RNLI rescue of a yacht suffering hydraulic failure

[LadyInBed]

In general, I would rather hear that a LB was called out and not required than hear that a tragedy occurred because the skipper thought he could handle the situation then couldn't.

 

[Giblets]

Perhaps these images of the lifeboat's track during the incident may assist in the discussion.

 

[moomba]

In general, I would rather hear that a LB was called out and not required than hear that a tragedy occurred because the skipper thought he could handle the situation then couldn't.

As it should be,
and to reiterate the RNLI are a charity based on donations and hard working volunteers , to use the term EMERGENCY SERVICE is wrong and does not need to be scrutinised as no public money was used.
Emergency services are the CG, the Police , The fire Service and Ambulances which all fall into public bodies and can be scrutinised by said public
To use motorways as an example is silly, the AA and RAC are not emergency services , you are getting carried away with the adverts
If

 

[Tranona]

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.

You are starting from the point that you disapprove of the way the RNLI resources are used, therefore you read what happens through that lens, ignoring anything that does not fit your view.

It was the professionals on the spot that made the decision in the light of the information they had at the time. Of course they sometimes get it wrong and launch when it subsequently proves to be unnecessary - that is just the nature of decisions in situations where there is limited information.

Once again in justifying your position you start making up things that are unknown. You have no idea what was happening on the boat - so why make something up? Your last sentence of the second paragraph gives you away. NONE of those things were known one way or the other when the decision was made to launch. It is easy to try and be wise after the event, but you were not the one faced with the decision to task the lifeboat, neither are you trained to make such decisions.

How far are you away from the real world in your last paragraph. They were not towed home for free and anyway the RNLI have a policy of not charging and are quite clear that they will tow or escort a boat to safety if it is the appropriate thing to do. Why are you questioning this?

 

[Dutch01527]

I am not sure why this thread has morphed into bickering about the RNLI. Once they get the call they have to air on the side of caution and attend the incident. It is also right that they do not make comments about an incident that are critical of the boat involved.

I think that there is probably a embarrassed skipper somewhere who is wishing that he had just sailed the boat in and not made a call that set off a sequence of events that he neither asked for or wanted. Lesson for me is to think about all the systems on board my boat and make sure that I am familiar enough with them and have a contingency plan in the event of failure.

 

[Bobc]

The one thing we can conclude, is that someone has paid a lot of money for a boat that isn't seaworthy. There are going to be some interesting conversations with the yard I'm sure.

 

[TOKOLOSHI]

And you can rest assured that the owners will be making a substantial donation to the RNLI?

 

[AndrewfromFal]

The one thing we can conclude, is that someone has paid a lot of money for a boat that isn't seaworthy. There are going to be some interesting conversations with the yard I'm sure.

A rather seductive video (made by the shipyard) turned up on my Instagram feed yesterday for this boat and I thought it looked pretty cool. Amazing how a turn of events can make one re-evaluate.

For anyone who's interested it's an 85' Bill Dixon design, custom built by Baltic Yachts. Designed to be handled by a crew of 4.
https://www.balticyachts.fi/yachts/baltic-85-custom/

 

[Major_Clanger]

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.

Absolutely spot-on.

 

[Stemar]

The RNLI and other local lifeboat services have said more time than should be necessary that they'd far rather go out and have do nothing than be called out to look for survivors and retrieve bodies. As a former copper, I'm with them 100% on that. I'ts part of the reason they don't charge, as they very reasonably could for a tow in when lives aren't in danger. A boat that's not fully under control in one of the biggest shipping lanes in the world or near sandbanks is, to my mind one where lives could well be in danger. I've watched a few of the Saving Lives at Sea programmes and I think, in my comfortable armchair and with the benefit of perfect hindsight, "wtf were the victims doing out there?" Then I think about one or two decisions I've made over the years where I've got a forecast wrong and a bit of dodgy fuel on a lee shore would have turned into a mayday, pdq.

 

[Triassic]

You are starting from the point that you disapprove of the way the RNLI resources are used, therefore you read what happens through that lens, ignoring anything that does not fit your view.

Actually I said quite clearly that my view is that a significant number of sailers are poorly equipped to deal with issues at sea, and stories such as this only go to support that view. Having spent a career in an investigative role I'm reasonably familiar with the principal of pre-conception thanks.

Instead of just psycho analysing me why don't you do as I did and provide some reasoned argument as to why you think this was a proportional use of RNLI resources, based, as I did, on the information that is available. Remember the "just in case" and "better safe than sorry" argument is the one that has the NHS ambulance service currently on it's knees.

 

[awol]

A Remember the "just in case" and "better safe than sorry" argument is the one that has the NHS ambulance service currently on it's knees.

.... and I thought it was the absence of necessary funding - a failing from which the RNLI do not appear to suffer.

 

[steve yates]

.... and I thought it was the absence of necessary funding - a failing from which the RNLI do not appear to suffer.

+21!

 

[Concerto]

A rather seductive video (made by the shipyard) turned up on my Instagram feed yesterday for this boat and I thought it looked pretty cool. Amazing how a turn of events can make one re-evaluate.

For anyone who's interested it's an 85' Bill Dixon design, custom built by Baltic Yachts. Designed to be handled by a crew of 4.
https://www.balticyachts.fi/yachts/baltic-85-custom/

Thank you for identifying the yacht in the rescue. From your link I see it has a telescopic lifting keel that draws 2.95m retracted and drops to 4.3m. That draft is getting close to some commercial ships, so could be quite restricted in where they could go with the keel down - Ramsgate is not one of them for all states of tide. Personally I do think the situation was handled correctly by the Coastguard and the RNLI. In this case it was certainly better to be safe than sorry.

 

[Triassic]

.... and I thought it was the absence of necessary funding - a failing from which the RNLI do not appear to suffer.

You could look at it that way, or you could recognise that whilst funding has been increased by 16% over the past four years demand has risen by 30%...... You could indeed throw even more money at it, or perhaps you could educate those that are making the demand? The RNLI are indeed well supported, and as I said earlier I really hope that continues to be the case.

I'm well aware I don't hold a popular view, and frustrating though that is it's not something that's going to change without some fairly reasoned argument which regrettably I'm not getting on here. Such is life.

 

[moomba]

You could look at it that way, or you could recognise that whilst funding has been increased by 16% over the past four years demand has risen by 30%...... You could indeed throw even more money at it, or perhaps you could educate those that are making the demand? The RNLI are indeed well supported, and as I said earlier I really hope that continues to be the case.

I'm well aware I don't hold a popular view, and frustrating though that is it's not something that's going to change without some fairly reasoned argument which regrettably I'm not getting on here. Such is life.[/QUOTE

I dont get your argument , the RNLI are totally funded by donations , and do not take any money from goverment , this allows them to be impartial

'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

 

[Major_Clanger]

I dont get your argument , the RNLI are totally funded by donations , and do not take any money from goverment , this allows them to be impartial

'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

The fact that the RNLI are funded solely from public donation doesn't excuse them from a degree of reasoned scrutiny. Further, anyone who donates to them, be it the lifeboat in the pub, or a regular direct debit, has every right to know how that money is spent - within reason of course. Equally, they are entitled to an opinion as to how the service conducts itself.

I had cause to use their services a few years ago, and my admiration for the crews is without bounds. However, 'our' money doesn't go to the crews directly. It goes to, amongst many other things, salaried shore staff who have brought the cancer of political correctness to the institute, and had a direct affect on those at the sharp end. That, IMO, is certainly a candidate for scrutiny......

Triassic is right. Far too many people venture to sea in a manner that puts themselves, and others, at potential risk. Modern nav aids, powered everything, radios that make distress calls on our behalf, furling, powered, super-duper boats. To a degree we've lost our connection to the sea and its ways, and then when something goes wrong we're buggered. No redundancy, back-ups or the knowledge to make a plan. That's a generalisation with many notable exceptions, but none-the-less true for that.

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.

 

[moomba]

The fact that the RNLI are funded solely from public donation doesn't excuse them from a degree of reasoned scrutiny. Further, anyone who donates to them, be it the lifeboat in the pub, or a regular direct debit, has every right to know how that money is spent - within reason of course. Equally, they are entitled to an opinion as to how the service conducts itself.

I had cause to use their services a few years ago, and my admiration for the crews is without bounds. However, 'our' money doesn't go to the crews directly. It goes to, amongst many other things, salaried shore staff who have brought the cancer of political correctness to the institute, and had a direct affect on those at the sharp end. That, IMO, is certainly a candidate for scrutiny......

Triassic is right. Far too many people venture to sea in a manner that puts themselves, and others, at potential risk. Modern nav aids, powered everything, radios that make distress calls on our behalf, furling, powered, super-duper boats. To a degree we've lost our connection to the sea and its ways, and then when something goes wrong we're buggered. No redundancy, back-ups or the knowledge to make a plan. That's a generalisation with many notable exceptions, but none-the-less true for that.

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.

All yachts go to sea with a certain degree of Danger that is the way of the sea , one mans preparation is anothers woes ,
engines , hydraulics can fail at any time without the person even knowing what is going on.
The RNLI are moderated by a trustee group who deal with the financial sides of the business and they at the request or a good google search will have accounts to show to the public , so no they are not subject to public scrutiny this is were you can if you want, stop paying that money. If you have issue with a lifeboat been launched and money which has be donated now needs to be spent on fuel , you have no say in the matter . if it disturbs you leave, this is called choice.
I also know how the RNLI work , as my Brother was an Architect on the latest ocean boats, so yes salaries are also paid out, did I question his salary and say he you thats my money NO., still happy to donate and not ask questions

 

[awol]

I understood that the RNLI were one of the assets that the Coastguard could task to an incident. The actual decision to launch (or untie) rests with the RNLI Launch Authority who would be a very brave person to refuse the Coastguard request. Do the Coastguard carry out an efficient triage system might be the question but to blame the RNLI seems misplaced.
To continue the ambulance analogy - the paramedic driver does not prioritise his attendance at incidents. That is the purview of the dispatcher.

 

[moomba]

I understood that the RNLI were one of the assets that the Coastguard could task to an incident. The actual decision to launch (or untie) rests with the RNLI Launch Authority who would be a very brave person to refuse the Coastguard request. Do the Coastguard carry out an efficient triage system might be the question but to blame the RNLI seems misplaced.
To continue the ambulance analogy - the paramedic driver does not prioritise his attendance at incidents. That is the purview of the dispatcher.

PERFECT