Tranona
Well-Known Member
The recent threads seem to have come to a natural end, so without wishing to prolong the subject unduly, a summary might be useful.
You will recall that the original post asked for advice on whether a liferaft was a "good thing" for a cross channel voyage. Many of the posts wandered into other areas such as commercial shipping where the arguments are different. Others explored alternatives such as semi inflated dinghies. However, the key issues remain
1 What is the probability of getting into a situation where a liferaft is needed.
This assumes that the boat is sinking so there is no alternative to abandoning ship. On what little evidence we have, for the typical leisure sailor, the probability is virtually zero. This does not mean that boats don't get into difficulty, but help usually gets to the casualty long before the boat sinks (if indeed it is ever going to sink).
Where yachts are in danger of sinking it is usually following a catastrophic incident such as a collision or structural failure such as a keel falling off. Although collisions could happen to anybody, the aids to avoidance of other shipping are so good that this is rare (but not unknown). Structural failures are usually on racing boats (several recent examples of those).
2 Is a liferaft an effective device for survival?
Again the evidence is not convincing. In some cases such as the failures of race boats, the liferaft cannot be deployed because it is stowed below or gets trapped under the upside down boat. In coastal waters the job of the liferaft is to keep the crew safe for the relatively short time that help takes to arrive, and this is what they are designed to do. They are not expected to provide a means of getting to shore.
Liferafts can fail to work (as in the Hanse 371 incident), but even if they do inflate they are not user friendly as those who have experience, either in training or for real will testify. The key factor in survival is not to end up in the water at all, but above all to summon assistance at the appropriate time. Then, if abandoning ship is the only alternative both lifejackets and liferafts can make a difference. However, the rescue services I am sure would much rather pick up from a boat than from the water or a raft.
So, in risk assessment, if you go out in adverse conditions, sail a boat at the limit of its capability (where it might fail), then there is an argument for having a liferaft. Indeed regulations for commercial boats and offshore racing require them. But for the typical leisure yachtsman making a cross channel crossing in relatively benign conditions and using an active safety strategy (good planning, watching the weather, AIS or radar - I know they are not the same - use of harnesses, MK1 eyeball and a good plan B) the situation is different. Should things start to go pear shaped a DSC and then EPIRB transmission are the first line of defence.
Taking a rational view, one comes to the conclusion that for most yachtsmen in most situations a liferaft is a waste of money and space, mainly because the probability of needing it is so low, but also because there are doubts about their effectiveness. HOWEVER, this view is only credible because there is no systematic evidence available to support a different conclusion.
The advocates of liferafts tend to draw on subjective emotions rather than objective evidence. In some ways there is nothing wrong in this, because we all need to make our own decisions. Where I draw the line is at legislation (because there is no evidence that it is necessary) and being accused of being irresponsible if I don't have a liferaft.
To repeat one of my earlier posts, there is a real need for research into this subject to inform both individual and collective decision making.
You will recall that the original post asked for advice on whether a liferaft was a "good thing" for a cross channel voyage. Many of the posts wandered into other areas such as commercial shipping where the arguments are different. Others explored alternatives such as semi inflated dinghies. However, the key issues remain
1 What is the probability of getting into a situation where a liferaft is needed.
This assumes that the boat is sinking so there is no alternative to abandoning ship. On what little evidence we have, for the typical leisure sailor, the probability is virtually zero. This does not mean that boats don't get into difficulty, but help usually gets to the casualty long before the boat sinks (if indeed it is ever going to sink).
Where yachts are in danger of sinking it is usually following a catastrophic incident such as a collision or structural failure such as a keel falling off. Although collisions could happen to anybody, the aids to avoidance of other shipping are so good that this is rare (but not unknown). Structural failures are usually on racing boats (several recent examples of those).
2 Is a liferaft an effective device for survival?
Again the evidence is not convincing. In some cases such as the failures of race boats, the liferaft cannot be deployed because it is stowed below or gets trapped under the upside down boat. In coastal waters the job of the liferaft is to keep the crew safe for the relatively short time that help takes to arrive, and this is what they are designed to do. They are not expected to provide a means of getting to shore.
Liferafts can fail to work (as in the Hanse 371 incident), but even if they do inflate they are not user friendly as those who have experience, either in training or for real will testify. The key factor in survival is not to end up in the water at all, but above all to summon assistance at the appropriate time. Then, if abandoning ship is the only alternative both lifejackets and liferafts can make a difference. However, the rescue services I am sure would much rather pick up from a boat than from the water or a raft.
So, in risk assessment, if you go out in adverse conditions, sail a boat at the limit of its capability (where it might fail), then there is an argument for having a liferaft. Indeed regulations for commercial boats and offshore racing require them. But for the typical leisure yachtsman making a cross channel crossing in relatively benign conditions and using an active safety strategy (good planning, watching the weather, AIS or radar - I know they are not the same - use of harnesses, MK1 eyeball and a good plan B) the situation is different. Should things start to go pear shaped a DSC and then EPIRB transmission are the first line of defence.
Taking a rational view, one comes to the conclusion that for most yachtsmen in most situations a liferaft is a waste of money and space, mainly because the probability of needing it is so low, but also because there are doubts about their effectiveness. HOWEVER, this view is only credible because there is no systematic evidence available to support a different conclusion.
The advocates of liferafts tend to draw on subjective emotions rather than objective evidence. In some ways there is nothing wrong in this, because we all need to make our own decisions. Where I draw the line is at legislation (because there is no evidence that it is necessary) and being accused of being irresponsible if I don't have a liferaft.
To repeat one of my earlier posts, there is a real need for research into this subject to inform both individual and collective decision making.
