RNLI Rescue charges

[ParaHandy]

Re: oooohhh ....

oi! I don't know but think it came down to how much it was going to cost ... neither PLA or MCA had funding to do it ..... and they're doing an awfy good job o' heaving oot the cadavers .....

and RNLI are indeed on the broads (as are MCA CG) ... all those Blakes cruisers sideways at potter heigham bridge shud keep em busy ......

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: Heavy fine for TK

Well he was at LW springs, so the Channel tide is about to run to the east, kicking up a nasty wind-over-tide seaway. So he can run west, beat east (horrid), fetch south west, or go offshore and park (heave to) being careful not to park on the Royal Soverign shoals. None are very attractive options, but they've got be better than attempting entry to a harbour you've been warned off.

Anybody know what sort of boat?

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[webcraft]

It's usually the Coastguard who calls the lifeboat out.

They may decide to do this even though you have only called them up on Ch16 to advise them that you are experiencing some difficulty. (This has happened to me, and to other people I know).

They do this because they cannot afford to take any risks and be blamed later for not alerting the lifeboat in time, I guess.

So- if you are likely to be charged then you cannot even afford to call up the CG on 16 to advise them of a possible developing situation. Any call on CH16 (not just distress or urgency) would therefore have to be left to the last minute.

So - charging is not a good idea at all IMHO, and I am certain that the RNLI and the CG would both agree. It would cost boats and lives for sure.

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[claymore]

Why should you be charged for that Dan?- lets keep a bit level here - there's a world of difference between what you describe and the incident in the original post.

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Heavy fine for TK

Hunter 31 - can't tell from picture of what's left which flavour of Hunter

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[wrr]

An individual member of HM Coastguard once suggested that I did not need assistance to enter Eastbourne under sail at night, when seeking refuge following catastrophic engine failure. Harbour master took different view and RNLI tow through entrance was subsequently much appreciated. Local knowledge and experience should never be undervalued, particularly if it comes from someone who can see the breakers in the channel!
However, it would be appalling if lives were to be lost because of reluctance to call for help because of potential charges. Seasickness and exhaustion can make the most experienced sailor make mistakes. We should all support the RNLI as Offshore members, sail responsibly but be thankful that they will be there if ever we need them.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[claymore]

Hmm but if there was a change in the system to avoid what you describe? Also - I am not suggesting that charges are made to everyone - even though, bound as we are by current thinking and mindset - there must surely be a way whereby acts of stupidity which incur costs (I've no idea what it costs to launch a lifeboat but I guess it will be quite costly) can have a mechanism attached so that recovery of those costs can take place? Fairly straightforward business practice I would have thought.
It also seems to me - but Para is the expert on this - that the target market for RNLI funding initiatives is retired people. I assume that with all the hoohaa about pensions, that is a funding base which does not have a secure longer term prospect? It seems therefore, all the more important that wider ranging cost effective working practices are put into place by the RNLI fairly quickly to save squandering existing funds

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[claymore]

I couldn't agree more - I am not suggesting that people should be put into the position where they are wondering whether they can afford to be rescued - if you consider the mountain scenario discussed elsewhere - if you fall and hurt yourself you are picked up - responsible mountaineers make provision for this eventuality by taking out appropriate personal accident insurance - as do skiers.

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[jimi]

Come on .. surely the situation a described is a bit different from the normal run of the mill mishap or error of judgement. What has happened here is that someone had chosen quite blatantly to disregard quite clear advice and put his craft and life in danger by so doing. Not only the life's of his crew but also the rescue services. I feel that in these circumstances there should be some form of penalty on the skipper, because quite simply he should not be in charge of a boat either due to ignorance or complete lack of judgement.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[claymore]

Quite right - there's mair tae this lark than wearin a musto jacket an a pair o' deck shoes.
I feel a compulsory qualification post coming on!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[webcraft]

Re: Acts of Stupidity

This always seems a valid point Claymore and Jimi, but . . .

Who defines stupidity?
Who interprets the definitions?
How does the appeals procedure work?
Who gets the blame when someone doesn't call the lifeboat and kills their crew because they are poor or mean and knows they have been stupid? (Sort of compound stupidity here . . . but the crew may be quite innocent victims).

Re. RNLI contributions - I believe a large percentage is from legacies - and yes, I guess these could dwindle because of stock market performance - but generally, as Ken's link showed, the RNLI are an extremely well funded and set up charity. We are very lucky to have them.

The best thing for the idiots who abuse the service is education . . .

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

i could maybe agree if in addition to that he had ignored weather forecast and knowinglly set out into force 8.

other than that you could view that conditions caught him out. he made the judgement to come in. remember harbour masters aint infallible
the fact that he did not make it back safe does not mean he would have fared any better out at sea.

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>if guinness is good for you. i must be very very good</font color=red>

 

[ParaHandy]

Funding for RNLI is legacies (quite often from people rescued by RNLI during WWII) which is dropping away. I doubt anybody was too concerned until the RNLI reserves took a hammering as stock markets crashed - I do mean a serious hammering. The changes in chartiable donations wrought by the lottery and the numerous public and private bodies requiring additional money gives the RNLI very stiff competition. Any inference that the service is picking up people too lazy to help themselves is very damaging to their efforts. The Thames RNLI which does rescue the lives of many people is good publicity for them.

Recent (2002) CG statistics tends to support the view that us lot are getting better with the growing problem being the beach/shore people eg mum with toddlers drifting away on a lilo or beach walkers cut-off.

The average launch cost is £4,000 to 6,000.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Nowt wrong with knowingly going out in F8 as long as the craft and crew can handle it. However there is a lot wrong with knowingly putting yourself into danger against clear advice of the harbourmaster. I know of some harbours in the past where they put a boom across the entrance a) to help break the swell b) stop idiots chancing their arm in dangerous situations.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[claymore]

Re: Acts of Stupidity

Panel of Experts.
Jimi, Para, Ken, You, Donald, TCM, Sailbad, Mirelle, Me
WE decide
No appeals
Panels word is final
Panel is made up of 9 just men and true
5 need to agree. The other 4 are off the panel and 4 replacements are brought in. Panel is quorate with 5.
That should do the trick
First Reserves
LongJohn,James Jermain if we can drag him away from the pan, Stingo and CC49 if we can prise him from his oilfield.
Followed by rolling programme.
Not allowed on Panel - Lavvie Brush and ReneTremblere as they probably do it different over there

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[sailbadthesinner]

oh agreed
my point is that if he knew it was a f8 se and then he was fooolish
a) cos any crew will get tired and or find that it is a bit worse than
they remember last time
B) cos they should know that return may be impossible / bloody dangerous


<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>if guinness is good for you. i must be very very good</font color=red>

 

[ParaHandy]

youse may nae be aware that on ra boat wis his missus ... she micht hae been verra frightened ....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[claymore]

<The average launch cost is £4,000 to 6,000>
'bout the same as your average family cruiser then!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[claymore]

Ah dinnae think

thet kindae namby pamby attitude helps, Para - jes stap all tha' liberalism noo ye big daft jessie.

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[jimi]

And nae wunder!! Compounds the problem really, think if I'd been offshore in a F6+ I'd have been thinking about changing destination to either the E Solent or Dover from a long way out with the missus and/or family on board.Might have been a tougher call with a very strong crew on board.

<hr width=100% size=1>