RNLI+MCA+RYA

[ParaHandy]

The MCA have just published 2001 SAR statistics. Once again HQ have mangled the data: HQ calculates Persons Assisted 16,487 whilst station masters report 11,545 and HQ calculates Persons Rescued 4,852 whilst the stations report 9,205. HQ moved 5,000 people from being “rescued” to being “assisted”. So what….well, would be nice to know why.

However, whereas in 2000 only one station, Solent, reported evidence of sea safety campaigns working (to reduce incidents), for 2001 many stations reported they were “certain” or “might be” due to joint projects with RNLI (Brixham CG). Solent CG were curiously silent.

The RNLI bod on here asking what they needed to do to improve Sea Check should take some pleasure in this as should the MCA’s sea safety campaign. Some stations report 70% of their incidents are from the foreshore eg people cut off by tide.

Anyway, to the point of this posting: both the RNLI & MCA have adapted themselves to the changing circumstances (arguably, the RNLI rather more so perhaps because they are at the sharp end?) but have the RYA? Detailed statistical data is only publicly available from RNLI and, once again, power and sail pleasure craft account for >50% of RNLI launches. The majority are engine/mechanical related. My point is that the RYA should begin to reflect this reality in their training programmes. Spend less time on the “full & by” crap and teach basic diesel maintenance?

 

[vyv_cox]

I see this as a people problem, not an RYA one. I feel certain that no RYA literature instructs pleasure boaters to ignore their engine's maintenance needs but to make absolutely certain that they understand every nuance of flag etiquette or lights and shapes. Nonetheless, this is what very many people seem to do. Many contributors to the various forums seem quite happy to admit that they know nothing of their engines but quote chapter and verse on the written or computerised information that can be learned using only the memory. This is modern society - try recruiting an engineer from University. 90% would prefer to sit in front of a computer - "What me, get my hands dirty? No thanks!"

 

[billmacfarlane]

Possibly teaching better diesl maintenance but I've personally witnessed 2 incidents where the RNLI were involved with yachts with engine problems and in both cases the yachts in question could have used their sails. I've never been on a RYA course but the impression I get is that they teach how to do everything under sail , so why do so many yachts with mechanical problems call out the RNLI ? Are skippers treating the RNLI as a breakdown service to be used at their convenience ?

 

[ParaHandy]

I agree (with some sadness) entirely.

I’ve a pal who’s a nuclear physicist and, with some haste, now does work for Railtrack who’ve lost a generation of track maintenance skills and need high technology solutions in a very big hurry to support the technically incompetent crowd who replaced generations of skilled track engineers. Basic skills required for diesel engines can be taught. There is no doubt about that. It just needs to be taught.

 

[halcyon]

Isn't this the marina life style, modern approach to boating. Now people say I pay a qualified engineer to sevice my engines, like my BMW, why should it break down .
You need to train the owners to want to know, before you need the RYA to teach them how. Our club run diesel maintainence courses, our local Volvo dealer did, even had there own dedicated classroom, but thats gone with the new owners. But it will be a growing problem, what do you do about the new generation of fly by wire boats, not only do you need diesel knowledge, you have to be a electronics expert.
What annoys me the number of times our local lifeboat is called to a yacht with engine problems, still with working sails, or a 51 cruiser that ran out of diesel 3 mile out from the marina.
If the RNLI started charging for technical breakdowns, as oppossed to critical failure, owners may get some training and/or insurance cover. After all they are happy to do it for there car i.e. AA, so why not there boat, and help support thr RNLI.


Brian

 

[ParaHandy]

The RNLI have never (to my knowledge) said as much though I’m fairly sure they might think it. “Never turn back” does mean what it says.

In 4 channel crossings this year, the engine has had to be on for 50 to 75% of the time because either a) the Alderney Race isn't a good place to be with little or no wind or b) there just was no wind. In other words, cruising inevitably involves using an engine and it's failure may well put you in peril - sometimes wonder why I have a sailing yacht, might as well have bought a motor boat.

Bill, my point is that, between them, the MCA & RNLI have either separately or as a concerted effort targeted a growing problem and have achieved some success. And there is a clear need to do so as lifeboat launches are getting back to the 1995 peak. Surely, the RYA should join in this?

 

[claymore]

I feel everyone is on similar lines here - more to do with culture than Governing Bodies - or is it. In the 'old days' - whenever that was - certainly 30 years ago+ - I felt there was a stronger sense of self-sufficiency about sailors. Certainly there had to be to a degree because communcations were not what they are now - nor was there navigation technology so people had to be more self reliant. Whilst not advocating a return to old days and old ways, we have lost - right across society some of the old skills and attitudes which perhaps, on reflection we might have been better keeping.
The RYA for its part has done much to encourage people to get afloat, but that has been sold perhaps as buying boats, sunny days, no problems - after all how would you sell sailing offshore it you said how truly dangerous it can be and what character it sometimes demands?
Maybe we (older sailors) and the emergency services need to accept that modern attitudes are that the RNLI and CG are emergency services and like the AA and RAC are there for roadside recovery?
Personally, rather like old attitudes to bankruptcy, I'd be so humiliated if I had to call someone out to help me when I had sails/ alternative means of propulsion, I'd probably pack it all in and take up carpet bowls. It's a bit like the Robin and Marianne Bailey syndrome - they took all those lovely photos of the yacht sinking and ended up with a bag of oranges and onions or something. I think in the hour or so it took for the boat to sink, I'd have been building another!!

regards
Claymore

 

[billmacfarlane]

As I understand it the RYA have a basic diesel maintenace course . Maybe that should be expanded .

 

[Guest]

IMHO if the RNLI started charging for rescues arising from technical breakdowns it would turn out to be a can of worms.The lawyers would have a field day disputing who should pay i.e. the insurance company? the owner? the skipper? the service engineer? the supplier? the maker?.Such disputes could bring the RNLI into disrepute - possibly affecting donations.There would be a real chance that once money was introduced into the equation a skipper might delay calling for assistance thus putting those on board the stricken vessel and the Lifeboat Crew at additional risk.If you think this couldn't happen then you have only to go back to the Penlee Lifeboat disaster where,as I understand it, salvage negotiations with a standby tug used up valuable time.If the idiots who go to sea were the only ones likely to suffer then I would support this idea wholeheartedly but knowing the way of the world I don't think its a runner.

Keltman

 

[ParaHandy]

I think it might be wrong to recognise the existence of a problem without attempting to correct it? The funding of the RNLI is not elastic.

The “old days” have long gone. Was it J Harvey-Jones (ICI Chairman 1970s) who would only employ merchant seamen because they tended to be lateral thinkers? No more than 30% of UK GDP is in manufacturing and, surely, universities no longer have a need to train so many people for light or heavy engineering therefore the change in attitude reflects the change to a service economy. But that doesn’t seem to me, anyway, to mean that a basic level of training can not be given.

Actually, I find nowadays many young women more capable and receptive to training than their male colleagues. So much so that I thought I might have to get rid of the stock of dirty jokes (to keep ‘em awake, you understand) but find a very ready acceptance………

There was a young engineer named Miss Holt,
who had an assistant as spry as a Colt.
When she asked for a screw,
what did the young man do,
but offer her two nuts and a bolt.

 

[billmacfarlane]

As I understand the RNLI were against charging people for rescues for the very laudable reason that it might discourage people from calling them .

 

[halcyon]

Agree, maybe technical was not the right word. Was thinking of the chap who ran out of diesel in the bay, or could not sail the boat with the sails, it's not rescue, it's a convinient tow, theres lots of fishing boats or even the dock tugs to tow them in, but the lifeboat is free.
In the case of the Penlee it was a bad storm, thus life threatening, not a calm sea on a sunny day. Had a friend who was a diver on the SAR at Caldrose, and the stories he told about there shouts.


Brian

 

[DoctorD]

How many of those with engine trouble..

..have done RYA courses? That would be an interesting statistic.

There are two problems here:

1. Getting sailors to understand more about engines so they can fix common problems

2. Ensuring sailors know how to manage without an engine (wherever possible and safe)

If the RYA is doing a good job then hardly anyone who calls out the RNLI for engine failure on a sailing boat will be RYA qualified.

If many people who call out the RNLI for the above have done e.g. at least RYA Day Skipper and a diesel engine course then there is cause for concern.

Sailing on and off bouys, setting the anchor under sail and sailing on and off pontoons (where possible) were all part of the RYA courses and exams I undertook, starting even at Day Skipper level. So personally I suspect that most RNLI callouts to engine failures (where the boats can sail out of danger safely and easily) are from people who have not learnt how to sail their boats to a reasonable (cruising) standard. In which case I would venture they have not taken RYA qualifications or even a diesel engine course.

 

[halcyon]

Re: How many of those with engine trouble..

Which brings us to that dreaded question,

Should you have to pass a test to use a boat.

Say day skipper and engine maintainance.

In passing anybody have the current call out cost for a RNLI lifeboat ?, sure the figuer I have in mind is wrong.

Brian

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: How many of those with engine trouble..

You assume picture book conditions when the engine fails?

My argument is that the RYA could include, for example, bleeding a diesel line as part of their competency exams and not as an element in a non-certificated course. It is not too much to ask of a candidate but might save his/her boat.

Halcyon: re launch costs divide £90m by 7,000 to get average cost. It's a lot of money although, relative to the road or railways, very economical cost per life saved (if that was the only element of cost).

 

[bedouin]

Re: How many of those with engine trouble..

But those are average costs. A large part of the costs of running RNLI are fixed costs - so the true incremental cost of a call out will be much lower than that.

I wonder to what extent RNLI are really worried about unnecessary call-outs. This keeps their launches / rescue figures up which is good PR

 

[halcyon]

Re: How many of those with engine trouble..

To be honest, I do not see how someone would put to sea if they could not bleed an engine, or am I getting terribly old.

Sorry to say my memory must still be working, remembered RNLI launch £10-12,000, and £2000 a hour running costs, awful lot of christmas cards !!!!!!

Brian

 

[DoctorD]

Driving test

One shouldn't have to pass a test to use a boat. But I am afraid it is coming. I reckon by 2005 there will be some Euro-harmonisation directive thingy requiring all boat owners/users to get a "licence". The licence will probably be about RYA Day Skipper/ICC level but more expensive to administer and get than the equivalent RYA quals.

Of course it will not make things any safer out there - and it will not reduce the number of lifeboat lanches. Nor will it reduce the number of deaths/injuries at sea. Other countries have shown that when a compulsory licencing system is in operation then once a person has the required minimum that is all they usually bother with. The responsible sailors are always learning, maintaining their boats, improving their seamanship, helping the more inexperienced through forums like this or their clubs etc. whether they have formal quals or not.

In other words formal qualifications give fools false beliefs in their abilities, whilst responsible sailors will find ways to sail better whatever scheme is in place or whethe rthere is a scheme at all.

This is why it is important to support the RYA. It is the ONLY national organisation that is against the compulsory qualification of sailors. It desperately tries to imbue newcomers to the sport with the required responsible attitude (which is really what counts). It knows no formal, governmental system can force people to be better sailors.

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Driving test

A formal qualification provides a level of competency. It’s not essential but I am more likely to drive as a passenger in a car where the driver has been trained to do so.

The difficulty I have with the RYA is that I read of how the RNLI has changed (the Chairman's report is worth reading) but the RYA can easily look like a dinosaur organisation - partly, I think it's too reactive at the moment.

There is one statistic which I have yet to understand: the cost of the French SNMS compared with RNLI. The RNLI costs ten times as much. Are the French that much better sailors? There was a web site for SNMS and try as I might I couldn’t see any hidden subsidy to account for the difference – the French even pointed out the disparity. I wonder whether we’re a pretty poor lot?

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: How many of those with engine trouble..

Noooo....not getting old! I wouldn't be surprised if very few could bleed an engine. I say that because fuel feed problems are the most common.