-Known Member
+1 (Though I do think there is a valid objection to be made about the number of PR and Marketing staff the RNLI employs)
Searush
Well-Known Member
Thank you, but I expect they wouldn't employ PR & Marketing if they weren't cost effective in keeping the charity in amongst the top UK charity donations.
The RNLI relies utterly on keeping a good image with the general public, they probably need professionals doing that rather than amateurs like Sybarite who is doing so much to undermine the French outfit while attempting to show it is "better" than the RNLI.
dogleg
Well-Known Member
support staff mechanics, electricians, trainers, assessors, refit, damage repair, replacement of various pieces of equipment (we needed new radar ) maintainence and repair of boathouses slipways etc annual lifejacket replacement and service need I go on?
All AWLBs have a full time mechanic and many have a full time coxswain as well. A few stations have more than 2 full timers due to crewing availability in their locality.
My family have served as crew for 5 generations and my son and grandson who cant wait to be enrolled I am certain would expect no expense to be spared on boats and their personal equipment and safety as I did. Like I said previously why don't you write to HQ constructively and discuss your concerns with the top people? You could also become an Offshore Donor and governor which would entitle you to attend the AGM where you raise your concerns in a public forum.
Have you actually seen and been on board a Shannon or a Tamar or a Severn to see how they compare with French boats? I have seen and been on board French Spanish, Dutch, German and Norwegian lifeboats all designed and built for the particular needs and requirements of their organisation and within the budget available.
The RNLI do employ a large PR and marketing department but this is necessary to keep the profile high especially amongst the younger generation. I am sure that all members of this forum know the RNLI is a charity but you and others might be surprised to know that many media organisations think it is part of the coastguard service best indicated when coastguard closures were announced our local paper thought the lifeboat station was being closed.
The RNLI is not perfect but it does a good job: mistakes are made as in any large organisation but to continually criticise based on a comparsion between two different bodies with different modes of operation and is not in my opinion valid.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Why do they have to slavishly follow what others do?
All too easy to use the recipe book approach to managing an organisation and its activities on the assumption that if others are doing something it must be right. Suppose that has the advantage of not requiring any thought. These things tend to follow fashions and there is no reason why one has to.
Unlike a business operating in a marketplace the RNLI can predict pretty accurately what its future requirements are and has as been noted already it has a substantial re-equipping programme underway which will take many years to complete. It also has the resources and expertise to do it itself. What possible benefit is there of "out sourcing"?, particularly when there is nobody capable of meeting their requirements without investing in the resources they already have or are building.
Like others, I really cannot see what your beef is. So, the French do things differently. So what? Do you seriously think that the RNLI are so naive and insular not to be aware of what other organisations do and incapable of making their own decisions about the most appropriate way of meeting the objectives of their organisation?
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
I am no expert on lifeboats, like most people on here but I do have experience of large organizations, including not for profit ones.
My instinct is that some organizations when they are flush with cash, forget what things can get like when times get tough again; they get lazy and take on prestige projects. I can remember one client who was in a similar position, albeit on a different scale, who ignored my warnings and went bankrupt before the year was out.
If the RNLI can continue to convince people to give them money, well good on them. However, sometimes people change their mind or they have some basic concept of what value represents which appears to me to be glossed over by many contributors to these threads.
Taking my reference to industry again (and i reject the notion that you cannot compare with an organization such as the RNLI - because it's all about managing efficiently the resourçes at your disposal ) the most efficient ones that I worked with, household names, were ones where every expense was reviewed on a daily basis to see if it was necessary or justified. Eg When I was FD of a car rental firm, I worked out what the average net result was from each day's rental (actually peanuts) and when anybody put in a disbursal request I had the form modified to show what that represented in the equivalent number of rental days.
In another firm, every quarter had to show an improvement in every area compared to the previous quarter, no exceptions if you wanted to retain your post. We introduced cost of poor quality reporting which was then subject to Six Sigma analysis. Examples of poor quality, other than rework of production rejects included, working overtime at enhanced hourly rates, using a taxi instead of public transport, using a courrier service instead of the mail, etc etc all indicating that the problems had not been anticipated and planned for in advance. This discipline meant that we could work much more efficiently yet achieving the same output.
Just looking at the accounts indicates to me that such discipline is not in the RNLI's radar and what amazes me is that you seem so resigned to accepting this. Again this is no criticisms of the people at the sharp end who do a wonderful job, as they do in France at one tenth of the operating budget.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
You are just demonstrating how little you know about how the RNLI operates. It is very well managed and does all the things you claim it does not. Unlike a normal commercial business it is not totally dependent on sales for its income, although commercial activities make a significant contribution. It puts a lot of effort into finding secure sources of income, using methods familiar to those in business.
The big advantage it has over a commercial operation is that it does have relatively predictable future income streams and is therefore able to make long term plans. Do not make the error of thinking that it does not manage costs closely on a day to day basis.
As with all charities it has to use its resources to meet the charitable objectives and that is what it is doing. So, I guess it will continue try and provide the best service it can within the constraints of the resources available.
The big advantage it has over a commercial operation is that it does have relatively predictable future income streams and is therefore able to make long term plans. Do not make the error of thinking that it does not manage costs closely on a day to day basis.
As with all charities it has to use its resources to meet the charitable objectives and that is what it is doing. So, I guess it will continue try and provide the best service it can within the constraints of the resources available.
Bru
Well-Known Member
In the first part, I thought you were an expert on French lifeboats and how much better they do the job than anyone else
On the second part, you do surprise me as you posts would indicate otherwise, especially in the not for profit sector (where I do have considerable experience at every level)
Now stop and think about what you have written and then reconsider your uninformed and ill considered objections to the RNLI maintaining and improving reserves!
<snipitty snip>
The RNLI IS actively looking at cost reduction where appropriate. There's been a lot about it in the house magazine and what have you of late
However, the RNLI is NOT, and quite rightly is not, a cost centric organisation. Due to the success of its fund raising efforts and its long standing and carefully nurtured standing with the British Public, the organisation enjoys a level of funding the envy of other not for profit bodies the world over
That enables the RNLI to put quality and fitness for purpose above all else. Shannon is an example of this. Early tests (and it has been fascinating to follow the development process from the articles and news feeds) on off the shelf pilot boat hulls led to that approach (which I believe has been the mainstay of the French fleet?) being rejected in favour of a custom in-house hull design. Not because the pilot boat hull was useless but because it wasn't as good as it could be
Another example would be the decision to swap out the standard tractor engine in favour of a solution tailored for the job. The standard engine would have worked OK, the custom solution will work better.
Nobody, NOBODY, is being "ripped off" by the RNLI. Nobody is forced to donate to the organisation, no tax payers money at all is spent supporting it. If the RNLI wants to spend a million, two million or three million or more on each single lifeboat and it can raise the funds to do so, why shouldn't they?
Right enough, as a member and supporter I don't want to see money being actually wasted but if gold plating the hull of a Shannon class lifeboat will make the work of the crew a teeny bit easier, or make the boat a fraction of a knot faster or any other slight but tangible improvement bring it on as far as I'm concerned!
Now back to reserves. Many people, even people well versed in business finance etc., struggle to understand this issue properly
An organisation such as the RNLI MUST maintain a significant capital reserve. However, that reserve is not "wasted", it's not doing "nothing". It will be invested in funds and portfolios where it will generate income, the capital reserve will enable the RNLI to partially if not completely self-insure and it insulates the organisation against fluctuations in income from donations (when times are good, the reserves can be built up, when they aren't you can draw down on the reserves)
Furthermore, some of that reserve will be from ring fenced donations (I do not claim to know to what extent in the case of the RNLI) often legacies where the donor stipulated in their will something like "to the RNLI I leave £1m to build a new boathouse at xxxx when it becomes necessary". Until it's necessary, that million quid can't be spent so goes into the reserves until a new boathouse IS needed at xxxx
And I've already mentioned that there is a downward trend in the receipt of large legacies across the whole charitable sector. RNLI is (my surmise) particularly vulnerable to such a downturn because historically a lot of its major capital expenditure (new boats, new boathouses) has often been funded to a significant extent by single legacies or donations (consider the number of lifeboats named after the donor or donors' loved one)
If the reserves held by the RNLI were unjustified they would, trust me on this, fall foul of the Charity Commission and be told to draw them down. Since they are building them up that is clearly not an issue
Unlike the OP, who seems to have some strong anti-RNLI slant for some reason, I have no issue with the French model. If the French can run a successful lifeboat operation doing it their way good luck to them. I will lay very long odds though that they'd just love to have the level of funding enjoyed by the RNLI and I lay equally long odds that if they did they'd be gold plating their kit too!!!
bbg
Well-Known Member
My take on this, FWIW (which might not be much).
On one side, Sybarite raises an interesting point in that an organisation that - by some measures, seems to be awash in cash - seems to be spending significantly more for the same assets as another organisation. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that the free-spending organisation might at the very least ask whether it could do better.
On the other side are those that explain the cost difference and say it is justified. Mixed in (IMO) with some people who see any questioning of the way the RNLI spends money as unacceptable.
I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I have known organisations that weren't forced by economics to be frugal, and they were far from as efficient as they could be. They could have done the same job with less money. But as Tranona saŷs, that doesn't mean it is right to adopt the model of the more frugal organisation.
Could the RNLI learn something from SNSM? Probably. Could the SNSM learn something from the RNLI? Probably.
Is either organisation above criticism? IMO neither should be. Just because an organisation has commendable objectives and does them well doesn't make it immune from criticism.
On one side, Sybarite raises an interesting point in that an organisation that - by some measures, seems to be awash in cash - seems to be spending significantly more for the same assets as another organisation. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that the free-spending organisation might at the very least ask whether it could do better.
On the other side are those that explain the cost difference and say it is justified. Mixed in (IMO) with some people who see any questioning of the way the RNLI spends money as unacceptable.
I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I have known organisations that weren't forced by economics to be frugal, and they were far from as efficient as they could be. They could have done the same job with less money. But as Tranona saŷs, that doesn't mean it is right to adopt the model of the more frugal organisation.
Could the RNLI learn something from SNSM? Probably. Could the SNSM learn something from the RNLI? Probably.
Is either organisation above criticism? IMO neither should be. Just because an organisation has commendable objectives and does them well doesn't make it immune from criticism.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Response to Erbas post #69
1. Originally Posted by Sybarite
I am no expert on lifeboats, like most people on here but I do have experience of large organizations, including not for profit ones..
In the first part, I thought you were an expert on French lifeboats and how much better they do the job than anyone else
I have never pretended to be but am capable of reading what experts say and of listening to those who use them.
On the second part, you do surprise me as you posts would indicate otherwise, especially in the not for profit sector (where I do have considerable experience at every level)
Not sure that this make sense. If you mean that I don’t have experience of large not for profit organizations I have been responsible for the audit of two major international ones and was myself treasurer of another for 6 years – where my proposed budgets were unanimously approved by the members.
Originally Posted by Sybarite
My instinct is that some organizations when they are flush with cash, forget what things can get like when times get tough again; they get lazy and take on prestige projects. I can remember one client who was in a similar position, albeit on a different scale, who ignored my warnings and went bankrupt before the year was out.
If the RNLI can continue to convince people to give them money, well good on them. However, sometimes people change their mind or they have some basic concept of what value represents which appears to me to be glossed over by many contributors to these threads..
Now stop and think about what you have written and then reconsider your uninformed and ill considered objections to the RNLI maintaining and improving reserves!
<snipitty snip>
Originally Posted by Sybarite
Just looking at the accounts indicates to me that such discipline is not in the RNLI's radar and what amazes me is that you seem so resigned to accepting this. Again this is no criticisms of the people at the sharp end who do a wonderful job, as they do in France at one tenth of the operating budget.
The RNLI IS actively looking at cost reduction where appropriate. There's been a lot about it in the house magazine and what have you of late
Over 1600 paid employees compared with the French 70. There’s an area to consider to start with.
However, the RNLI is NOT, and quite rightly is not, a cost centric organisation. Due to the success of its fund raising efforts and its long standing and carefully nurtured standing with the British Public, the organisation enjoys a level of funding the envy of other not for profit bodies the world over
That enables the RNLI to put quality and fitness for purpose above all else. Shannon is an example of this. Early tests (and it has been fascinating to follow the development process from the articles and news feeds) on off the shelf pilot boat hulls led to that approach (which I believe has been the mainstay of the French fleet?) being rejected in favour of a custom in-house hull design. Not because the pilot boat hull was useless but because it wasn't as good as it could be
Another example would be the decision to swap out the standard tractor engine in favour of a solution tailored for the job. The standard engine would have worked OK, the custom solution will work better.
I have given the criticisms relating to jet engines by an experienced cox’n. Nobody has specifically addressed those criticisms other than to say that the RNLI must have considered them.
One German subsidiary in a group that I worked for (producing brake linings) went bankrupt because they always wanted to produce a “Rolls Royce”, whereas the “Ford” version was fit for purpose.
Nobody, NOBODY, is being "ripped off" by the RNLI. Nobody is forced to donate to the organisation, no tax payers money at all is spent supporting it. If the RNLI wants to spend a million, two million or three million or more on each single lifeboat and it can raise the funds to do so, why shouldn't they?
Maybe not but I am sure that a lot of the donors don’t know that their money is not being used to build boats but is going into an investment account to earn money. When I first criticized the RNLI, not last year but many years ago, their reserves were around £400m; now at end of 2012 they were £613m and what’s the betting for a further increase in 2013.
Right enough, as a member and supporter I don't want to see money being actually wasted but if gold plating the hull of a Shannon class lifeboat will make the work of the crew a teeny bit easier, or make the boat a fraction of a knot faster or any other slight but tangible improvement bring it on as far as I'm concerned!
Would you prefer a gold plated hull, or two additional boats?
Now back to reserves. Many people, even people well versed in business finance etc., struggle to understand this issue properly
An organisation such as the RNLI MUST maintain a significant capital reserve. However, that reserve is not "wasted", it's not doing "nothing". It will be invested in funds and portfolios where it will generate income, the capital reserve will enable the RNLI to partially if not completely self-insure and it insulates the organisation against fluctuations in income from donations (when times are good, the reserves can be built up, when they aren't you can draw down on the reserves)
Furthermore, some of that reserve will be from ring fenced donations (I do not claim to know to what extent in the case of the RNLI) often legacies where the donor stipulated in their will something like "to the RNLI I leave £1m to build a new boathouse at xxxx when it becomes necessary". Until it's necessary, that million quid can't be spent so goes into the reserves until a new boathouse IS needed at xxxx
Endowment reserves ie reserves which are intended simply to generate income are £10m. Restricted reserves are £281.4m where people eg said I want that money to go towards a boat or something. Designated reserves are those that have been set aside for all future planned expenditure: on boats, infrastructure etc £237.6m. Free reserves are £83.4m. That makes a total of £612.4m (2011 - £578.9m : 2010 - £550.4m)
At the same time the pension fund shows that it owes £270.7m compared with £156m, 5 years ago. Although these sums are off balance sheet, the funding has had to be built up over the years out of available resources.
And I've already mentioned that there is a downward trend in the receipt of large legacies across the whole charitable sector. RNLI is (my surmise) particularly vulnerable to such a downturn because historically a lot of its major capital expenditure (new boats, new boathouses) has often been funded to a significant extent by single legacies or donations (consider the number of lifeboats named after the donor or donors' loved one)
On the contrary, legacies recently topped £100m in the year and represent the largest source of finance.
If the reserves held by the RNLI were unjustified they would, trust me on this, fall foul of the Charity Commission and be told to draw them down. Since they are building them up that is clearly not an issue
Unlike the OP, who seems to have some strong anti-RNLI slant for some reason, I have no issue with the French model. If the French can run a successful lifeboat operation doing it their way good luck to them. I will lay very long odds though that they'd just love to have the level of funding enjoyed by the RNLI and I lay equally long odds that if they did they'd be gold plating their kit too!!!
What originally struck me was the number of people earning over £60K per year where the equivalent functions are performed by volunteers in France. Although these numbers have slightly fallen over the last two years from 44 in 2010 to 37 in 2012, overall staff numbers have slightly increased from 1609 to 1624 over the same period. Doesn’t sound like much of a cost cutting exercise to me.
The second aspect was how much more the RNLI boats cost compared to the nearest French equivalent even excluding the Shannon which in itself represents a step increase.
Does the RNLI perform better as a lifesaving organization than the SNSM? That’s a question which I believe members could be asking.
1. Originally Posted by Sybarite
I am no expert on lifeboats, like most people on here but I do have experience of large organizations, including not for profit ones..
In the first part, I thought you were an expert on French lifeboats and how much better they do the job than anyone else
I have never pretended to be but am capable of reading what experts say and of listening to those who use them.
On the second part, you do surprise me as you posts would indicate otherwise, especially in the not for profit sector (where I do have considerable experience at every level)
Not sure that this make sense. If you mean that I don’t have experience of large not for profit organizations I have been responsible for the audit of two major international ones and was myself treasurer of another for 6 years – where my proposed budgets were unanimously approved by the members.
Originally Posted by Sybarite
My instinct is that some organizations when they are flush with cash, forget what things can get like when times get tough again; they get lazy and take on prestige projects. I can remember one client who was in a similar position, albeit on a different scale, who ignored my warnings and went bankrupt before the year was out.
If the RNLI can continue to convince people to give them money, well good on them. However, sometimes people change their mind or they have some basic concept of what value represents which appears to me to be glossed over by many contributors to these threads..
Now stop and think about what you have written and then reconsider your uninformed and ill considered objections to the RNLI maintaining and improving reserves!
<snipitty snip>
Originally Posted by Sybarite
Just looking at the accounts indicates to me that such discipline is not in the RNLI's radar and what amazes me is that you seem so resigned to accepting this. Again this is no criticisms of the people at the sharp end who do a wonderful job, as they do in France at one tenth of the operating budget.
The RNLI IS actively looking at cost reduction where appropriate. There's been a lot about it in the house magazine and what have you of late
Over 1600 paid employees compared with the French 70. There’s an area to consider to start with.
However, the RNLI is NOT, and quite rightly is not, a cost centric organisation. Due to the success of its fund raising efforts and its long standing and carefully nurtured standing with the British Public, the organisation enjoys a level of funding the envy of other not for profit bodies the world over
That enables the RNLI to put quality and fitness for purpose above all else. Shannon is an example of this. Early tests (and it has been fascinating to follow the development process from the articles and news feeds) on off the shelf pilot boat hulls led to that approach (which I believe has been the mainstay of the French fleet?) being rejected in favour of a custom in-house hull design. Not because the pilot boat hull was useless but because it wasn't as good as it could be
Another example would be the decision to swap out the standard tractor engine in favour of a solution tailored for the job. The standard engine would have worked OK, the custom solution will work better.
I have given the criticisms relating to jet engines by an experienced cox’n. Nobody has specifically addressed those criticisms other than to say that the RNLI must have considered them.
One German subsidiary in a group that I worked for (producing brake linings) went bankrupt because they always wanted to produce a “Rolls Royce”, whereas the “Ford” version was fit for purpose.
Nobody, NOBODY, is being "ripped off" by the RNLI. Nobody is forced to donate to the organisation, no tax payers money at all is spent supporting it. If the RNLI wants to spend a million, two million or three million or more on each single lifeboat and it can raise the funds to do so, why shouldn't they?
Maybe not but I am sure that a lot of the donors don’t know that their money is not being used to build boats but is going into an investment account to earn money. When I first criticized the RNLI, not last year but many years ago, their reserves were around £400m; now at end of 2012 they were £613m and what’s the betting for a further increase in 2013.
Right enough, as a member and supporter I don't want to see money being actually wasted but if gold plating the hull of a Shannon class lifeboat will make the work of the crew a teeny bit easier, or make the boat a fraction of a knot faster or any other slight but tangible improvement bring it on as far as I'm concerned!
Would you prefer a gold plated hull, or two additional boats?
Now back to reserves. Many people, even people well versed in business finance etc., struggle to understand this issue properly
An organisation such as the RNLI MUST maintain a significant capital reserve. However, that reserve is not "wasted", it's not doing "nothing". It will be invested in funds and portfolios where it will generate income, the capital reserve will enable the RNLI to partially if not completely self-insure and it insulates the organisation against fluctuations in income from donations (when times are good, the reserves can be built up, when they aren't you can draw down on the reserves)
Furthermore, some of that reserve will be from ring fenced donations (I do not claim to know to what extent in the case of the RNLI) often legacies where the donor stipulated in their will something like "to the RNLI I leave £1m to build a new boathouse at xxxx when it becomes necessary". Until it's necessary, that million quid can't be spent so goes into the reserves until a new boathouse IS needed at xxxx
Endowment reserves ie reserves which are intended simply to generate income are £10m. Restricted reserves are £281.4m where people eg said I want that money to go towards a boat or something. Designated reserves are those that have been set aside for all future planned expenditure: on boats, infrastructure etc £237.6m. Free reserves are £83.4m. That makes a total of £612.4m (2011 - £578.9m : 2010 - £550.4m)
At the same time the pension fund shows that it owes £270.7m compared with £156m, 5 years ago. Although these sums are off balance sheet, the funding has had to be built up over the years out of available resources.
And I've already mentioned that there is a downward trend in the receipt of large legacies across the whole charitable sector. RNLI is (my surmise) particularly vulnerable to such a downturn because historically a lot of its major capital expenditure (new boats, new boathouses) has often been funded to a significant extent by single legacies or donations (consider the number of lifeboats named after the donor or donors' loved one)
On the contrary, legacies recently topped £100m in the year and represent the largest source of finance.
If the reserves held by the RNLI were unjustified they would, trust me on this, fall foul of the Charity Commission and be told to draw them down. Since they are building them up that is clearly not an issue
Unlike the OP, who seems to have some strong anti-RNLI slant for some reason, I have no issue with the French model. If the French can run a successful lifeboat operation doing it their way good luck to them. I will lay very long odds though that they'd just love to have the level of funding enjoyed by the RNLI and I lay equally long odds that if they did they'd be gold plating their kit too!!!
What originally struck me was the number of people earning over £60K per year where the equivalent functions are performed by volunteers in France. Although these numbers have slightly fallen over the last two years from 44 in 2010 to 37 in 2012, overall staff numbers have slightly increased from 1609 to 1624 over the same period. Doesn’t sound like much of a cost cutting exercise to me.
The second aspect was how much more the RNLI boats cost compared to the nearest French equivalent even excluding the Shannon which in itself represents a step increase.
Does the RNLI perform better as a lifesaving organization than the SNSM? That’s a question which I believe members could be asking.
Last edited:
dogleg
Well-Known Member
I have given the criticisms relating to jet engines by an experienced cox’n. Nobody has specifically addressed those criticisms other than to say that the RNLI must have considered them.
the Dutch have operated an all jet offshore fleet successfully for 20 years +
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
I can well believe that. How do they handle the gravel problem?
TimBennet
Well-Known Member
Like so much else, this has been explained, but you just don't want to hear the answer; So once again: if you operate a jet boat in the same sort of waters in which a conventional boat (or tunnel hull) can operate, then there is no more wear and tear on a jet. There are no parts that touch and the power produced in planing and semi planing modes is more usable and controllable than conventional stern gear.
However, if you operate a boat in water so shallow that there is a very high suspended sediment load, then you have two choices; either choose a boat with a conventional stern gear and risk damage to prop, strut and shaft (or outboard leg) together with possible catastrophic hull rupture that in all likelihood will lead to the vessel becoming crippled or lost, or alternatively use a jet drive boat that will achieve the mission, but may require worn parts to be replaced as necessary. It's because the consequences of operating a conventional boat in shallow breaking water is so catastrophically bad, that makes any maintenance requirements of a jet boat acceptable. But this only applies to the very limited part of their operating envelope where no other boat could even be risked.
You keep saying that there is a French boat that is directly comparable to the Shannon, but again this is not true. Although the operating speeds in given wave conditions are quoted as similar, the difference with the Shannon is that the requirement for acceptable accelerations (g - forces) on the crew was set at a lower threshold after the test crew suffered injuries during the evaluation phase of existing commercially available hulls. The findings were then replicated in the test tanks when 10 models (including the French hull) were examined.
There is a huge body of knowledge about jets and their use. The RNLI was slow coming to the party but have benefitted with all the development work that has been done for 40 years in New Zealand, Australia, Holland and the Pacific Northwest in the US. The French similarly are recent converts and I designed jet powered work boats for their diving support vessels over twenty years go as they said nothing comparable was available domestically.
Bru
Well-Known Member
Lest anybody think I've conceded the argument to the bean counting Francophile, far from it. However, I'm on the mobile and dealing with the mash up quote and comment is too much hassle
It is, in any case, pointless since we've been over this ground more than once and going round in circles makes me dizzy
added to which it's nearly beer-o-clock
It is, in any case, pointless since we've been over this ground more than once and going round in circles makes me dizzy
added to which it's nearly beer-o-clock
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Many thanks for this informed response.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
You quoted, I challenged using the RNLI's own figures.
Perhaps a little less of the ad hom and a little more of the facts might reinforce your argument.
dogleg
Well-Known Member
I find it difficult to believe that the SNSM would put a boat into service which potentially risked injuring the crew - and I think we would have heard about it.
dogleg
Well-Known Member
I find it difficult to believe that the SNSM would put a boat into service which potentially risked injuring the crew - and I think we would have heard about it.
Might be wrong but this quote may refer to the first FCB2 prototype used by the RNLI and rejected because of to much slamming in head seas, not the French boats. This delayed the project for some years and caused the RNLI to evaluate several commercial hulls including the French beak design and others.
The Dutch manage the problems of sand very well their boats are rarely off service.
Might be wrong but this quote may refer to the first FCB2 prototype used by the RNLI and rejected because of to much slamming in head seas, not the French boats. This delayed the project for some years and caused the RNLI to evaluate several commercial hulls including the French beak design and others.
The Dutch manage the problems of sand very well their boats are rarely off service.
