Liferaft used to save life?

[Rivers & creeks]

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.

Overexcited tosh. "Poor glue"????? Sure the likes of SEAGO/Wetline/Ocean Safety use "poor glue"

Four years ago the Irish Sea incident where the liferaft failed to inflate - it was a Zodiac and that is hardly a budget make. Maybe they used "poor quality air" for the inflation.

 

[Tranona]

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 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, 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?

Sorry you misunderstand me. I have not started any threads, only contributed to those started by others if i think I have something to contribute.

It would be useful if you could share your detailed statistics of failures by type and make.

My observations are based on the MAIB reports of real life use - not simulations, and I think you will find that you cannot equate failure (of any sort) to price. This is firstly because the numbers are so small, no real pattern emerges, and secondly because (based on the reports) so few different types of rafts have been "tested" for real. Up until recently the majority of rafts in use were the "expensive" makes - and they can fail. Failure can be due to not inflating correctly, (usually upside down), difficulty of boarding, structural failure (falling apart) or failing to inflate at all (which may be a maintenance issue).

The comment on Seago was from an Irish report of the abandonment of a motor sailer that was in danger of sinking. The liferaft was a new Seago and the crew survived (from memory) several days. Suggest you read the full report to get all the information.

The overall picture of liferafts in real life is not encouraging. This is not a criticism as I know manufacturers put a lot of effort into improving quality and functionality. Rather it is a reflection on the fact that it is unreasonable to expect a lightweight "rubber" raft that has been inflated (hopefully!) in a hurry to stand up to the sort of conditions where well found yachts have foundered.

Of course there are people who owe their lives to rafts, but there are also some who have died because of their failure to perform - again not a criticism, just a recognition that having a life raft on your yacht is not a guarantee of total safety.

As you will see from many posts on this subject, many people buy a raft because it makes them feel more secure. In some ways it is a false sense of security, but actually the chances of ever having to use it are so remote, that sense is unlikely ever to be tested.

 

[Xskipper]

My observations are based on the MAIB reports of real life use - not simulations, and I think you will find that you cannot equate failure (of any sort) to price. This is firstly because the numbers are so small, no real pattern emerges, and secondly because (based on the reports) so few different types of rafts have been "tested" for real. Up until recently the majority of rafts in use were the "expensive" makes - and they can fail. Failure can be due to not inflating correctly, (usually upside down), difficulty of boarding, structural failure (falling apart) or failing to inflate at all (which may be a maintenance issue).

[I]This paragraph is contradictory- you are basing all your assumptions/observations on MAIB reports which as you then quite rightly say are of such a small number that no trend emerges. As I said in my previous post yes all rafts can fail but in any type of test real, simulated or otherwise the cheaper rafts have most incidences of failure- fact[/I]

The overall picture of liferafts in real life is not encouraging. This is not a criticism as I know manufacturers put a lot of effort into improving quality and functionality. Rather it is a reflection on the fact that it is unreasonable to expect a lightweight "rubber" raft that has been inflated (hopefully!) in a hurry to stand up to the sort of conditions where well found yachts have foundered.
Not unreasonable to expect a raft to withstand these conditions- that is exactly what they are designed for- they are "survival craft".

Of course there are people who owe their lives to rafts, but there are also some who have died because of their failure to perform - again not a criticism, just a recognition that having a life raft on your yacht is not a guarantee of total safety.

As you will see from many posts on this subject, many people buy a raft because it makes them feel more secure. In some ways it is a false sense of security, but actually the chances of ever having to use it are so remote, that sense is unlikely ever to be tested.
Yes it does make them feel more secure, and yes the chances of them using it are remote but no it is not a false sense of security.[/QUOTE]

I have never said that everyone needs a liferaft but it is something that like everything should be risk assessed.

I dont intend to get into some sort of cyber argument over this and will close by saying all my comments are based on fact not emotion or opinion, which I consider to be an important point when talking about items which may potentially save someones life.

 

[Tranona]

[I]This paragraph is contradictory- you are basing all your assumptions/observations on MAIB reports which as you then quite rightly say are of such a small number that no trend emerges. As I said in my previous post yes all rafts can fail but in any type of test real, simulated or otherwise the cheaper rafts have most incidences of failure- fact[/I]


Not unreasonable to expect a raft to withstand these conditions- that is exactly what they are designed for- they are "survival craft".



I dont intend to get into some sort of cyber argument over this and will close by saying all my comments are based on fact not emotion or opinion, which I consider to be an important point when talking about items which may potentially save someones life.[/I]

Look forward to seeing your "facts" that support your assertion that "cheaper rafts have most incidences of failure". What tests is this statement based on and where are the results published?

You are right - it is reasonable to expect a piece of survival equipment to do its job, but the reality is that it does not consistently do it very well. Perhaps we expect too much. That popular image of stepping off your sinking boat into a nice comfortable liferaft to be picked up a short while later is far removed from reality. Survival courses go part way toward reflecting what the reality might be like, but are just a simulation - the real thing is usually far worse and beyond most peoples' experience.

There is a shortage of "facts" in this debate and a lot of emotion. That is why I try to draw peoples' attention to the reported incidents. Of course it is entirely up to them whether they take any notice, and I suspect most are not really interested as they cannot really conceive what might happen in a survival situation so take comfort in buying the equipment just in case.

 

[KellysEye]

> The liferaft inflated upside down so was of limited use.

On the RYA sea survival course they teach you how to turn over an inverted life raft, which you practice. It's quite easy and I suspect not impossible in heavy weather.

 

[Coaster]

A Liferaft is a superb purchase - what other £500 could bring you the deep sense of reassurance and of having "done the right thing"?

Surely a few good lifejackets would be £500 better spent, for the average leisure boater?

I'm not anti-liferaft. Each boat owner should decide how to spend their safety budget. Obviously individual needs will vary. For example a trans-oceanic boat has a greater need of a liferaft than, say, an small inshore angling dayboat.

We chose not to have a liferaft, believing that our money was better spent on other safety items such as radar.

 

[Tranona]

> The liferaft inflated upside down so was of limited use.

On the RYA sea survival course they teach you how to turn over an inverted life raft, which you practice. It's quite easy and I suspect not impossible in heavy weather.

That is not what the first hand accounts say. Suggest you read the report on Creightons Naturally as an example.

It might be quite easy in a pool but when you are at the limits of your physical endurance and being battered by storm force winds and heavy seas what seemed easy when you practised it one afternoon becomes very different.

Not that I have experienced a survival situation, only the simulation, but almost any account of survival situations will give you a flavour of how unlike it is from anything you have experienced before.

 

[Rivers & creeks]

Surely a few good lifejackets would be £500 better spent, for the average leisure boater?

I'm not anti-liferaft. Each boat owner should decide how to spend their safety budget. Obviously individual needs will vary. For example a trans-oceanic boat has a greater need of a liferaft than, say, an small inshore angling dayboat.

We chose not to have a liferaft, believing that our money was better spent on other safety items such as radar.

I agree, buying a liferaft for us was a purely emotional decision. We sail with three children aged 11yrs to 3months and we wanted the peace of mind that a liferaft gives. Statistically I know I will never need it, but that doesn't mean I won't buy one. Silly really as I could have added to the boat's safety in other ways with that £500 but we both decided the peace of mind was what we wanted. To be honest I think that's true for the vast majority of liferaft purchasers.

 

[Xskipper]

That is not what the first hand accounts say. Suggest you read the report on Creightons Naturally as an example.

It might be quite easy in a pool but when you are at the limits of your physical endurance and being battered by storm force winds and heavy seas what seemed easy when you practised it one afternoon becomes very different.

Not that I have experienced a survival situation, only the simulation, but almost any account of survival situations will give you a flavour of how unlike it is from anything you have experienced before.

So this is a good reason not to carry a raft...?

By your own admission you have not experienced a survival situation and your last sea survival course was 30 years ago but you feel qualified to advise on the merit of liferafts on the strength of reading a few reports....

As I have already stated my comments and statements come from fact and a 25 year career spent in the seagoing commercial and SAR field. You want me to provide evidence of the liferaft failures etc- I have already mentioned one example but perhaps you should dig a little deeper than MAIB reports, which in your own admission are very few and far between.

You said previously that you had not started any threads debating the pros and cons of carrying a life raft, if anyone would care to search the forum for http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156214 or http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156382 I think you will find that you have....

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. ~Winston Churchill

 

[Tranona]

Never suggested people should not carry rafts - just suggesting that they consider whether it is necessary.

The MAIB reports are few because there are few incidents involving pleasure craft. With your background I hope you appreciate that evidence should inform decisions, and the evidence in relation to pleasure boats is very thin, but suggests foundering is extremely rare in UK coastal waters.

Of course in different contexts you need to take into account different factors. The course I went on was for personnel working on the North Sea oil rigs where the need is very different. Similarly commercial and fishing requirements are different because of the environment and working pattern increase risks. Of course one can learn from other environments, but it is not wise to believe that it is all directly transferrable.

If you read carefully what I say, you will find that it is always in relation to coastal and cross channel pleasure sailers where the evidence is that the incidence off foundering and a liferaft being deployed is rare, and on the even rarer occasions liferafts have been deployed they have not been without their problems. So they are not the panacea that they might seem, but in a sense that is not the real issue as such events are always unpredictable in their outcome.

The real question is the need for liferafts at all on pleasure craft. For example, every charter and sailing school yacht that is coded requires a liferaft - and yet there is only one recorded incident of a charter boat foundering (and the fact that it was a charter boat was not relevant) and the liferaft was not deployed, nor would it have affected the outcome if it had been. Similarly pleasure power boats are rarely involved in foundering incidents, and the two recent ones that come to mind were both on delivery trips with professional crews. It is easy to see the reason why when you look at the most common causes of foundering - extreme weather, collision and structural failure.

You don't have to quote Winston Churchill at me - we share the same birthday (and probably one of the few people still alive who walked round his coffin in Westminster)! My professional life was founded on critical enquiry, so I do know how to listen, but that does not mean one has to accept all one hears!

BTW both the threads you quote were linked to previous threads on the subject that were not started by me! - not that it really matters.

 

[nimbusgb]

An interesting discussion. Face with a budget of £500 to £1000 on balance I would say that if the sailing is coastal waters in the uK or the Med then my money would be spent on an active ( dual band ) radar transponder first, AIS second and a liferaft last especially since most of the time we are sailing we have an inflated rubber duck behind us anyway.

That having been said I have all of the above already. Perhaps, as with a lot of other things when sailing, the decision is the skippers and should be made on an assessment of the risks and dangers for each particular voyage?

 

[Xskipper]

That having been said I have all of the above already. Perhaps, as with a lot of other things when sailing, the decision is the skippers and should be made on an assessment of the risks and dangers for each particular voyage?

I think all other things aside Tranona and I would seem to agree on that statement...!

 

[DogWatch]

Never suggested people should not carry rafts - just suggesting that they consider whether it is necessary.

You appear to be doing this with such vivacity that you wont be happy until everyone on a pleasure vessel removes and discards their liferafts.

So they are not the panacea that they might seem

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are the only one who is arguing this point, the rest of us reading your posts are quite aware of the risks involved. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about other people recklessly carrying rafts. Is your ego so vast you believe you can be the only one worthy to make an informed decision on this matter?

 

[rhumbunctious]

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

If they're honest, I'd expect them to freely admit that it is better than nothing, but nothing like what might be encountered in a full gale, etc. One can reasonably only simulate so much.

I've also been through such training, and also been in a gale, and was thinking about how what I was doing in the training would be different, even seemingly impossible, in such gale conditions.

**** happens at sea, and there are countless variables.

All that said, IMO life rafts are worth the cost, when venturing offshore.

 

[DownWest]

From reading odd blogs and articles about offshore cruisers. Most would prefere, if the boat is big enough, to have a rigid dinghy with enough built in floatation and a cover so they can do without a LR (and the servicing hassle). The remark earlier about inshore fishing boats being the less likely to need them I find odd. The amateurs in small boats seem to be often in the news, and frequently without LJs as well. In am not saying they should buy LRs, probably way down the list on a sub 20ft outboard powered boat, but doesn't mean they don't need them more than most.

 

[Tranona]

You appear to be doing this with such vivacity that you wont be happy until everyone on a pleasure vessel removes and discards their liferafts.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are the only one who is arguing this point, the rest of us reading your posts are quite aware of the risks involved. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about other people recklessly carrying rafts. Is your ego so vast you believe you can be the only one worthy to make an informed decision on this matter?

Sorry if you draw that conclusion. All I am suggesting is that people might consider the issue through a different pair of eyes and look at what experience tells us and not slavishly accept what might be considered the norm.

A number of things struck me when reading all the reports, one of which was what I expected to see was not there. No power boats, no family sailors, almost no "ordinary cruisers", almost no charter boats or sailing school boats, no sinkings from holing or on board fires. In other words the scenarios that come to most peoples' minds when thinking about the worst thing that can happen.

The numbers are small and the events are random, so the only way you can make sense of what the data is telling you is to find commonalities in the incidents as they don't fit the "normal" categories of analysis. This is a very common approach to analysing small amounts of diverse data. I have already reported some of the key commonalities among the causes, to which you can add another, and that is that almost all the crews involved were experienced, so no evidence of people getting out of their depth (at least in moderate circumstances) through lack of experience or competence, but clearly getting to the limit in extreme circumstances. Almost all of the reports where liferafts were deployed (which is an even smaller number) report problems with their use.

So, the question that usually starts these dicussions is something like "I am thinking of expanding my cruising this year (crossing the channel, overnight passages etc) should I buy a liferaft" - often adding my wife and children are coming with me. The only answer to that is that the chances, based on many years' observations is that you will never need it - so the decision is up to you.

However, what is really lacking in this debate is any serious attempt at analysing incidents that have the potential to become serious, but don't. Usually they are resolved by outside intervention or by the crew's own actions. Many of these, usually the ones that involve outside intervention get recorded - but mainly categorical information such as type of boat, location, action taken. Very little is recorded as to causes other than basic categories like engine failure, severe weather, run aground etc. The strength of official enquiries into incidents is that they do try to establish the causes, but of course it is a long and expensive process so reserved just for the most severe.

My personal view is that cruising sailors themselves make the need for a liferaft unnecessary. An understanding of the potential dangers is the driver of safety. However it is a matter of personal choice whether you fit one or not.

A number of people have made the point about risk assessment, and clearly the need for certain types of safety equipment changes when the risk changes. So if you are planning sailing in extreme weather, or pushing a boat to its design limits, or fishing in all weathers in a potentially unstable boat, the probability of foundering rises (although still small) so the need for a liferaft becomes more compelling - and is in many cases compulsory.

 

[BrianH]

However, what is really lacking in this debate is any serious attempt at analysing incidents that have the potential to become serious, but don't. Usually they are resolved by outside intervention or by the crew's own actions.
[snip]
My personal view is that cruising sailors themselves make the need for a liferaft unnecessary. An understanding of the potential dangers is the driver of safety. However it is a matter of personal choice whether you fit one or not.

I found your posts thoughtful and undeserving of the criticism directed at them. I have personally assessed the risks and do not carry a liferaft. The grounds are mainly on cost when matched to potential need. Not just the original purchase price but also the necessary, regular servicing ones, together with the logistical difficulties of those where I am based. I am retired and on a fixed pension so a liferaft would be a significant expenditure to add to my costs.

One contributing factor in my risk assessment is that I sail the Adriatic Sea single-handed with the rare excursion, such as this year, into Greek waters. Thus the conditions are usually benign and when not (and they can often be otherwise) unlikely to be so for long.

I do recognise the threats. In 2008 I found deep water in my cabin when going below, waves breaking aboard at the bow in rough weather were draining below from a ruptured scupper drain tube broken from a shifting load (so rough was it), together with the broken section being periodically immersed on the lee side. I truly believed I was foundering, with no idea why, until I tacked downwind bringing the waves on the quarter and no longer breaking on deck with the broken tube now above water level; pumping then reduced the cabin water level - phew!

If I did have to abandon ship for any reason I have an inflated dinghy always stowed on the foredeck, which I can launch in seconds. My grab bag that I keep by the companionway contains hand-held GPS, VHF and mobile phone with roaming sim card. Croatian telcom services have their antennas on mountains and their signals often extend well into Italian waters - probably further than VHF. I would add an EPIRB long before considering a liferaft. Active radar and AIS transponders (I already have a receiver) would also be higher on the list.

Twice I have almost been run down by fast ferries travelling well in excess of 30 knots - collision risk is very real off-shore in the Adriatic, but I wonder what chance then of launching a liferaft - or of my inflatable. My AIS receiver and a VHF channel 16 call is my first line of defence there.

I do not consider buying a liferaft but that's my personal decision, others may well choose otherwise, especially those in less clement climes with families or crews for which they have responsibilities.

 

[DownWest]

Tranona,
Just to add two 'statistics' I know of, spread over many years.
A fire caused by inexperienced crew cooking and a collision with a submerged object. Both caused abandonment within minutes. Both good cases for a LR. Both used dinghys and were picked up without being able to get off a call. The former because the boat was on delivery and the radio was taken out for the 'next boat', a Naval vessel saw the smoke. And the latter, in the carribean, was out of VHF range. He was picked up by a Costa Rica fishing boat. Neither were in bad weather, so an important factor in getting off safely.
A

I missed Barnicle's post, but fully agree with him, inc. the criticism of you.

 

[PilotWolf]

With regards to the time to launch I would add that a raft stored below, in a locker or chained/padlocked is as good as no raft.

Ideally they need to be fitted with a hydrostatic release as well so it floats free in a sudden sinking.

PW.

 

[Tranona]

Tranona,
Just to add two 'statistics' I know of, spread over many years.
A fire caused by inexperienced crew cooking and a collision with a submerged object. Both caused abandonment within minutes. Both good cases for a LR. Both used dinghys and were picked up without being able to get off a call. The former because the boat was on delivery and the radio was taken out for the 'next boat', a Naval vessel saw the smoke. And the latter, in the carribean, was out of VHF range. He was picked up by a Costa Rica fishing boat. Neither were in bad weather, so an important factor in getting off safely.
A

I missed Barnicle's post, but fully agree with him, inc. the criticism of you.

Thanks for this. Yes, if you spread the net wider you can find many other examples of founderings. For example recently there was a report (actually quite a bit of "news" type coverage) of a yacht sinking in severe weather in the Indian ocean and crew taking to the raft, which progressively disnitegrated. They were found and rescued. Problem with trying to make use of such incidents in understanding what happened is that there is rarely a published enquiry - or if there is it is local. I do not know for example how many and what type of incidents there have been in French waters or involving French yachts, although I assume there is a similar form of investigation to MAIB.

Another common factor in just about any sea rescue is communications as the majority are resolved through outside intervention. Clearly puts means of attracting attention (flares, radio, EPIRB etc) top of the list, although interestingly there is very little published data on the effectiveness of the last named. There is plenty about its potential, but not the extent of its use in real situations. However that is another debate for another time.

As many on here know, my boat was originally a Greek registered charter boat, so has the compulsory ocean spec raft and EPIRB. This despite rarely being out of sight of land while it was working, and until recently no record of any of the hundreds of similar boats being involved in a foundering incident. There was one last year - ironically a fire - where the crew did deploy the liferaft. Await the results of the report (if there is one) with interest.

As you know many European countries demand a liferaft be fitted to sail more than 12 miles offshore. Apart from the difficulty in enforcing this, there is no real evidence from risk rises the further the boat travels from shore The biggest single loss of life in one incident of foundering in UK and Irish waters occurred in a harbour and many others happen because of proximity to land.