bedouin
Well-Known Member
Not yet
RNLI rescue of a yacht suffering hydraulic failure
- Thread starter Concerto
- Start date
RupertW
Well-Known Member
Seamanlike approach to a situation where the boat's systems' were fragile certainly, or where the systems had backups for hydraulic failure but the crew were unaware.
We should keep speculating and fact gathering - this stuff effects the systems we'll end up buying in a few years time and I don't like the idea of a boat where a computer and/or hydraulic failure cannot simply be resolved with (perhaps tiring) manual systems.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
In a marine context, you and I take "stranded" to mean aground. Sadly, modern reporting has no knowledge of the meaning or derivation of words in the English language.
The boat was apparently 29 miles offshore.
Last edited:
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Could still be aground. As I pointed out that part of the North Sea is riddled with sandbanks that could give problems with a boat of that draft. The emphasis in inability to raise the board suggests it was in shallow water and possibly in some danger - hence the call to the CG.
prv
Well-Known Member
I'm with Norman - I think the local newspaper (or online equivalent) was just using "stranded" to mean "in difficulty and unable to go where they wanted to", not specifically to mean the boat was aground. The headline also says that the whole event took place in Ramsgate Port, so accuracy and consistency is clearly not a priority.
The reason the keel was a problem is presumably that it prevented the RNLI from just towing them straight into wherever they'd otherwise take a yacht in difficulty.
Pete
Triassic
Well-Known Member
Neither the press article or the fb page make any reference to the lifeboat recovering them from being aground, it simply says it escorted them to sheltered waters off Ramsgate where further attempts were made to get the sail down (which the photos show was only around a third of mainsail out anyhow), and that they managed to get the keel up manually. Yes there are indeed shallow patches in those waters, but there are also plenty off deep water channels and there is no information to suggest any issues with steering or propulsion, indeed the photos quite clearly show the vessel under it's own steam with someone at the helm. I've not seen any information that would have suggested danger to either the vessel, it's crew, or others, it was simply yet another mechanical breakdown to which the lifeboat have been deployed by the Coastguard.
That's not me speculating, it's drawing logical conclusions from the facts they have supplied combined with a little knowledge (a little I stress) of the area and the options available, plus a look out the window at the prevailing weather conditions......
Tranona
Well-Known Member
You (and others including me) are still speculating. The report is specific that the failure occurred 29 miles "offshore" from Ramsgate, and there are many sandbanks in that area where a 4.5m draft could be a problem. However it does not say the lifeboat went 29 miles - but it was out for 8 hours. it does not say what assistance the lifeboat crew gave other than it escorted the yacht to sheltered water and that the board was raised.
As you say - and I said earlier there is so little information available so almost every "logical" conclusion could drawn depending on the other assumptions you make and could be right or wrong. Can you explain why you came to the conclusion that it was "just another mechanical breakdown" immediately after admitting that you do not know the facts. You seem to have a strange understanding of the meaning of the word logical.
Where I part company with many here is the suggestion that this is somehow a wrong use of the lifeboat implying that the crew should have sorted it themselves or there was no danger, or the boat should not have been "fragile".
This is pure prejudice - nobody knows what was actually wrong nor why the decision was made to task the lifeboat. Or is it acceptable to hold the view that a 26m superyacht does not deserve to call for help?
moomba
N/A
Sorry it like Mumsnets with gossip and speculation 
As Tr. stated before a yacht got into some trouble (no one knows) and called the CG and they asked the RNLI to go out . must be noted that the RNLI are volunteers and do not speculate , gossip , or criticise in any form on their rescues at sea, so that's a dead end , and as for the newspaper reporting , not exactly the NY times , so no doubt there were other events out with our knowledge that kept a lifeboat out for 8 hours , god bless them.
no doubt some one forgot to put money in the meter for all that electrical equipment.
As Tr. stated before a yacht got into some trouble (no one knows) and called the CG and they asked the RNLI to go out . must be noted that the RNLI are volunteers and do not speculate , gossip , or criticise in any form on their rescues at sea, so that's a dead end , and as for the newspaper reporting , not exactly the NY times , so no doubt there were other events out with our knowledge that kept a lifeboat out for 8 hours , god bless them.
no doubt some one forgot to put money in the meter for all that electrical equipment.
sailor211
Well-Known Member
That’s what forums are for.
Triassic
Well-Known Member
Sorry it like Mumsnets with gossip and speculation
As Tr. stated before a yacht got into some trouble (no one knows) and called the CG and they asked the RNLI to go out . must be noted that the RNLI are volunteers and do not speculate , gossip , or criticise in any form on their rescues at sea, so that's a dead end , .
The RNLI are a public supported charity, it's not unreasonable for the use of those resources to be questioned and held accountable.
As for your dead end this is the reply I got on fb.
"We do not usually give many details regarding launches but we have decided on this occasion to give the facts regarding the decision to launch.
When the Coastguard set the pager off for a request to launch we phoned them for the reason of the request, they replied that the yacht had contacted them about 40 minutes previously reporting an electric problem and that they were not showing any navigational lights. Coastguard monitored them on radar in case any vessels appeared close to them, whilst monitoring the yacht it started to steer erratically so Coastguard tried to contact them via VHF, but could not make contact. Because of this and also because of busy shipping in the area they requested the AWB proceed to see if the yacht was ok, and We authorised the launch.
Hope this clarifies the situation."
Draw your own conclusion.
moomba
N/A
Like I said they have not commented or criticised the boat that they went out to investigate , you should read what is said !! They have went and done their job and as a charity they are not held accountable to the public they have a board that does that, and especially don't need those Who would question their decision making if they should launch or not , this is their decision and the coast guards and does not need busy bodys poking their nose in , they seem to have been doing a good job for a long time and hopefully a long time to come. (remember these ladies and gents are volunteers )
LittleSister
Well-Known Member
No it's not. Dutch summarised the value nicely in a post #15 above.
Depends why you're having the discussion, and what you hope to get out of it. An MAIB report based only on speculation would be useless, but for pondering and sharing ideas on what can go wrong, and how one could or should address it, speculation is just the ticket.
RupertW
Well-Known Member
Exactly - anyone who thinks speculation is wrong or unhelpful on a forum hasn’t grasped what forums are most useful for
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Most of the speculation here only exposes the writer's prejudices. That is why it is not helpful. Just look at the basic facts then read through what "speculations" and even "logical conclusions" people have just pulled out of thin air - or their prejudice (unsuitable boat, useless crew, should not have called the lifeboat, not in any danger, no shortage of water to sail in, only a mechanical breakdown etc.
How can anyone make such observations, and what purpose do they serve unless they just want to fill a vacuum. To move from the facts to these observations each one has made their own assumptions, and once you accept the assumptions then their "conclusions" might become logical. However it only holds if the assumptions are correct and as they are all made up in the writers mind they have no validity until they are tested against the facts - which are currently virtually unknown.
LittleSister
Well-Known Member
Not at all. The assumptions people make, and the conclusions they and others draw from them are part of the interest of the thread.
Triassic
Well-Known Member
They may serve to further a particular point of view. In my case I hold the view that a significant number of sailors are poorly equipped to deal with even small issues whilst at sea and and quite prepared to rely on an emergency service to resolve them. I think that is fundamentally wrong and undermines both sailing and the emergency services.
Stories such as this if left unchallenged may further that view, because there was nothing in the initial report that suggested it was anything other than a mechanical issue that could be resolved without placing the vessel or crew in danger, and it certainly resulted in a very protracted deployment from a large expensive lifeboat. Even the RNLI questioned the initial request to deploy, and despite their best attempts to subsequently justify why they did go I'm not convinced it was necessary. That's OK because as someone pointed out I'm just a busy body who shouldn't be poking their nose in, and if the RNLI want to become a publicly funded breakdown service who am I to interfere.....
The RNLI are currently a very well supported charity because the vast majority still believe that what they do is courageous and saves lives. I absolutely agree with that view and long may it continue. Anything that has the potential to sway public opinion away from that view should in my opinion be questioned and discussed, which I thought is what we were doing here.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
What you sem to be doing is using this incident as a vehicle for your prejudice without knowing all the facts.
That is exactly the point I am trying to make. You have decided already that this is a "breakdown" event and does not justify the RNLI attending then you make things up to suit your beliefs. Then you even claim that the RNLI are "covering up" when they have already explained why the decision was made to launch.
Where do you get the idea that public opinion is being swayed against the RNLI? The very opposite seems to be the case, given the popularity of their programmes on prime time TV and the ever increasing level of donations. The only negatives seem to be some people on here who are always carping about what they do and questioning their decision making - just are you are doing now with absolutely no justification.
moomba
N/A
+1
using words like deploying an expensive lifeboat and the RNLI justifying the outcome is silly land statements , the RNLI deploy on the request of the CG, I would find it extreme in the best circumstances that the RNLI would question such requests , also as said before the RNLI do not comment on the situation , as critique or lambasting any crew that sail on the seas.
In fact the 2 elderly gentlemen who were rescued 7 times by the RNLI around the UK in a boat that one could say was not sea worthy , the RNLI skipper who pulled them in the last time , 'we do not comment on the crew or the boat we go out and do our jobs , as maybe it may be you out there in trouble, no matter how experienced you are or how well the boat is preprepared
To put a price on a rescue is rather sad , considering it is a charity , and I for one are more than happy to keep my monthly subscription to them no matter who they save.
Triassic
Well-Known Member
Having a view is not necessarily having a prejudice. My view was not formed from reading about one incident, it came about as a result of reading many reports and I did't use this incident to support my view without establishing more facts. From the initial report I suspected it wasn't an appropriate use of an emergency service, others decided it was. What makes my view any more prejudiced than theirs? Is it any more right to start from a position of agreeing with something than not to? What did I make up to suit my belief? When I asked them the RNLI justified their decision to launch based on the vessel not being able to display navigation lights (it was daylight by the time they launched), on not being able to re-establish communication with the vessel (it was 29 miles from land and if the crew were busy trying to resolve issues it's no surprise they didn't hear or monitor the radio) it was taking erratic courses (wouldn't you if you were trying to drop a jammed mainsail?) and it was in a busy shipping area (after they had already said they were monitoring it's position in relation to other traffic which could easily be alerted). All this of course is overlooking the fact that the vessel wasn't taking in water, had propulsion, had steerage and was quite capable, as it later proved, of making it's own way to port without any assistance, let alone staying out of the way of other vessels.
If your car breaks down do you expect the emergency services to attend? Sure if it's in the middle of the M25 and presenting a danger to itself or others they'll come and get you to a safe refuge, but tow you home for free? Dream on.
Quandary
Well-Known Member
What is much more serious than a boat being escorted is the mis-application of the term 'Lake sailored', near the beginning of the thread, this needs to be nipped in the bud at once!
While Tranona and Duncan 99210 both gave similar responses neither were thanked by anyone, if Duncan had been, it was Tranona as the first poster who would have suffered the lake sailoring and would have been well entitled to complain.
Since Lakey withdrew standards are dropping (particularly below in the Lounge), so it is important that established traditions are properly maintained.
While Tranona and Duncan 99210 both gave similar responses neither were thanked by anyone, if Duncan had been, it was Tranona as the first poster who would have suffered the lake sailoring and would have been well entitled to complain.
Since Lakey withdrew standards are dropping (particularly below in the Lounge), so it is important that established traditions are properly maintained.
