RNLI rescue of a yacht suffering hydraulic failure

[lpdsn]

I believe that a combination of ill-prepared/equipped yachts, and a service who will always err on the side of caution (for the best of reasons) will ultimately increase the number of 'cry wolf' calls the RNLI respond to.

The other side of the coin is that the RNLI appear to use 'cry wolf' calls to help with the training of their crews. Yes, it costs money but imagine the alternative of a crew having to go out to a 'real' emergency in a F11 not having done anything but a bit of Sunday morning and evening training over the last two or three months. Even an easy 'cry wolf' call would help the crew gel and become more efficient, although it seems this one involved at least a bit of difficulty.

 

[Triassic]

'The RNLI philosophy remains the same as it was in 1824: to provide our lifesaving service using volunteers wherever possible, with voluntary donations supplying the funds needed to do so.'

So why are you concerned were my money goes to as I am a monthly donater, or where other peoples money goes , people can stop donating their money if they think it is a a waste of resources , but I can guarantee no one will, but you seem to have an issue with other peoples money , why is that

Firstly your quote in italics. This is exactly my point. They're a life saving service, not a breakdown service. Staying on topic and using the information and facts now available on the example in hand can you provide a reasonable explanation as to how the lives of the four individuals reported on this yacht were in any way in peril?

Secondly this is not necessarily about the money, my issue is with the attitude of sailors. Someone earlier in this thread made reference to the two calamity sailors rescued numerous times a while ago whilst making their way in haphazard steps around our coast. If I recall correctly they actually said in one of the many interviews they made that one of the reasons they felt able to behave that way was because of the free and efficient rescue service the RNLI provides. This reluctance to accept any kind of personal responsibility is in my view a sad aspect of modern life. My issue is not with the RNLI, or the way they spend my (or yours) money, they are always going to respond to demand because the alternative is to not to, and they can't afford the potential consequence of a bad call. No, my issue is with the person making the demand, and that's us, the sailors.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

.... my issue is with the attitude of sailors. .... .

Have you never made a mistake or been in a situation where you thought you could have done better, been more informed? Reading this thread, it is all a bit petty to me: Rich people in new boat don't know how to deal with their craft, therefore I am going to take issue with it, sort of thing. When compared to the facts around leisure sailing incidents the vast majority of leisure sailors at all levels of experience don't come to grief requiring rescuing. There is really very little to fuss about the incident as far as I can tell. As for the two 'calamity sailors' at least they had the forethought to make a risk assessment that included the RNLI, and why should they not. We are all fortunate in this country that we have such a service, freely available to all and integrated into the fabric of the emergency services. It allows us to to perform our leisure sailing comforted by that fact irrespective of skills, competency and luck.

You may think that these sailors in the article were feckless or incompetent, but when I read perceptions like this I think about the highly skilled sailors who have also come to grief such as Tabarly, James and Fisher. We are all just one action away from disaster, in an environment that we can not live in without artificial support.

By the way, I do like to speculate and think such inquisitiveness and enquiry is on balance a good thing to do. But it does come with the risk of challenge which can be difficult to defend.

 

[duncan99210]

Most people here seem to miss the major point. The RNLI do not launch their boats in direct response to a request from the skipper of a vessel. Rather, the skipper of the vessel inform the coastguard of a problem: the skipper may simply say “I’ve broken down but will be sailing into port” or may be declaring a panpan or mayday. The coastguard will then decide on an appropriate response, which may include tasking the RNLI to launch.
In this case, the RNLI cox appears to have questioned the coastguard as to the necessity of the launch. Once he had the explanation from the coastguard he decided it made sense to launch as a precaution in case things got more complicated or hazardous. As I said earlier, makes all sorts of sense to me.
I’ve been at the blunt end of two incidents where SAR assests were tasked to assist. In both cases, the initial call to the coastguard reported the problem and what the crew intended to do. In neither case did we ask for assistance except for one where we asked for an ambulance to be standing by for casualty evacuation on arrival. In one instance the coastguard tasked the Alderney ALB to assist, in the second a helicopter was tasked to evacuate the casualty directly to hospital.
As others have said, the RNLI would prefer to launch if there is any doubt about the requirement rather than try sorting things out too late to affect the outcome. Often, a cool head in a control room will be in a better position to make those sort of decisions than a small craft skipper who’s trying to sort things out by himself.
On the allied point of people going out in boats who are not prepared for the conditions they encounter or not understanding how to deal with routine breakdowns, I can’t help but agree. But to an extent, I’d rather see that happening than see some laid down licensing system put in place by people far removed from the sea aiming to stop the “problem”.

 

[Major_Clanger]

As for the two 'calamity sailors' at least they had the forethought to make a risk assessment that included the RNLI, and why should they not. We are all fortunate in this country that we have such a service, freely available to all and integrated into the fabric of the emergency services. It allows us to to perform our leisure sailing comforted by that fact irrespective of skills, competency and luck.

Completely wrong and without wishing to appear rude, that is a very slack attitude. The lifeboats are there as an absolute last resort in a perilous situation. They are not there to prop-up shortfalls in our competence or equipment, and most especially if we put to sea with the assumption "oh it'll be fine, we can always call for help".

We must learn to be more responsible for ourselves, not imperil any third party unless there really is no alternative.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Completely wrong and without wishing to appear rude, that is a very slack attitude. The lifeboats are there as an absolute last resort in a perilous situation. They are not there to prop-up shortfalls in our competence or equipment, and most especially if we put to sea with the assumption "oh it'll be fine, we can always call for help".

We must learn to be more responsible for ourselves, not imperil any third party unless there really is no alternative.

Only in your opinion. What level of competency do you suggest defines 'responsible', are you the authority that should define it. Knowing there is an excellent maritime emergency service available to be called upon is entirely reasonable for any person to consider when making a voyage in the UK. The logical conclusion of your position is that there should be no RNLI because we are all responsible for ourselves.

Major_Clanger, your certainly not rude and I agree with the point you make about being responsible, but for me that is a personal ambition, to be as prepared as I can be. I am very glad that our leisure sailing is free from restrictions and that people can choose to go on the water or not without any mandatory training and develop their skills in anyway they please at a rate they choose.

 

[GHA]

No, my issue is with the person making the demand, and that's us, the sailors.

Who is making the "demand" in this case? Quick look at the media links doesn't say, the boat may well just have informed the coastguard of the situation with no "demand" for assistance. Not uncommon round the east coast, a yacht will inform the coastguard of being aground but in no danger and a RNLI boat will go for look anyway.

 

[penberth3]

...Staying on topic and using the information and facts now available on the example in hand can you provide a reasonable explanation as to how the lives of the four individuals reported on this yacht were in any way in peril?

...my issue is with the person making the demand, and that's us, the sailors.

The response you quoted in post #30 includes the following perils; no nav lights, an erratic course, busy shipping in the area.

So the CG requested the lifeboat to assist, the sailors didn't "demand" it.