RNLI 2012 stats

J

janeK

Well-Known Member
Joined
11 Sep 2003
Messages
531
Location
W/SW - GB
Visit site
Here are the latest stats for the RNLI:

Key RNLI figures in 2012

• RNLI lifeboats launched 8,231 times
• RNLI lifeboats rescued 7,912 people
• RNLI lifeguards responded to 14,519 incidents
• RNLI lifeguards assisted 16,414 people
• The RNLI Flood Rescue Team deployed 12 times
• 4,073 (49%) lifeboat launches were to recreational craft
• 798 (10%) lifeboat launches were to commercial craft (fishing boats and other commercial vessels)
• 1,489 (18%) lifeboat launches were to boats with mechanical failure
• Tower lifeboat station had the most launches overall and the most for an inshore lifeboat
• Southend-on-Sea had the most launches for a coastal lifeboat station
• The two new RNLI stations, Leverburgh and Lough Ree, had 11 and 14 launches respectively.

Thank goodness we have the RNLI, howeveer 18% of launches were for mechanical what exactly is covered in this category - is running out of fuel a % of these figures?
also is there a trend for more breakdowns at the start than mid or end of the season. If there was a large % of engine failure due to maintenance issues, would be good to know what was the most common breakdown cause.

I just hope that everyone of those 21,000+ persons rescued, showed their appreciation by making a donation, the least they can do when others are risking their lives for them.

What do others think????

JaneK
 
Last edited:
As with all stats I can't get them to add up!

49% lifeboat launches were to recreational craft
10% lifeboat launches were to commercial craft (fishing boats and other commercial vessels)
18% lifeboat launches were to boats with mechanical failure

Don't equal 100%

RNLI lifeboats launched 8,231 times
798 (10%) lifeboat launches were to commercial craft

823 = 10%

Can you point me to the detail as this is primary school maths that they are having issues with!
 
It would be interesting to know more about the leisure call outs. For one thing, I would guess RNLI gears up for alot of leisure call out (ie, smaller inshore lifeboats/ribs). I would also imagine mobos have more call outs for mechanical, as that is their method of propulsion.
I think the Thames accounts for huge numbers.
 
Camelia

Well spotted as I didn't sit and work out the maths just copied and posted from the RNLI email I received this morning. Maybe someone from the RNLI will read this and reply??? But probably too busy.

janeK
 
Camelia said:
As with all stats I can't get them to add up!

49% lifeboat launches were to recreational craft
10% lifeboat launches were to commercial craft (fishing boats and other commercial vessels)
18% lifeboat launches were to boats with mechanical failure

Don't equal 100%

RNLI lifeboats launched 8,231 times
798 (10%) lifeboat launches were to commercial craft

823 = 10%

Can you point me to the detail as this is primary school maths that they are having issues with!
Click to expand...

The numbers overlap. Recreational craft and commercial craft may both include mechanical failures.

On these numbers, only 59% of launches are accounted for. What were the other 41% for, I wonder. Some will be for training, of course, but how many?

Yet again, the brave people who do the work are not well served by the spin doctors in the PR department.
 
Last edited:
janeK said:
Well spotted as I didn't sit and work out the maths just copied and posted from the RNLI email I received this morning. Maybe someone from the RNLI will read this and reply??? But probably too busy.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll get upset as I did not get the same e-mail. :o
 
Think you will find when you see the full stats that they do add up. However they are presented in a way that serves the RNLI and justifies the work that they do and are not a lot of help in trying to find out the underlying causes of incidents nor pointers as to how they can be reduced. They just need to show the volume of activity as justification for the amount of money spent. Not suggesting the money is wasted but high numbers of people rescued and lives saved (using their definition) is key to raising funds. Also have to show what type of user is making use of the service so efforts can be directed towards them as source of funds.
 
Tranona said:
Think you will find when you see the full stats that they do add up. However they are presented in a way that serves the RNLI and justifies the work that they do and are not a lot of help in trying to find out the underlying causes of incidents nor pointers as to how they can be reduced. They just need to show the volume of activity as justification for the amount of money spent. Not suggesting the money is wasted but high numbers of people rescued and lives saved (using their definition) is key to raising funds. Also have to show what type of user is making use of the service so efforts can be directed towards them as source of funds.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but if they want max impact they need to make their sums add up in the headlines, otherwise pedants like me "poo poo" the results.

Yes, I am an Offshore member and know they do a good job, but management are not doing the people at the sharp end a lot of favours at the moment.
 
I'm only interested in one specific statistic: how many sailing yachts or their crew required rescue (any cause) relative to the number of passages (any distance/duration) undertaken in a given time period, say the year 2012.

As this is unlikely to be an available statistic, I'm not going to worry about it any further.

:D
 
pvb said:
I'd imagine the other 41% were the "report of person in water", "report of dog in water", etc, type of launches.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are right. If the OP has reproduced the content of the email, one wonders why these details were not included. Not looking for a sinister explanation; it just seems a little sloppy to me.
 
Camelia said:
Perhaps, but if they want max impact they need to make their sums add up in the headlines, otherwise pedants like me "poo poo" the results.

Yes, I am an Offshore member and know they do a good job, but management are not doing the people at the sharp end a lot of favours at the moment.
Click to expand...

That's daft. They are not intended to add up. They are just highlighting figures from different categories so of course they won't add up. However, when you look at the categories all the sub categories in them add up. So if you took all craft rescued then you would find the number of each type adds up to the total. What you can't do is get anywhere near the sort of information Babylon asks for. You can get the number of sailing craft attended to (because there is a box on the report form for that) and you can get the number of incidents where engine trouble was involved (because there is a box for that). But you cannot get the number of sailing boats needing help because of engine failure because they don't cross reference causes against types of boats. Equally they have no statistics related to level of activity, so you have no idea whether the figures are rising or falling over time except in absolute numbers.

As I said, they are primarily efficiency measures to show how much work they do for the amount of money they spend. This is what their constituency wants to know either to show how "efficient" they are for the sceptics and how worthwhile they are for donors.
 
mainsail1 said:
I wonder what the RNLI defines as a "rescue"
Clearly if these stats mean anything we live in a very dangerous world!
Click to expand...

For lifeboats, they used to define it as...

"Lives saved – where, if not for the actions of the lifeboat and/or its crew, a life would have been lost.

Person landed – where a lifeboat rescues a person who is at risk but not in a life-threatening situation.

Person brought in – where a lifeboat rescues a person who is at very little risk, if at all, but if left would probably have been at risk later.

People rescued – a combination of the above three categories."

Clearly, all the "RAC-type" callouts result in "rescues".
 
mainsail1 said:
I wonder what the RNLI defines as a "rescue"
Clearly if these stats mean anything we live in a very dangerous world!
Click to expand...

Or not! The total number of voyages made safely is not stated, hence no conclusion can be made. One would imagine that the number of safe voyages is incredibly high! So high in fact that we actually are an example of how an activity in a non life supporting environment can be carried out safely by the general public. Perhaps the RNLI should now be shut down and the monies distributed to water borne breakdown companies.
 
here's another report from Welsh Stations; I see the links still don't work right!

The most common call-out last year was due to incidents on powered pleasure craft, with machinery failure still the most common cause.

However, the RNLI said call-outs to vessels have been gradually decreasing, while those to people are on the up.
Click to expand...

It also comments on the large number of call-outs to flood victims.

So it seems that boaters are possible out less (fuel costs?) or, less likely, getting safer.
 
Last edited:
Searush said:
...... or, less likely, getting safer.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that Searush? I would have thought that it is likely that most water users are getting safer: engines are more reliable, boats are built to a standard that defines usage, navigation aids are reliable and accurate, weather information is reliable and accurate as well as readily available. I also believe that more water users are better trained these days from whatever source of training. Would you agree that industry is today much safer than it was years ago, driving, flying, housework, risks to children? I think they are because in general terms stuff is designed better and practices improve. I think the natural progression in matters is towards efficiency which delivers greater safety, less risk taking, or perhaps, more certainty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top