RNLI callout statistics put safety issues in perspective

[Tranona]

No I am not and you have not read apparently what I have written. I have reviewed all the other types of incidents described and it is not the fact that they happen more often that is important as far as I am concerned. It is rather the consequence of those incidents which one needs to consider. I believe that I have at least a strategy to deal with, dismasting, MOB, machinery breakdown etc which would be easier to implement than the consequence of a fire where you may not be able to access the interior to get your gear or to send a mayday. I was reading today of a person who was killed when a short circuit caused by an overload on a windlass sparked off a gas explosion. His wife was catapulted into the sea but survived.

I have assisted dismasted yachts, I have brought my own boat in to port with the dinghy attached alongside, I have sailed onto moorings when I had diesel bug, I have dealt with having the steering chain break in a gale, having the metal hanks physically tear open on the storm jib in a 60 knt squall, having the mainsheet traveller explode in a gale, we have done MOB exercices, I have assisted boats lost in fog etc etc. These are what I consider to be basic skills which any offshore sailor should have at least the beginning of an answer for.

However, with an explosion and a fire often you have no warning, it literally can come out of the blue; you only have to look at the destruction tests carried out by YW last year.

So, I maintain that I believe a fire is the greatest danger on a boat when taken in the context of competent sailors. For the last time you may not agree with me. That's your problem, not mine.

Out.

I have read what you have written, but regret to say that it lacks logical reasoning. You are intent on "proving" that you are "right" by constantly reframing your arguments to dismiss any alternate account. Where did this "context of competent sailors" concept come from? Completely meaningless. There is no evidence firstly of what constitutes a competent sailor, nor any evidence that this mythical competent sailor is any more or less likely to be involved in an emergency, nor that they are automatically better prepared to deal with it.

Fire comes in all sorts of ways - slow burn, minor, major, explosion in just the same way as other failures of equipment on a boat. Your example of the YM tests perfectly illustrate this if you look at the tests they did on water ingress and rig failure for example.

The difficulty you seem to have is in recognising that your greatest fear is not the same as that of other people, who have patiently explained why they hold that view. It is not because they are less competent, less imaginative, less aware of the consequences - they have looked at the evidence of what seems to happen in practice and come to a different conclusion from you. You don't have to accept the evidence as sufficient to influence your opinion, but you can't dismiss it as not being relevant.

 

[Searush]

(cut) You don't have to accept the evidence as sufficient to influence your opinion, but you can't dismiss it as not being relevant.

Oh yes he can, and that is precisely why we are laughing at him. Sadly, he has no intention of recognising that because he is the only one in step & therefore everyone else must be wrong. Great entertainment.