Liferaft used to save life?

[tt65]

Does anyone have any idea how often liferafts have been deployed by yachts and saved lives in UK waters in recent years.

No reason for this, just interested.

 

[Tranona]

Does anyone have any idea how often liferafts have been deployed by yachts and saved lives in UK waters in recent years.

No reason for this, just interested.

Read the MAIB reports. Incidents go barely into double figures over the last 15 years. Bit higher but still only just over 20 if you count incidents where a liferaft might have been deployed - ie when a yacht foundered. A few more if you add in the Irish incidents. There are many years when there are no reports of foundering or of use of liferafts.

 

[mattnj]

how does that compate with other statistics, such as number of sinkings, number of fires, dismasting etc?

 

[Tranona]

how does that compate with other statistics, such as number of sinkings, number of fires, dismasting etc?

You need to read the MAIB terms of reference and its reports to put these incidents into context. Just as a summary they are required to investigate any incident in UK territorial waters or involving a British registered ship where lives have been lost or potentially life threatening. Many such incidents do not all result in a full report, but those that do involve loss of life or it is considered are of such seriousness as to be in the public interest are subject to a report. The same basic rules apply in Ireland.

MAIB extracts pleasure boats as a separate category and publishes its reports. They are all available on their website. If you have the patience to read them, you will find that the number of sinkings (or foundering), is very low and there are 3 main circumstances. Structural failure (mainly racing boats losing keels), collisions and extreme weather. Fire has featured in a couple of recent incidents involving power boats, but I don't think the full reports are out yet. Virtually all other incidents involve sailing boats.

There are no reliable statistics of incidents that don't result in foundering, except from the RNLI, who report in different categories, and MCA who report summary data with very little detail. There is no formal mechanism for reporting incidents such as dismasting - or even sinking if there is no loss of life.

Having said all that there is little in the way of serious incidents that involve loss of lives, deployment of liferafts etc that goes unreported. Once you have read the reports you will appreciate that the chances of an average cruising sailor in UK coastal waters ever getting into a situation where they need a liferaft is just about zero. Not impossible - but after you have read the circumstances you will see that it is pretty easy to avoid the need altogether - as proved by the tiny number of incidents compared with the high level of activity.

 

[mattnj]

You need to read the MAIB terms of reference and its reports to put these incidents into context. Just as a summary they are required to investigate any incident in UK territorial waters or involving a British registered ship where lives have been lost or potentially life threatening. Many such incidents do not all result in a full report, but those that do involve loss of life or it is considered are of such seriousness as to be in the public interest are subject to a report. The same basic rules apply in Ireland.

MAIB extracts pleasure boats as a separate category and publishes its reports. They are all available on their website. If you have the patience to read them, you will find that the number of sinkings (or foundering), is very low and there are 3 main circumstances. Structural failure (mainly racing boats losing keels), collisions and extreme weather. Fire has featured in a couple of recent incidents involving power boats, but I don't think the full reports are out yet. Virtually all other incidents involve sailing boats.

There are no reliable statistics of incidents that don't result in foundering, except from the RNLI, who report in different categories, and MCA who report summary data with very little detail. There is no formal mechanism for reporting incidents such as dismasting - or even sinking if there is no loss of life.

Having said all that there is little in the way of serious incidents that involve loss of lives, deployment of liferafts etc that goes unreported. Once you have read the reports you will appreciate that the chances of an average cruising sailor in UK coastal waters ever getting into a situation where they need a liferaft is just about zero. Not impossible - but after you have read the circumstances you will see that it is pretty easy to avoid the need altogether - as proved by the tiny number of incidents compared with the high level of activity.

Thanks, my take on the liferaft is simple, it was about £500, and i we have kids on board, yes its expensive but affordable, i realise that i will never need it and even if i do one day it probably wont work ....but it it doesnt take up any space and i would never forgive myself if it burst into flames and we didnt have anywhere to go, a big fire on a boat must be very scary!

If i was old and it was just me and the wife, we probably wouldnt bother

 

[PCUK]

Remember that Fastnet when life-rafts killed people!
They got in the life-rafts and were drowned and the yachts were found still afloat and unmanned the next day.

 

[DogWatch]

Remember that Fastnet when life-rafts killed people!
They got in the life-rafts and were drowned and the yachts were found still afloat and unmanned the next day.

Should we all dispose of our rafts with that information?

Do you think people are silly for carrying a possible life saving raft on board their boats?

 

[Tranona]

Couple of observations.

First if you read the reports you will not find any incidents that involve families with children. Logical really as the incidents mostly occur in situations where nobody in their right mind would be sailing with children! Most of the people involved are experienced sailors caught up in extreme circumstances.

Second, no incidents involve sailing boats catching fire and sinking while at sea. There are, of course boats severely damaged or even sunk as a result of fire - but at anchor or docked. Again logical if you think about it.

Thirdly, if you have done the survivial course including the dunking you will appreciate that the chances of success are low. And like me you will do everything you can to avoid ever being in that situation for real.

Finally, the reports show liferafts are unreliable. They either do not inflate, inflate upside down or are difficult to board. To be fair manufacturers have tried to address these shortcomings, but the reality is the extreme conditions they are required to operate in are unpredictable. As an example, only last month a raft was launched to aid evacuation from a yacht in the Western Approaches. The yacht was not sinking, but decision was taken to take the crew off. The liferaft inflated upside down so was of limited use.

If you feel more comfortable having one - fine. I have one, but never expect to use and never expect to be in a situation where I would - and also recognising that the experience would be nothing like you imagine.

 

[tt65]

Feel Good

Thanks for that, I have had a look over MAIB.

I have had a liferaft for a few years now and I have just come to realise that I feel better with it than without. Feeling good is important I think. I know I will not use it.

 

[bert49uk]

a friend of mine was a R N L I crew member for over 30 years in the Bristol Channel not once did he rescue anyone from a life raft

 

[jwilson]

Remember that Fastnet when life-rafts killed people!
They got in the life-rafts and were drowned and the yachts were found still afloat and unmanned the next day.

I was about to say the same thing ! Seriously though they are a valid item of emergency equipment to carry. Note that I say emergency equipment not safety equipment - safety is not getting to a position where you have to use one.

 

[Xskipper]

Remember that Fastnet when life-rafts killed people!
They got in the life-rafts and were drowned and the yachts were found still afloat and unmanned the next day.

In the case of the Fastnet race the life rafts did not kill people and the people in the life rafts were not drowned.

They died of exposure/hypothermia- fact.

The fact that they did not stay with their boats as is advised has been debated, in some cases it may have been the best thing to do but in other cases if you have a dismasted yacht rolling through 360 degrees once every 5-10 minutes, to stay in the cockpit would be almost impossible and the cabin downright dangerous.

Life rafts are very reliable, rarely inflate upside down, have saved lives and will continue to save lives. That said they have the same problem as every piece of equipment in that you get what you pay for.

As has been said previously you have to risk assess your sailing- most of us wont need a life raft, some of us will, but this is no reflection on what for many has been the difference between life and death.

 

[mattnj]

I can't see the argument to not carry one is it just cost? Luckily not an issue for me.

 

[PilotWolf]

And likewise the fact a raft may inflate upside down being used as an example of them being unreliable is ridiculous!

Simple answer is to attend a survival course - yes you'll realise that all is not rosy BUT you will (or should!) be taught how to right the raft and how to get into it. I did one course in the RNLI tank at Poole, with the wave and wind machines on and even a small, slight female managed to right an 8 man raft without excessive difficulty.

Like insurance safety equipment is expensive and paying out lots of money for something you hope you never use is a bit alien but if you do need it it'll be priceless!

I cannot understand why there are so many posts here that are anti liftrafts / anti flares / anti radios / anti wearing lifejackets / etc.

Oh and surely statistically if these type of incident haven't occurred they must be more likely to soon?

PW

 

[Tranona]

Life rafts are very reliable, rarely inflate upside down, have saved lives and will continue to save lives. That said they have the same problem as every piece of equipment in that you get what you pay for.

Not sure of your evidence to support this statement, but it is not supported by the MAIB and Irish equivalent reports on foundering incidents involving yachts.

Read them for yourself and make up your own mind. - and see my post above on the latest reported failure of a raft to perform its function when required.

You last sentence is just a throwaway line - failure occurs on all types irrespective of price - and the one that performed "best" in real life was a cheap Seago which received glowing reports from the investigators.

 

[Tranona]

And likewise the fact a raft may inflate upside down being used as an example of them being unreliable is ridiculous!

Simple answer is to attend a survival course - yes you'll realise that all is not rosy BUT you will (or should!) be taught how to right the raft and how to get into it. I did one course in the RNLI tank at Poole, with the wave and wind machines on and even a small, slight female managed to right an 8 man raft without excessive difficulty.

Like insurance safety equipment is expensive and paying out lots of money for something you hope you never use is a bit alien but if you do need it it'll be priceless!

I cannot understand why there are so many posts here that are anti liftrafts / anti flares / anti radios / anti wearing lifejackets / etc.

Oh and surely statistically if these type of incident haven't occurred they must be more likely to soon?

PW

There is a big difference between what happens in a simulated environmet in a pool and what happens for real. As I have advised others, please read the reports and the first hand accounts of the difficulties of liferafts in real situations.

Your last comment does not make any sense. The causes of incidents that result in a foundering are well known, very rare and easily identified. They are random events and do not follow any pattern other than the commonality in the causes, which I referred to earlier.

It is not a question of being "anti" anything - it is understanding the issues, not just accepting the received wisdom, but basing ones approach on the hard evidence (if it is available). One of the problems is that the hard evidence of the efficacy of many "safety" devices is simply not available because the reporting and analysis of most incidents is not concerned with understanding cause and effect, but simply reporting in categories. This is not the case where serious incidents that justify an MAIB investigation and report are concerned, which is why they are such a rich source of learning.

 

[PilotWolf]

I'm sure the RNLI will be delighted to know that you consider their pool unrealistic!

I do read the MAIB reports regularly and found your response patronising to say the least. I am not a pleasure boater/yachtsman so maybe I have differing views but stand by my comment that many here seem very keen on putting people of carrying safety equipment because in their view it's out dated or not needed.

PW.

 

[Xskipper]

Not sure of your evidence to support this statement, but it is not supported by the MAIB and Irish equivalent reports on foundering incidents involving yachts.

Read them for yourself and make up your own mind. - and see my post above on the latest reported failure of a raft to perform its function when required.

You last sentence is just a throwaway line - failure occurs on all types irrespective of price - and the one that performed "best" in real life was a cheap Seago which received glowing reports from the investigators.

My evidence to support this statement comes from having inflated over 200 rafts over the past 25 years in various conditions- pool, simulated and sea.

Thanks for the tip but I read every MAIB report (merchant, fishing and leisure) as part of my job.

And I stand by my last sentence, in fact "failure occurs on all types irrespective of price" is the throw away line!
Failure can occur on any raft but it is a fact that it is more likely to happen on cheaper rafts- they are cheaper for a reason, and will be made of inferior materials, have inadequate ballast pockets, poor glue and poor equipment.

As for liferaft tests these are all subjective, depending on the mechanics of the test, the environment, expectations and preconceived ideas, I know I have been involved in some.

I presume the the test in which the Seago raft performed best to which you refer was the PBO test- all well and good but Voiles & Voiliers a leading French boating magazine performed a similar test in 2008 in which they eventually refused to include the Seago raft, and I quote "we considered they did not deserve to be compared with the other liferafts", "we eventually decided that this liferaft was not reliable enough to fulfil its role".

Doesnt mean Seago is a "bad" raft, as I said these tests are subjective and not a statement of good and bad, but you must put the results into perspective.

I know you have already started a couple of threads debating the value of carrying a liferaft, perhaps you cant afford one and are trying to justify this- I dont know? But I could introduce you to 8 people (3 different incidents) that are only alive today because they had a liferaft, perhaps you could convince them that liferafts are merely expensive ballast?

 

[Tranona]

I did not say the pool was unrealistic. What you cannot simulate is the fact that most liferaft deployments are "in extremis" - in other words when people are cold, tired, scared and are usually (even if they have been in the simulated situation) doing this for the first time. This comes across very clearly in the first hand accounts. On the other hand the relatively few "orderly" abandonments such as the Moody that was hit by a container ship tend to go like clockwork.

Of course the simulations have their place - I used the one in Stonehouse over 30 years ago and remember it to this day. Its biggest impact on me was to ensure as far as I am able to never get into a situation where I need a liferaft.

Safety at sea (for pleasure sailors) is more a state of mind than a collection of devices for (maybe) sorting things out when they go wrong. The vast majority of people that go sailing for pleasure never get anywhere near situations of survival. Again if you read the reports thoroughly you will find that they involve mostly experienced people using their boats at the limits - either boat or weather, not mum and dad +2.4 on their holidays. The exception to this is maybe collision, although that is rare because people take the precautions when near shipping. Having a sound vessel and avoiding extreme conditions is the responsibilty of the skipper.

It is pretty clear what the heirarchy of safety equipment is, in terms of usefulness in a particular context, and it is maybe less clear (because of lack of evidence) which are of doubtful use. It is not unreasonable that people should express different views on the matter rather than slavishly following some preconceived "party" line. It is for the individual to make their own decision about what they think is right in their circumstances.

 

[Colvic Watson]

A Liferaft is a superb purchase - what other £500 could bring you the deep sense of reassurance and of having "done the right thing"? I mean it, it was worth it for that. I will never use the liferaft, the chances are as close to zero as makes no difference. One huge benefit though is that with a MOB we now have a recovery strategy that stands a vague chance of actually working. Chuck it in, MOB gets in and we call for help - no way could my wife lift me up on anything other than a perfect calm day. An unconscious MOB is probably a death at sea situation so nothing much will work. A genuine MOB is much more likely than the yacht foundering. Either way I paid £500 for peace of mind and it was £500 well spent.