RNLI callout statistics put safety issues in perspective

A friend of mine died in an explosion and subsequent fire on board his yacht earlier this year.

Statistically, 100% of the people I know called John, with a 49 foot yacht, have been involved in an onboard fire, with fatal results.

Data didn't do him any good.
 
Sybarite said:
Surely it would simply be more honest for you to say that you don't like me? Then let viewers review your contributions in that context.
Click to expand...
I think I have made that abundantly clear but there is nothing dishonest in what I have said. However, if you want me to clarify it, I do indeed think you are a fool.

As you know, I also pointed out in the other thread that the reason you were so doggedly refusing to accept the evidence was probably because I had put it up on the forum.

The evidence clearly shows that you are talking bollucks. You are being dishonest in not recognising that.

I say, yet again, post your evidence to support your claim that fire is the most dangerous thing in boating. Just post it.
 
Rigger Mortice said:
I think I have made that abundantly clear but there is nothing dishonest in what I have said. However, if you want me to clarify it, I do indeed think you are a fool.

As you know, I also pointed out in the other thread that the reason you were so doggedly refusing to accept the evidence was probably because I had put it up on the forum.

The evidence clearly shows that you are talking bollucks. You are being dishonest in not recognising that.

I say, yet again, post your evidence to support your claim that fire is the most dangerous thing in boating. Just post it.
Click to expand...

Wiping the spittle from your screen and learning to read might help.
 
Sybarite said:
Wiping the spittle from your screen and learning to read might help.
Click to expand...

I have read everything on both this and the other thread and can confirm that you have not posted any evidence to support your claim that fire is the most dangerous thing in boating.

You have attempted to fudge things and tried to slide garbage about "perceptions" into the debate. But you have provided no evidence to support your initial assertion.

If you had any integrity you would either accept what is being said or you would post evidence to support your claim that fire is the most dangerous thing in boating. Just post it.
 
prv said:
No spare filters on board?

Pete
Click to expand...

Fuel quality got too poor to use. The bug turns the fuel to jelly. Gets to where you cant filter, just got to empty and clean the tank. Did that in a rather warm St Lucia once.

On a short and bouncy delivery last week I changed filters 4 times. Had a nasty 6/7 headwind all the way up the Straits, but it died completely as we entered Gib bay. Was fingers crossed time....made it just before fog rolled in. Couldn't believe the quick change from near gale to fog in 10 miles. Must have upset Neptune again.
 
capnsensible said:
Fuel quality got too poor to use. The bug turns the fuel to jelly. Gets to where you cant filter, just got to empty and clean the tank.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I have a dose of bug at the moment, but am waiting till next winter to either cut an access hatch or replace the tank. Mine's not got that bad though!

I'm just keeping an eye on the suction gauge I installed, and changing filters as needed. Had an unplanned one the other week (gauge doesn't help with the second filter, after the lift pump) but the change took a couple of minutes while we drifted with the genoa just about providing steerage, so no big deal.

Pete
 
Sybarite,

I don't think any calculation of what is the greatest danger on board can include something as vague as perception. After all you might include someone who is paranoid and thinks they are going to be assassinated; does that mean assassination should suddenly climb the risk tables? No I thought not.
The normal method for assessing risk is to multiply the probability, here taken from the RNLI call out tables, and multiply it by a score for impact; these scores for each are usually on a scale of 1 to 10.
Probability Impact Score
Thus Fire 0.9 10 (fatal perhaps) 9

MoB 1.8 10 (fatal perhaps) 18


That would show man over Board to be twice the risk of fire.

If you insist that Fire is a greater, or even the greatest, risk I think you should produce some statistical evidence to support your contention; all we have so far is waffly nonsense.
 
Sandgrounder said:
The normal method for assessing risk is to multiply the probability, here taken from the RNLI call out tables
Click to expand...

Part of Sybarite's reasoning is sound here - you can't just take the figures direct from the RNLI tables because many of their items do not apply to cruising yachts.

Pete
 
prv said:
Part of Sybarite's reasoning is sound here - you can't just take the figures direct from the RNLI tables because many of their items do not apply to cruising yachts.

Pete
Click to expand...

Yes, but the relative degree of the risks will still mostly be in the same order. Nothing will alter the fact that, for instance, the dismasting risk is higher than the fire risk.

But I think we will all accept that being cut off by the tide when you are walking on sandbanks is not really relevant.
 
Rigger Mortice said:
Yes, but the relative degree of the risks will still mostly be in the same order. Nothing will alter the fact that, for instance, the dismasting risk is higher than the fire risk.

.
Click to expand...

You consider the risk of dismasting greater than a fire risk. Perhaps, but I consider the consequences of a fire risk to be greater. A competent sailor should be able to jury-rig after a dismasting.

Therefore I consider the fire risk to be greater. As I said in an earlier post which, apparently you missed, you may have a different opinion.
 
Sybarite said:
I'm disappointed with you. Your responses are normally well constructed but when you descend into sarcasm, it doesn't do your arguments any good. Somehow you have constructed my response as a criticism of the RNLI. It isn't. They have correctly described their interventions. It is the interpretation of those statistics in the context of a competent cruising population that I have issue with. Getting to people in a trapped motor vehicle, or to those stranded on a beach, or coming to the rescuue of a crashed aircraft in no way should enter into the denominator and affect the percentage which is applied to a fire risk.

What we are talking about is the perception of danger. Therefore there is a certain element of subjectivity in the position.

So, as far as I am concerned, it is the danger of fire that would worry me more than any other of the risks presented.

PS Using statistics you could say that the bed is the most dangerous place to be because that's where most people die.
Click to expand...

There are many faults with the RNLI tables. They only record, using predetermined categories, reasons for their services being used. They have some value as presenting a fair picture of the sort of things they do and how they use their resources, and the categories used are fairly constant over time. However they do not cover all the potential emergencies, only those where they are asked to respond - mostly by the Coastguard, who determine the appropriate response to an emergency. of course some of the incidents are not directly connected with yachting, which will clearly affect the %ages in each category, but the ABSOLUTE number of fires is also extremely small. Unfortunately there are no numbers that correlate casualties to type of incident, so there is no way of knowing the seriousness of each incident.

They do not cover those that are dealt with by the crew of the yacht, other boat users, commercial providers and other emergency services. You get a better picture by looking at the annual MCA reports of the overall emergencies connected with the sea.

Your response to a quite reasonable observation that fire on board accounts for a very small proportion of emergency callouts by the RNLI is a long and irrelevant diatribe on the inadequacy (as you see it) of people who suffer an emergency, which has nothing to do with the frequency of fire.

You then tack on a bit about your pet subject, turning what is established as a very rare occurrence into your "perceived" biggest risk! If you look at the US statistics, which are much more comprehensive as it is a legal requirement to report incidents, albeit using a different system of classification from the RNLI or MCA, you will find a similar pattern, with fire very low down EXCEPT among petrol powered small powerboats, mostly in inland waterways.

This is not to deny that the consequences of fire at sea can be devastating and difficult to deal with - it is just very rare and arguably easier to deal with by prevention than some of the other risks that are higher up on the table. One would like to think that the same precautions could reduce some of the most obvious causes such as engine breakdowns, fuel etc., but the reality is these systems are much more complex and fragile than a gas cooker system and used more frequently and for longer than cooking at sea.

So, take the statistics for what they are, not what you want them to be. They do show that attending to a fire at sea accounts for only a tiny proportion of RNLI callouts. By observation (following the news) there are probably many more incidents that do not require a lifeboat, but are fires on moored or stored boats. Using your "perception" crtierion this makes me more scared of fire in those situations than at sea.
 
Tranona said:
There are many faults with the RNLI tables. They only record, using predetermined categories, reasons for their services being used. They have some value as presenting a fair picture of the sort of things they do and how they use their resources, and the categories used are fairly constant over time. However they do not cover all the potential emergencies, only those where they are asked to respond - mostly by the Coastguard, who determine the appropriate response to an emergency. of course some of the incidents are not directly connected with yachting, which will clearly affect the %ages in each category, but the ABSOLUTE number of fires is also extremely small. Unfortunately there are no numbers that correlate casualties to type of incident, so there is no way of knowing the seriousness of each incident.

They do not cover those that are dealt with by the crew of the yacht, other boat users, commercial providers and other emergency services. You get a better picture by looking at the annual MCA reports of the overall emergencies connected with the sea.

Your response to a quite reasonable observation that fire on board accounts for a very small proportion of emergency callouts by the RNLI is a long and irrelevant diatribe on the inadequacy (as you see it) of people who suffer an emergency, which has nothing to do with the frequency of fire.

You then tack on a bit about your pet subject, turning what is established as a very rare occurrence into your "perceived" biggest risk! If you look at the US statistics, which are much more comprehensive as it is a legal requirement to report incidents, albeit using a different system of classification from the RNLI or MCA, you will find a similar pattern, with fire very low down EXCEPT among petrol powered small powerboats, mostly in inland waterways.

This is not to deny that the consequences of fire at sea can be devastating and difficult to deal with - it is just very rare and arguably easier to deal with by prevention than some of the other risks that are higher up on the table. One would like to think that the same precautions could reduce some of the most obvious causes such as engine breakdowns, fuel etc., but the reality is these systems are much more complex and fragile than a gas cooker system and used more frequently and for longer than cooking at sea.

So, take the statistics for what they are, not what you want them to be. They do show that attending to a fire at sea accounts for only a tiny proportion of RNLI callouts. By observation (following the news) there are probably many more incidents that do not require a lifeboat, but are fires on moored or stored boats. Using your "perception" crtierion this makes me more scared of fire in those situations than at sea.
Click to expand...

My position is not based on statistics. My perception is that fire is the incident I would least like to have to deal with wherever the boat is. However when somebody quotes statistics at me which are rubbish : US figures do not reflect the typical population of UK sail cruising boats (2008 figures to boot) ; where 8/10 are under 21' then we are trying to compare apples and oranges.

It's the same thing where RNLI statistics are used where the great majority of RNLI interventions are not sailing boat related interventions and therefore have very limited use in assessing the risks I am talking about. One needs to look behind the statistics and use common sense.
 
Sybarite, did the RNLI refuse you membership or a crewing opportunity at some point in your life for you to dislike them so much? :ambivalence: As soon as i read RNLI in the tread title i knew you would be the negative poster. :rolleyes:

Maybe it's French boats that spontaneously combust when things get scary, like A myotonic goat falls over or a French soldier drops his.......:sleeping::sleeping:
 
Sybarite said:
You consider the risk of dismasting greater than a fire risk. Perhaps, but I consider the consequences of a fire risk to be greater. A competent sailor should be able to jury-rig after a dismasting.

Therefore I consider the fire risk to be greater. As I said in an earlier post which, apparently you missed, you may have a different opinion.
Click to expand...

Really? Do you really think that many sailors will be jury rigging their sails if they are within range of a lifeboat and/or have an engine to take them back to port? In deep water maybe, but not within easy range of shore.

You seem to be trying to make out that fire is inevitably overwhelming and devastating. It is not. The obvious precautions and equipment can be, and frequently are, bought to bear to prevent things from getting out of hand. Look at the recent case of Elizmor...there was a small fire. It was put out. Nobody was hurt.

What you need to do is produce some figures and it seems that, in this debate, you have not been able to produce anything to support your initial contention that fire is the biggest danger in boating.
'
Your opinion is irrelevant. Facts are what are needed. Just give us the figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top