Liferaft used to save life?

[Tranona]

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.

The MAIB report on Ouzo suggested this - but provided no evidence that hydrostatic releases work as intended. It was also a significant discussion point in the Hooligan sinking, where the point waas made that it would be impractical to use such a device on a small yacht because of lack of free space and risk of accidental operation on boats such as Hooligan which are very "wet" when hard pressed.

Perhaps another device where the theoretical advantages do not show up in practice, although don't recall them being marketed for pleasure yachts, so probably a moot point.

 

[Xskipper]

The MAIB report on Ouzo suggested this - but provided no evidence that hydrostatic releases work as intended. It was also a significant discussion point in the Hooligan sinking, where the point waas made that it would be impractical to use such a device on a small yacht because of lack of free space and risk of accidental operation on boats such as Hooligan which are very "wet" when hard pressed.

Perhaps another device where the theoretical advantages do not show up in practice, although don't recall them being marketed for pleasure yachts, so probably a moot point.

More uninformed BS.... There is plenty of evidence to prove HRU`s work as intended- it is a very basic piece of equipment- I have never seen one of the reputable products fail in dozens of trials.
As for a "wet" yacht being hard pressed- HRU`s operate at a depth of between 1.5 and 4 metres- I would suggest if your raft and HRU are more than 1.5 metres under water that your are pressing a little too hard! Space is of course a consideration.

Most of your argument seems to be based on MAIB reports, for the benefit of the forum here is the extract from the Ouzo report relating to liferafts:

The MAIB believe a liferaft would have provided the best means of improving
survivability. Ouzo was not fitted with a liferaft because, when the owner was fitting
the boat out, he considered the yacht physically too small. However, a four-person
liferaft is now a relatively compact unit typically measuring 75x50x30cm and weighing
about 40kg. In this instance, it appears the crew had little time to deploy a raft, so an
invaluable addition would have been a hydrostatic release mechanism enabling the raft
to float free once the yacht had sunk.
In this case, a liferaft and hydrostatic release would almost certainly have saved the
lives of the three crewmen

It seems conclusive that the MAIB disagree with your statements regarding liferafts and HRU`s, in fact they do seem to be promoting their use.

I know you would rather save the merits of EPIRB`s for another debate but again the MAIB report (Ouzo) states that an EPIRB would have dramatically increased the crews chance of survival.

Further in the report there are examples of similar incidents please read for yourself-
Tuila/unknown vessel 2000-North Sea, four people lost, no evidence of the use of a liferaft.
Wahkuna/P&O Nedlloyd Vespucci 2003- English Channel, Moody 47 run down by a container ship and I quote " However, fortunately, the yacht carried a liferaft and the crew successfully abandoned to the raft and waited several hours before they were seen and safely rescued."

I have read this report on more than one occasion and nowhere do I see the line -Ouzo was not carrying a liferaft or EPIRB because statistically she did not need them and they dont work-, perhaps you need to take your argument to the MAIB.

 

[Greenheart]

Didn't the inflatable-manufacturer Tinker, produce an everyday-dinghy which could be fitted with a sort of inflatable canopy, which would right the boat if it was flipped? Granted, it looked rather 'last-resort', but doesn't that sum up every liferaft anyway?

Certainly one couldn't regret spending hundreds of pounds on equipment that might never give service, and the thing was almost invariably ready for use. I expect the same boat came with a sail and centreboard kit! Then again, if half the crew went ashore to the pub in the dinghy, and the anchored yacht dragged her hook into some calamitous denoument...

How effective a fire-extinguishing system would the price of a liferaft buy? For that matter, I've always enjoyed specifying over-sized bilge-pumps, whenever the decision was in my hands. As long as the batteries can cope, who will ever regret having bilge-water drained quickly? And in situations of great urgency, what could be more enragingly feeble than a small-bore hose spitting out no more than five or six gallons per minute?

I had the chance to select the bilge pump for a boat in Australia. I bought two...and fitted both. The owner reserved judgement. Either pump did all the work required on any normal day, with ease. Both working together would keep the crew from swimming with the Great Whites, for precious minutes or hours. The boat had no raft when I was there.

 

[DownWest]

Dan,
In the case I had a first hand acct from, the water was coming in so fast no bilge pump would have coped, short of a fire pump. Plus the skipper had no idea where it was holed. By the time he looked below, the water was well over the cabin sole and he actually got his foot stuck as some of the sole had floated up and he went down into the bilge. Approx. 5 min from impact to deciding to abandon.
A

Yikes, 2k posts. Back to the boat shed...

 

[Greenheart]

Quote (DownWest) the water was coming in so fast no bilge pump would have coped, short of a fire pump

Agreed, it's a question of degree. And maybe of construction, too. A wooden boat may initially leak a fair bit after an impact but the rate can eventually ease up. Swelling, I s'pose. If a steel boat's taking on gallons each minute as soon as she's struck, that's not going to slow with time.

Happily, this is just conjecture. I'll be content not to learn, the hard way.

Just the same, the combined output (something like 4000 gallons per hour) which the Aussie boat's pumps could eject, equate to what? ...eighteen tonnes per hour...that'd be 1000 litres every three and a half minutes, pouring in through the rupture. Enough to make one think in terms of abandonment with lesser pumps, but not too much to keep at bay a while, with serious kit and good batteries/generator.

Sorry about my flitting between metric and imperial. I always look at my 20 litre jerry can and think..."four and a half gallons..."

 

[Tranona]

More uninformed BS.... There is plenty of evidence to prove HRU`s work as intended- it is a very basic piece of equipment- I have never seen one of the reputable products fail in dozens of trials.
As for a "wet" yacht being hard pressed- HRU`s operate at a depth of between 1.5 and 4 metres- I would suggest if your raft and HRU are more than 1.5 metres under water that your are pressing a little too hard! Space is of course a consideration.

Most of your argument seems to be based on MAIB reports, for the benefit of the forum here is the extract from the Ouzo report relating to liferafts:

The MAIB believe a liferaft would have provided the best means of improving
survivability. Ouzo was not fitted with a liferaft because, when the owner was fitting
the boat out, he considered the yacht physically too small. However, a four-person
liferaft is now a relatively compact unit typically measuring 75x50x30cm and weighing
about 40kg. In this instance, it appears the crew had little time to deploy a raft, so an
invaluable addition would have been a hydrostatic release mechanism enabling the raft
to float free once the yacht had sunk.
In this case, a liferaft and hydrostatic release would almost certainly have saved the
lives of the three crewmen

It seems conclusive that the MAIB disagree with your statements regarding liferafts and HRU`s, in fact they do seem to be promoting their use.

I know you would rather save the merits of EPIRB`s for another debate but again the MAIB report (Ouzo) states that an EPIRB would have dramatically increased the crews chance of survival.

Further in the report there are examples of similar incidents please read for yourself-
Tuila/unknown vessel 2000-North Sea, four people lost, no evidence of the use of a liferaft.
Wahkuna/P&O Nedlloyd Vespucci 2003- English Channel, Moody 47 run down by a container ship and I quote " However, fortunately, the yacht carried a liferaft and the crew successfully abandoned to the raft and waited several hours before they were seen and safely rescued."

I have read this report on more than one occasion and nowhere do I see the line -Ouzo was not carrying a liferaft or EPIRB because statistically she did not need them and they dont work-, perhaps you need to take your argument to the MAIB.

Two points.

First I am not doubting that HRUs might work. I am not saying that they don't. What I am saying is that there seem to be no cases of them being used on pleasure yachts. I have tried over and over again to say that this discussion is (or started as) a question about the frequency of use of liferafts in pleasure yachts. See the OP.

Second, saying that something might or might not have happened if... is speculation.

The Wakhuna incident is unusual (but not unique) in that the collision happened in benign conditions (except for the fog!) and the yacht stayed afloat long enough for an orderly planned evacuation. If the VHF had not failed the crew would have been able to attract attention earlier - a simple DSC would have done the same job as an EPIRB.

Tiula is a very different situation and is more typical of collisions where the yacht is probably destroyed - as Ouzo was. One can only speculate whether having a liferaft would have made any difference to the outcome in either case. The argument in the Ouzo case was that the crew survived for some time after their boat was destroyed and may have survived IF they had access to a liferaft or IF outside assistance had been alerted quicker. These are very big IFS because nobody really knows what actually happened and personally I don't think the last statement from MAIB in that passage is supportable. My objection is not to the suggestion that a liferaft with an HRU fitted might have led to a different outcome - it is the use of the term "almost certainly" - which would have been more convincing if it had been supported by hard evidence drawn from other real world experiences.

This is the whole problem with this issue, there is very little consistent real world data to work with. Plenty of simulation, laboratory testing, extrapolation etc. and it is all too easy to accept this as a substitute for the real because the real is complex, messy and does not fit into neat categories. Not suggesting that experience in different fields or based on theoretical arguments should be ignored - just that they should not be accepted uncritically.

 

[GrahamM376]

There is plenty of evidence to prove HRU`s work as intended- it is a very basic piece of equipment- I have never seen one of the reputable products fail in dozens of trials.

Although HRU's should work, they will also release the raft in a roll situation, effectively leaving you without a raft so I decided not to fit one.

We carry a raft but, as mentioned in a previous thread, found out at its last service 2 weeks ago it wouldn't have worked due to both inflation valves having been damaged, most likely due to overtightening during the previous repack. In addition, the insulated floor was missing as were some other bits of equipment. It doesn't matter how much you pay or what make, the service centre can be responsible for you having an even worse "bad day" when you need to use it!

I'm still a firm believer in having a life raft if funds available.

 

[Greenheart]

Rather than a life-raft...

Pardon another semi-relevant digression...

...has injectable closed-cell foam buoyancy become any more usable than twenty years ago? I never understood why every cavity aboard modern standard AWBs and popular older models, couldn't be filled to exclude water and delay foundering.

I know the foam itself isn't that lightweight - hence my curiosity about whether the product itself has advanced. And I can see that every section injected, needs to be firmly secured in place, or it'll just rise up from beneath floors and bulkheads.

Just the same, if you spent a couple of hours calculating the total air spaces aboard your boat, which would quickly fill with water after an unavoidable, serious collision caused by some drunken fool in an unlit sportsboat...don't you wish there was foam in those gaps, instead? I know I do.

 

[Tranona]

Pardon another semi-relevant digression...

...has injectable closed-cell foam buoyancy become any more usable than twenty years ago? I never understood why every cavity aboard modern standard AWBs and popular older models, couldn't be filled to exclude water and delay foundering.

I know the foam itself isn't that lightweight - hence my curiosity about whether the product itself has advanced. And I can see that every section injected, needs to be firmly secured in place, or it'll just rise up from beneath floors and bulkheads.

Just the same, if you spent a couple of hours calculating the total air spaces aboard your boat, which would quickly fill with water after an unavoidable, serious collision caused by some drunken fool in an unlit sportsboat...don't you wish there was foam in those gaps, instead? I know I do.

This is a separate issue from liferafts in a way. I think it is fair to say that based on the "evidence" foundering from any cause is very rare, and within those rare occasions, holing as a mjor cause is even rarer. The risk exists mainly in peoples' imaginations - the "what if" with a very big IF.

Various builders over the years, notably Sadler and Etap have offered and promoted "unsinkable" boats, but there seems to be very little enthusiasm among buyers. It seems that a yacht may take a long time to sink unless it suffers a catastrophic failure such as a collision, and this we know is very rare.

As usual there is no instant answer - if sinking was a regular and frequent occurence then unsinkable boats would take all the market. While it remains rare and remote they offer very little benefit.

Classic case of a good idea waiting for a problem to solve.