RYA calls to end the compulsory carriage of flares on leisure craft.

[Tranona]

I was told today by someone 'quite significant' in the HM Coastguard operations world that of the 600+ 406MhZ EPIRB alerts he's had to deal with, only 5 were valid emergencies.

No, this is exactly 'as reported'.....

I looked into this in detail a few years ago. There was an annual summary of all the EPIRB activations (probably still is), by location and type of activator. Leaving aside the large number of false alerts, the vast majority were in or around Australia, the Pacific and the coasts of N America - all areas with poor VHF coverage . The biggest source was from land based activations followed by light aircraft and way behind marine. Almost none of the marine activations came from European waters. This may of course changed a bit with increased number of yachts fitting them, but for the European coastal waters VHF is still dominant and the need for EPIRBs limited.

It is obvious from the very low level of serious losses of yachts (or even ships) in European waters that the combination of VHF, mobiles and superb rescue services there is little need for additional means of contact when help is required.

Of course it is different offshore when these means get lost, but any responsible sailor knows this and uses the mechanisms that are more appropriate.

It is all about risk assessment and it is clear that many assess that the chances of getting into a situation where only pyrotechnic flares might be effective are very small and do not justify having them on board.

 

[Gary Fox]

Where I live I've seen quite a lot of parachute flares used for training. I've noticed that parachute flares always seem to catch the eye, even when focussed elsewhere and even in bright daylight.

I've also seen parachute flares used for illuminating the sea to search for people in the water but I'm not sure whether these are 'standard' parachute flares or a device optimised for search illumination.

They also have a unique and characteristic whooshing noise, which turns peoples' heads even if they have never seen one go up.

 

[prv]

An article by the rnli stated a figure of over 70% of distress calls were made by mobile phone...

If their TV coverage is anything to go by, most of their callouts aren't to "proper vessels", though. Someone on a paddleboard being blown out to sea is unlikely to have a VHF, PLB, or flares, but very likely to have a phone in a waterproof pouch. Also calls from shore on behalf of someone else will almost always be by mobile.

Pete

 

[Gary Fox]

I looked into this in detail a few years ago. There was an annual summary of all the EPIRB activations (probably still is), by location and type of activator. Leaving aside the large number of false alerts, the vast majority were in or around Australia, the Pacific and the coasts of N America - all areas with poor VHF coverage . The biggest source was from land based activations followed by light aircraft and way behind marine. Almost none of the marine activations came from European waters. This may of course changed a bit with increased number of yachts fitting them, but for the European coastal waters VHF is still dominant and the need for EPIRBs limited.

It is obvious from the very low level of serious losses of yachts (or even ships) in European waters that the combination of VHF, mobiles and superb rescue services there is little need for additional means of contact when help is required.

Of course it is different offshore when these means get lost, but any responsible sailor knows this and uses the mechanisms that are more appropriate.

It is all about risk assessment and it is clear that many assess that the chances of getting into a situation where only pyrotechnic flares might be effective are very small and do not justify having them on board.

You seem to be ignoring the posters, including me, who have been rescued by using flares. Not to mention the professionals, including helo pilots and lifeboat crew, who endorse flare use from experience.
Since the contributors to this thread make up a small percentage of the world's yachtsmen, we can extrapolate the proportion globally, and the number of those saved by flares becomes significant. Although one is enough.
Your seem to be arguing for the sake of it, having taken an entrenched anti-flare stance; it's hard to work out why.
Do you hold the opinion that other mariners ought only to carry and use what you, personally, think they should? Do flares need to be taken out of use, in your view? What point are you actually making..if any? It's hard to pick one out from the stream of anecdote, emotion and condescension.

 

[Juan Twothree]

I've also seen parachute flares used for illuminating the sea to search for people in the water but I'm not sure whether these are 'standard' parachute flares or a device optimised for search illumination.

The red and white flares carried by lifeboats are physically the same.

Only differences are that the red burns for 40 seconds at 30,000 candelas, whilst the white burns for 30 seconds at 90,000 candelas.

 

[Koeketiene]

Are flares still required by the French authorities?

As far as I am aware, they are not required.
However, when you do carry them, they must be in date.

 

[alan_d]

'Lack of reliability'? First lie.
'Lack of effectiveness'? Second lie.

While many of us like to draw attention to statements that we believe to be inaccurate, most of us realise that describing them as "lies" is more likely to generate hostility than lead to a measured re-examination of the facts.
The same applies to assertions like "In the wet dream of an RYA shiney-assed ignoramus office-worker who is easily startled by loud noises. "

 

[Tranona]

You seem to be ignoring the posters, including me, who have been rescued by using flares. Not to mention the professionals, including helo pilots and lifeboat crew, who endorse flare use from experience.
Since the contributors to this thread make up a small percentage of the world's yachtsmen, we can extrapolate the proportion globally, and the number of those saved by flares becomes significant. Although one is enough.
Your seem to be arguing for the sake of it, having taken an entrenched anti-flare stance; it's hard to work out why.
Do you hold the opinion that other mariners ought only to carry and use what you, personally, think they should? Do flares need to be taken out of use, in your view? What point are you actually making..if any? It's hard to pick one out from the stream of anecdote, emotion and condescension.

You seem determined to "prove" that you are right that flares are essential based on a very small sample, just because they worked for you in a very specific situation which the vast majority of people are never likely to encounter. This seems to blind you from the actual question, which is whether flares should be compulsory. You (and many others here) have failed to address the original question.

You cannot deny that pyrotechnic flares have become less and less important as other mechanisms for attracting attention have become available - never mind the other aids that help yachtsmen from getting into a position of needing to call for help in the first place. You also seem to ignore the fact that they are only useful (as others have pointed out) if there is someone around to actually see the flare and is able to act upon the sighting. This really does narrow down the times that they might actually be effective to very specific circumstances. If you really listen to what the "professionals" say you will find that they will explain the very specific circumstances where they are useful - and that will not include the vast majority of situations where the other methods of attracting attention are far more effective.

I am afraid it is you that seems to have a VERY entrenched view and seem unable to accept that things have changed and more importantly that others can assess the evidence available and make up their own mind about the value of carrying flares. Where have I ever said what others should do? If you draw that conclusion it just means that you have not understood what I have written. In fact it is only you that has direct experience of being "saved" by a flare, although some have recounted secondhand the experiences of others. I do not accept your assertion that because one person out of the small number on this forum has had this experience, extrapolation to the whole population of sailors would result in a significant number. Suggest you study statistics to discover why this is not so. (Something to do with a single random event in a very small sample from a very large population will help you on your way.)

I just love your last sentence as it describes perfectly what many of the contributions to this thread exhibit, but I hope not mine. All I am suggesting is that there may be very sound reasons why the value of flares has diminished over the years and people have, as I suggested exercised their own judgement and decided for themselves that there is little value in carrying them, so do not. No, flares should not be banned - nobody least of all me has said they should. The only argument here is whether they should be compulsory on private yachts over 13.7m when they are not compulsory for yachts smaller than that.

You actually responded (or rather did not respond) to a post about EPIRBs where I suggested that their value for sailors in European waters was exaggerated based on the real data about activations. Many of us (including me) have rushed into buying these and PLBs, but there is limited evidence that they are actually of any value for the type of sailing they do. In my defence I had mine for a trip from Greece back to the UK - but only because it was on the boat because of Greek charter coding requirements. Bizarre as there had been at the time zero activations of EPIRBs from any leisure yachts private or charter in Greek waters for the 5 years since they had been compulsory. I suspect (although I have not checked) there have been no activations since. I would guess that vested interests had a big say in their inclusion in coding requirements, rather than any rigorous examination of whether there was an actual need.

One of the major problems with yachting with regard to safety related issues is the lack of reliable data on the causes of emergencies and the effectiveness of devices sold on safety grounds. To use your own words, anecdote, emotion and condescension dominate, filling the vacuum left by the lack of data. So your one personal example in your eyes becomes the norm and suppliers, regulators and peers play on this.

 

[WoodyP]

I had an engine failure on a trip back from France, but it hadn't particularly concerned me, we just continued under sail, until at night the wind fell very light and we were hardly moving and barely had enough way on to maintain anything like our heading. We just settled down to wait for the wind to pick up. We were fairly well inshore, and most shipping was well out to sea and trudging up or down the English Channel.

We had, though, seen a ship approaching from far away up the coast behind us. It was clearly showing a steaming light and the port red, so it seemed clear that it would pass to seaward of us. We kept watching, for maybe 20-or 30 minutes, more frequently than usual mainly because it was carrying some additional lights that we couldn't work out at a distance. As it got nearer we eventually saw it was showing towing lights, and the tow was also lit. When it was got close its course suddenly changed so it was now showing both port and starboard lights - it was heading straight for us! (We weren't moving any where near fast enough to make any difference to our view of it.)

Suddenly highly stressed, I got the crew on deck and told her to put her lifejacket on, got my 'big' torch (though not anywhere near as powerful as more recent LED torches) and started shining it alternatively flashing at its bridge and on up to illuminate our sails. I managed to turn the yacht, mainly by using the rudder as an 'oar', so that we were at right angles and moving (to the limited extent we were moving at all) shorewards and presenting the biggest possible visual target).

As the ship bore down on us we prepared to jump ship, the starboard light disappeared behind the bow, and the ship and its tow slid past less than 100m away.

I still don't know whether it had seen us, and whether it altered course to miss us. But I did realise that in my near panic I had completely forgotten the existence my 'steamer scarer' white flare - I'd carried one for years but never used one except on bonfire night. I think it would have had a much better chance of alerting someone who may have been on the bridge but looking elsewhere.



I have let off flares and smokes, about 5 years ago, that dated back to 1989. Every single one worked, but some of the reds were pale - more pink - and I didn't time them to see if they lasted the full specified time.

I think letting off hand flares when the expire is good experience (I always wear goggles, leather gloves, and a heavy coat and leggings, just in case), and both gives me more confidence in using them, and means that I have only to dispose of my parachute flares (which in this area would risk coming down, still burning, on houses, roads or woods).

Didn't you try calling them on channel 16? That would have been my first choice.

 

[Kerenza]

i have a close relative who was deeply involved in military use of flares. As the inventor and patent holder of some highly specialised pyrotechnics he has a lot of experience, although not in the maritime rescue arena, of operational issues.
When I asked him some time ago if he could source me some flares for the boat, his answer was there was no way he would facilitate my obtaining them. His experiences of horrific injuries and sometimes worse while training with professionals led him to believe there was no way untrained people should be allowed anywhere near them, particularly in stressful situations.
Several years ago, during a race, we had occasion to need a lifeboat while closthate to the finish line, inshore of a busy seafront.
We had onboard the usual flarepack, plus extra orange smokes.
The mayday call was by vhf and the tasked lifeboat was within a mile of us on practice manoeuvers. Their issue was identifying us amongst a fleet of similar boats. The one flare of use, which made a big difference, was the orange smoke., both handheld and floating.
After that our club amended the Si's to make it mandatory to carry them.
These days I would prefer Electronics, mobile phone, oled type flares and a couple of smokes to be standard.

 

[ip485]

I havent followed this thread in detail, so please forgive.

However, no one has banned flares. I therefore dont see an issue. If you want to carry them, carry on doing so.

The RYA has obvioulsy considered the vast majority of sailors, and on balance feel flares for the vast majority are not essential, which I totally endorse. Inevitably those who think otherwise will disagree, but they are not being compelled to do anything they might not wish to.

I think the RYA have taken an amazingly sensible and pragmatic decision. Well done!

 

[Tranona]

Except it is not really a decision that has any effect. This is the second time the RYA has lobbied to have the over 13.7m rules changed but previously rejected by MCA. So nothing has changed.

The original post asked for views on this, but virtually nobody responded directly and the thread morphed into the usual bunfight of pros and cons of flares rather than the anomaly of compulsion for some private boats and not for others.

Of course whether flares have a place is a good topic, particularly as part of the RYA justification for their position is the decreasing usefulness of flares given the advances in other methods of calling for help.

 

[dunedin]

[

Didn't you try calling them on channel 16? That would have been my first choice.

.....or looked them up via AIS and made a DSC call to the specific ship. Again the point being many examples of modern safety equipment not available back in the heyday of pyrotechnic flares being a primary option.

 

[zoidberg]

I'm thinking that those who are quibling about the '13.7 metres' issues are coming to this from the wrong direction.

As my tired ould brain has it, ALL vessels on the seas are Regulated by the International Maritime Organisation, or IMO, in respect of inter alia Fire Protection and LifeSaving Appliances, Radiocommunications and Search and Rescue, and other considerations - and Britain is a Signatory State having incorporated the agreed provisions into British Law as it applies to vessels within its domain.

That means that IMO directives apply, many of which are promulgated via the International Convention for Safety Of Life At Sea ( SOLAS ).

Specifically, certain equipment is required by law to be carried and to be serviceable. By Law.

However, 'vessels used exclusively for recreation below 13.7metres' have a negotiated derogation from SOME of the IMO-mandated requirements. Radios fit, flares and fire-fighting kit come to mind. That's us, folks. But do bear in mind that other IMO rules still apply to us yotties IN FULL.

Other nation-states have different derogations. Spain and France come to mind.

ISTM that if someone seeks to make a case for a different derogation - or exemption - the right place to start one's argument is the IMO, on the Albert Embankment, London. They're nice people, but good luck with that.

 

[Tranona]

I'm thinking that those who are quibling about the '13.7 metres' issues are coming to this from the wrong direction.

As my tired ould brain has it, ALL vessels on the seas are Regulated by the International Maritime Organisation, or IMO, in respect of inter alia Fire Protection and LifeSaving Appliances, Radiocommunications and Search and Rescue, and other considerations - and Britain is a Signatory State having incorporated the agreed provisions into British Law as it applies to vessels within its domain.

That means that IMO directives apply, many of which are promulgated via the International Convention for Safety Of Life At Sea ( SOLAS ).

Specifically, certain equipment is required by law to be carried and to be serviceable. By Law.

However, 'vessels used exclusively for recreation below 13.7metres' have a negotiated derogation from SOME of the IMO-mandated requirements. Radios fit, flares and fire-fighting kit come to mind. That's us, folks. But do bear in mind that other IMO rules still apply to us yotties IN FULL.

Other nation-states have different derogations. Spain and France come to mind.

ISTM that if someone seeks to make a case for a different derogation - or exemption - the right place to start one's argument is the IMO, on the Albert Embankment, London. They're nice people, but good luck with that.

Re you sure about that? In the RYA guidance on regulations there is not one mention of the IMO. The requirements for British ships are covered by Merchant Shipping Regulations, many of which stem from various international conventions such as IRPCS, SOLAS, MARPOL and UNCLOS.

Pleasure boats under 13.7m registered length are exempt from all equipment requirements except those implied by SOLAS V, but those over that length (known as class XII) have specific mandatory safety and firefighting equipment requirements that include flares.

I have difficulty in understanding what IMO Directives "still apply in FULL". UK law determines what regulations apply and none of the ones you listed apply to "us folks" (unless your boat is class XII when some may or may not (in the case of fire).

You are just confusing the issue b y bringing in the IMO which does have some influence over international commercial shipping regulations - but not pleasure boats.

 

[WoodyP]

[

.....or looked them up via AIS and made a DSC call to the specific ship. Again the point being many examples of modern safety equipment not available back in the heyday of pyrotechnic flares being a primary option.

I don't have AIS, but yes that's the best, possibly a Pan pan all ships about inability to manoeuvre.

 

[NorthUp]

....The requirements for British ships are covered by Merchant Shipping Regulations, many of which stem from various international conventions such as IRPCS, SOLAS, MARPOL and UNCLOS.

...

The IRPCS etc above are conventions of the IMO, thats where they get their legal status from the member countries.

 

[zoidberg]

My dear Tranona,

The sainted RYA is not the arbiter of maritime law, but an occasional interpreter.... and not always reliable at that. I believe you will find, should you raise your game just a little, that the structure IS as I have indicated.

Of course, individual signatory states encompass IMO and other Treaty Obligations by enshrining the agreed provisions in domestic law - in our case, via Statutory Instruments. Others make their own local arrangements.

That's the way of it. Should you still have a beef, do take it up with the RYA Legal Department. If they can be bothered, they'll put you to rights.

While you're there, you could ask them about whether the EC Recreational Craft Directive still applies. That'll keep both you and them tangled in knots for a while. Enjoi!

 

[Tranona]

My dear Tranona,

The sainted RYA is not the arbiter of maritime law, but an occasional interpreter.... and not always reliable at that. I believe you will find, should you raise your game just a little, that the structure IS as I have indicated.

Of course, individual signatory states encompass IMO and other Treaty Obligations by enshrining the agreed provisions in domestic law - in our case, via Statutory Instruments. Others make their own local arrangements.

That's the way of it. Should you still have a beef, do take it up with the RYA Legal Department. If they can be bothered, they'll put you to rights.

While you're there, you could ask them about whether the EC Recreational Craft Directive still applies. That'll keep both you and them tangled in knots for a while. Enjoi!

The way you expressed it read as if there are overriding requirements derived from the IMO which are in addition to those required by UK law. You then emphasised that other IMO rules apply in FULL - and I asked what they were in addition to those required by UK law. If there are none , why make an issue of it?

I think you are just confusing the issues. My reason for saying that there is no specific mention of IMO by the RYA is because that does not add anything - it is UK law that matters. As a matter of fact if you read the guidance it does indeed say that many of the requirements originate from international conventions - oh I also seem to remember saying that. So, I do know the structures are and do not have any beef. Just questioning why you think (according to your first sentence in your original post) that knowing the IMO role makes any difference to the issue of carriage of flares that varies for different sizes of boats. This is surely a domestic matter and lobbying to change domestic law is a legitimate activity.

 

[davidej]

In the wet dream of an RYA shiney-assed ignoramus office-worker who is easily startled by loud noises.

That's pretty offensive. Obviously you feel strongly about this but there is no need for such comments.

You come over as angry and shouty. You should reserve this behaviour for the Lounge.