RNLI recovers a Wally MoBo running out of fuel

[MapisM]

I came across this article, which made me wonder: doesn RNLI charge their services in these cases, or are still any contribution just on a voluntary basis?
It seems to me that whenever the need for a rescue is due to obvious negligence, the least any rescue team should be entitled to ask is a full coverage of their costs.

 

[BrendanS]

No, and it should remain that way. It's been discussed many times before, but charges will put off genuine calls for help.
The RNLI can afford these call outs. Many people boating can't.
I'm sure that most people when rescued, will either make a donation, feed the crew beers, or whatever they feel is appropriate and within their means.
The history of the RNLI is long, and free to all.

 

[MapisM]

I see what you mean, but in this case (or other similar ones) I think that submitting a Lloyd's Open Form would have been appropriate.
Defective fuel gauges? Yeah, right...

 

[BrendanS]

individual crews have that option. Not sure how often that has been taken up. I suspect very low or zero.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

I knew it's totally subjective but that has to be the ugliest boat I've seen for a long time. I immediately thought of the worst of the kit cars that used to be around in the early 70's when everybody thought they could do better than Pinninfarina and that no-one would notice that the windscreen was square and flat whilst everything else was carefully curved into over the top organic shapes.

 

[Reverend Ludd]

No, and it should remain that way. It's been discussed many times before, but charges will put off genuine calls for help.
The RNLI can afford these call outs. Many people boating can't.
I'm sure that most people when rescued, will either make a donation, feed the crew beers, or whatever they feel is appropriate and within their means.
The history of the RNLI is long, and free to all.

I'm with Brendan on this.
Next thing is Ambulance crews trying to find out if you were at fault before helping you.
Is that a defribulater ? ...No it's a credit card machine.

 

[oceanfroggie]

I came across this article, which made me wonder: doesn RNLI charge their services in these cases, or are still any contribution just on a voluntary basis?
It seems to me that whenever the need for a rescue is due to obvious negligence, the least any rescue team should be entitled to ask is a full coverage of their costs.

I agree. That's what insurance is for. I have changed my stance on this. They should pay as do motorists and aviators. I no longer agree with the sort of it's part of "RNLI ethos" to provide a free service at one end of the pipeline, yet incurr significant costs at the other end supported by the generosity of their financial benefactors.

People have to take responsibility for their own decisions. Leave a frying pan unattended, see smoke coming out of your house and not call the fire brigade for fear of costs - I think not. Why should mariners be treated any differently?

Sure, if in doubt call them out, but let your insurance stress out about it, that's what we pay premiums for - delegation of worry. For responsible skippers anyway.

 

[Jim@sea]

I see what you mean, but in this case (or other similar ones) I think that submitting a Lloyd's Open Form would have been appropriate.
Defective fuel gauges? Yeah, right...

With respect. I bought a brand new boat (Princess 33) with a defective fuel gauge. At Liverpool I checked the gauge which read "Half Full" and I put 20 gallons of diesel in ASSUMING that this would take it to nearly full.
So I set off, as I approached Hollyhead I ran out of fuel. Where I made a mistake is that after putting the fuel in I should have checked the gauge where I would have seen that it would not have moved. When I ran out it still said "Half Full"
So in fact the boat was probably empty when I bought it (with the gauge on half full) and the 20 gallons which I put in was the only fuel in the tank.
Another mistake I made was that when the boat was still brand new and I had not taken possession but paid for it, I had ESSO deliver 2 x 45 Gallon drums of Diesel to the boatyard where the Princess was and I had asked the boatyard to put the Diesel in the Princess, which they did not do.(I found out later)
So when the boat was craned into the water, and I took possession, I never checked the Fuel Gauge, KNOWING (sorry ASSUMING ) that 90 galls had just been put in.
Of course what I should have done was when I set off from Northwich down the Weaver Navigation Canal, and then into the Manchester Ship Canal was check the Fuel Gauge and 40 miles later, check it again and I would have seen that the gauge would not have moved.
But this is how you learn, and off North Stack near Hollyhead is the wrong place to run out of Fuel.
So dont knock "Defective Fuel Gauges" they do happen.

 

[oldgit]

Anyone should be able to place a call for help without the fear of not being able to afford the consequences.Any delay by skipper debating wether she will be able to afford rescue could make the difference between life and death of your passengers.
Its just fine among the well heeled among you to debate the issue of payment but my concern is for the newbie in a small dinghy with a couple of youngsters on board earning £200.00 quid a week with no insurance delaying that vital call.
Desperately hope the RNLI is never going to weed out anybody before responding to check if they are funded by a trust fund or the DHSS.
Free for all .Wether merely a Wally or on one.

 

[MapisM]

dont knock "Defective Fuel Gauges" they do happen.

Don't take this personally, but I wasn't knocking the gauges, rather the skippers which trust them blindly...
On my current boat, I've got ONLY sight gauges in the e/r, and I wouldn't change them with anything else.
But in all my previous boats, which didn't have them, I always had a wooden stick.

Re.the initial subject, I couldn't agree more with oceanfroggie, fwiw.
Maybe, one possible way to maintain the "RNLI ethos" could be an inversion of the rule. I mean, they could NOT charge their service when they see reasons to do so (the skipper did nothing wrong, can't afford to pay a big bill, ...whatever).
But giving to that Wally skipper the option to just feed the crew beers, or not even that, imho doesn't make sense.

 

[photodog]

Man, that is one ugly boat!!

 

[rbcoomer]

The problem in claiming on insurance is that it won't be the insurance company that pays, it will be us via increased premiums. There will also be the issue of those who don't bother with insurance - and I'm sure that just like on the roads, they do exist. It will also make a bureaucratic nightmare for the RNLI to collect details, chase payments etc when their time is better spent saving lives.

 

[oceanfroggie]

The problem in claiming on insurance is that it won't be the insurance company that pays, it will be us via increased premiums. There will also be the issue of those who don't bother with insurance - and I'm sure that just like on the roads, they do exist. It will also make a bureaucratic nightmare for the RNLI to collect details, chase payments etc when their time is better spent saving lives.

The claimants should pay increased premiums and loading for a few years just as with motor. FWIW, I also favour a statutory requirement for mandatory 3rd party leisure craft insurance.

 

[rbcoomer]

The claimants should pay increased premiums and loading for a few years just as with motor. FWIW, I also favour a statutory requirement for mandatory 3rd party leisure craft insurance.

I agree about mandatory insurance and I think it's probably heading that way. Where I launch at Teignmouth they have a Watercraft Registration Scheme which costs just £10 a year - they record insurance details, vehicle details etc. I have no problem with that at all, but it's still only a once a year check and I fear if they policed it, that cost would rapidly rise.

The slipway is also free there and although parking fees are quite high, it does help make boating a little more affordable for those of us who don't have massive pockets! Unfortunately many authorities concentrate on the cash-cows of parking, slipway fees etc when the focus should really be more on things like insurance, safety etc. IMHO of course...

 

[dash300]

Anyone should be able to place a call for help without the fear of not being able to afford the consequences.Any delay by skipper debating wether she will be able to afford rescue could make the difference between life and death of your passengers.
Its just fine among the well heeled among you to debate the issue of payment but my concern is for the newbie in a small dinghy with a couple of youngsters on board earning £200.00 quid a week with no insurance delaying that vital call.
Desperately hope the RNLI is never going to weed out anybody before responding to check if they are funded by a trust fund or the DHSS.
Free for all .Wether merely a Wally or on one.

Totally agree. In addition the RNLI has vast funds, being the wealthiest charity in the UK. Recently charities commision was considering removing their charity status as they had such enormous funds. So money is not an issue,but saving lives is, irrespective of fault.

 

[AllanJ]

A number of issues with this;
1. There is a similar issue with the RNLI now patrolling beaches and offering 'safety advice'. Is that to stop stupid people being stupid? Should we pay for that?
2. Almost any incident involves some degree of culpability from the 'victim'; when does that become negigence and who will decide? This is exactly how our litigious culture increased almost every insurance premium and the risk-averse nonsense when you go to buy a hot coffee!

Random thought: I saw an item on TV just a couple of days ago in which a whole team of rescuers and a RAF helicopter were rescuing a cow from the bottom of a cliff! I couldn't help thinking that the cow is probably in a pie by now. Should that pie cost the amount invested in rescuing the cow? I'm sorry, but I just dont swallow the 'good training' argument. It was a complete waste of public money.

 

[gjgm]

Anyone should be able to place a call for help without the fear of not being able to afford the consequences.

Or anyone should be entitled to free help because.. someone else can pay for it? That sounds a bit like New Britain to me. No one asked you to go to sea. I'm not saying that every boater is required to be able to maintain a £500k lifeboat as his back-up. I'm sure most of us are members of RNLI, so maybe that is, collectively, our insurance premium.
I dont know how RNLI can draw a line between rescue and convenience, though, and I guess they dont know either, which is why all "rescues" are free.
In response to how wealthy the RNLI is, thats from donations,surely. Dont understand the attitude it should be free bcz they've got lots of money.

How does it work abroad.. the French system isnt a charity is it? Do you get billed?

 

[epervier]

I've just phoned RNLI Headquarters in Poole they say their ethos is, "we are a charity that saves lives at sea. We provide a 24-hour lifeboat search and rescue service around the coasts of the UK and RoI. Separate from the coastguard and government and financed by voluntary donations and legacies from the public for its income."

And it's free to all, even wallys on wallys.

 

[MapisM]

And it's free to all, even wallys on wallys.

LOL, brave and with sense of humour!
Of course, if that's their attitude, who am I to criticise?

I must just underline that I never dreamed to suggest that they should charge for saving souls.
Just for saving assets, ad only in specific cases.
I understand that sometimes the two things are connected, but the case we're talking about is one in which it's easy to draw the line, according to what I read.
And even assuming that the crew of that boat had been in some sort of danger, I suppose they were rather glad to have also the boat towed, rather than just their souls saved...

 

[rbcoomer]

LOL, brave and with sense of humour!
Of course, if that's their attitude, who am I to criticise?

I must just underline that I never dreamed to suggest that they should charge for saving souls.
Just for saving assets, ad only in specific cases.
I understand that sometimes the two things are connected, but the case we're talking about is one in which it's easy to draw the line, according to what I read.
And even assuming that the crew of that boat had been in some sort of danger, I suppose they were rather glad to have also the boat towed, rather than just their souls saved...

I think if they were paid even for saving 'assets', this would muddy the water (sorry! ) somewhat and perhaps act as an incentive for crew to take risks they otherwise wouldn't? As thing are, the lifeboat crew will make an unbiased decision as to if the vessel can be saved without further risk to life or to let it sink/drift. The bottom line is that the vessel isn't their concern - just the crew and they probably prefer it like that.