Sète's new lifeboat

Sybarite said:
Let me ask you one simple question. Do you think that any state in its right mind would buy a 60' lifeboat if it couldn't go to sea in more than a F8?

Plain commonsense - as well as what is written in the description which you persistently ignore "all weather" ; Bureau Veritas "Unlimited navigation".
Click to expand...

So how do YOU explain the clear statement with regard to the ORC182 by the builders that it's operational capability is up to sea state 6, significant wave height 4m?

Now note, that once again you are conflating facts and confusing the issue

There is no information available regarding operational limits of the new SNSM CTT as equipped with conventional propulsion.

There IS the above statement of fact from the builders regarding the jet propulsion ORC182 which YOU propose as being comparable in capability etc. to the Shannon

There is, clearly, a dichotomy in the available facts. On the one hand, the ORC182 is claimed, note claimed, to be "all weather" yet on the other it is stated to have an operational limit that equates to F8/9. "All weather" is a subjective description and on the basis of the stated limitations one that I reject as being misleading

As far as the B.V. certification is concerned, "unlimited navigation" refers to the sea areas it is certified to operate in, not the conditions for which it is suitable. Now I grant that it is not unreasonable to assume an "all weather" survival capability for the vessel itself in order to obtain that certification (but I cannot, on a brief search, find details of the certification scheme) but that does not necessarily equate to an all weather operational capability

Whichever way you crumble the cookie, the available facts do not add up

As for the costs, we're right back to square one again. Comparisons between low to moderate volume production boats and low volume one off designs are a crock. I've no argument with you that, inevitably, the decision to design and build Shannon in-house significantly increased the costs. My argument is that there was no suitable alternative without significantly compromising on the operational requirement

Argue with that all you will but you have yet to come up with any alternative to Shannon which is capable of being beach launched and recovered
 
What was available off the shelf at the start of the 13-year Shannon development? This process must have been near fruition, or complete by the time any of the alternatives proffered above had embarked on their shorter lead in.
 
Bru said:
So how do YOU explain the clear statement with regard to the ORC182 by the builders that it's operational capability is up to sea state 6, significant wave height 4m?

Now note, that once again you are conflating facts and confusing the issue

There is no information available regarding operational limits of the new SNSM CTT as equipped with conventional propulsion.

There IS the above statement of fact from the builders regarding the jet propulsion ORC182 which YOU propose as being comparable in capability etc. to the Shannon

There is, clearly, a dichotomy in the available facts. On the one hand, the ORC182 is claimed, note claimed, to be "all weather" yet on the other it is stated to have an operational limit that equates to F8/9. "All weather" is a subjective description and on the basis of the stated limitations one that I reject as being misleading

As far as the B.V. certification is concerned, "unlimited navigation" refers to the sea areas it is certified to operate in, not the conditions for which it is suitable. Now I grant that it is not unreasonable to assume an "all weather" survival capability for the vessel itself in order to obtain that certification (but I cannot, on a brief search, find details of the certification scheme) but that does not necessarily equate to an all weather operational capability

Whichever way you crumble the cookie, the available facts do not add up

As for the costs, we're right back to square one again. Comparisons between low to moderate volume production boats and low volume one off designs are a crock. I've no argument with you that, inevitably, the decision to design and build Shannon in-house significantly increased the costs. My argument is that there was no suitable alternative without significantly compromising on the operational requirement

Argue with that all you will but you have yet to come up with any alternative to Shannon which is capable of being beach launched and recovered
Click to expand...

Whatever.

I am giving up the will to live trying to be logical with you.
 
Bru said:
Rich again!

In other words, you have no answer to the presented argument(s) so you will just ignore it / them
Click to expand...

I do understand you know that all you are trying to do is to wind me up - as you tried in previous years.

I have played along long enough now.

Back under your bridge.
 
Sybarite said:
I do understand you know that all you are trying to do is to wind me up - as you tried in previous years.

I have played along long enough now.

Back under your bridge.
Click to expand...

Once again ducking the very real issues with your arguments, now by accusing me of trolling!

True, I have to admit, there is a certain amount of fun to be had watching you wriggle and squirm but that's just a bonus

There is a very serious side to countering your regular RNLI bashing because there are fatal flaws in your case that you continue to fail to address
 
Oh do come off it sybarite, look at your two first posts with a dispassionate eye: 'Here's a lovely rescue boat.....bigger than a Shannon, same engines'.
We all know where you stand on the RNLI, but no response. then at 03.21...(why exactly do you sit up half the night?):
'Aren't you going to argue? See this, look at the costs, look at the range'.....
....and you call Bru a troll.

So if we all agree with you at last, what then?... as I often ask......
 
Lifeboats were introduced, were they not, in days of yore when men of steel put food on their tables by venturing out in wooden boats and ships that were at the mercy of the elements and often times errors of their own navigation.

In these days of accurate GPS, reliable engines and fewer professional sailors - the overall risk and probability of loss of life is much smaller.

I vote that we should do a risk profile analysis, cost benefit analysis and then not bother with lifeboats.
 
Not quite as simple as that NormanB.

The UK has singned up to an International Accord to supply SAR services at sea in our waters.

The RNLI provide the service at no cost to the taxpayer.

They also supply, at a cost to Local Authorities who use them, beach lifeguards and rescue services.
 
rotrax said:
Anyone apart from Sybarite and Bru qualified to comment? I'm certainly not.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that Sybarite is qualified to comment, I understand he is a Chartered Accountant and not a Chartered Engineer issued by IMarEST, I don't know much about Bru, but he is certainly speaking more sense.

Sadly, Sybarite keeps banging on about money and does not consider the operating design parameters used for both boats. Until both boats are fully tested in operation conditions at the extreme, I did suggest Shetland in a previous post, nobody will ever know.

I wish I could understand what Sybarite wants to happen as a result of his posts, stop people putting their hand in their pockets? If so that is utter madness.

https://www.imarest.org/
 
Sandy said:
I wish I could understand what Sybarite wants to happen as a result of his posts, stop people putting their hand in their pockets? If so that is utter madness.

https://www.imarest.org/
Click to expand...

That's what I have said several times, and invited him to suggest how we might ensure the RNLI get enough, but not so much as to allow profligacy. No answer as usual.
 
fisherman said:
That's what I have said several times, and invited him to suggest how we might ensure the RNLI get enough, but not so much as to allow profligacy. No answer as usual.
Click to expand...
Agreed, over the years I commented that the two organisations are very different and work in different countries, but that is ignored. Along with comparing the total cost of providing lifesaving at sea - we understand the French system is different and more complex, but he does not consider those costs.

I know people on lifeboats in both countries, all brave people, but banging on about costs is total madness.

Compared to some of the programmes I work on the cost of running both the RNLI and SNSM is petty cash. I really do wish he concentrate on sailing and less RNLI bashing.
 
Sandy said:
I don't believe that Sybarite is qualified to comment, I understand he is a Chartered Accountant and not a Chartered Engineer issued by IMarEST, I don't know much about Bru, but he is certainly speaking more sense.
Click to expand...

Thankee kind sir!

In defence of my esteemed adversary.Sybarite is well qualified to comment on financial matters and as in the past made some potentially valid comments, or certainly, at least, posed some worthwhile questions, about the RNLI's finances and management structure.

My background is in engineering, particularly system design and implementation (originally in machine / process control systems, later in local and wide area networks) and the so called third sector as a charity volunteer, employee and trustee (not all at the same time!). So I would consider myself to be moderately well qualified to comment on general engineering matters and specifically knowledgable about UK charity management

Sandy said:
Sadly, Sybarite keeps banging on about money and does not consider the operating design parameters used for both boats.
Click to expand...

It's worse that that. Sybarite persistently makes invalid comparisons, cherry picks facts which suit his arguments, ignores or dismisses facts which do not and wilfully presents opinions as facts.

He also, if you have been following his RNLI bashing from the start across the dozens of threads he's started or usurped on the subject, is inconsistent. On the one hand he criticises the RNLI for having too much money yet on the other he proposes they should be spending less money on cheaper boats and buildings

And now, presented with a counter-argument that he cannot find a way to dismiss, he's taken to playing the man rather than the ball

Sandy said:
I wish I could understand what Sybarite wants to happen as a result of his posts, stop people putting their hand in their pockets? If so that is utter madness.
Click to expand...

Again in fairness originally Sybarite was pointing up some worthwhile questions about the management and finances of the RNLI. Over time he has become fixated on the cost difference between the RNLI boats and facilities compared to the SNSM equivalents

He does pose a valid question. There is no avoiding the simple fact that the Shannon system (the boat and the SLS) is very expensive. The question is whether the RNLI could have procured a suitable boat, or elements thereof, more cheaply and the supplemental question is whether it would have been desirable to do so.

As to the main question, Sybarite has yet to propose an off the shelf solution, or any variation thereof, that is anywhere near close to meeting the basic requirements for Shannon. The beach launch / recovery requirement appears to be unique to the RNLI (I'll be happy and interested to be pointed at any other all weather lifeboat that is routinely beach launched over the range of surfaces and conditions that the RNLI operates with, or even at all). The RNLI did spend considerable money and development time pursuing the option of using an off-the-shelf hull design (Carmac) and decided to reboot the project and start from scratch because although the Carmac based prototype was (probably) good enough, it wasn't as good as it could be.

Whether the base Pantocarene hull is "better" (for a given value of "better") than the base Carmac hull is a moot point. Neither Sybarite nor I has anywhere near enough knowledge to make that assessment. I will however say that I have formed the opinion, based on the data available from the manufacturers, that the Pantocarene design may have some limitations in it's capabilities in extreme weather. It is not, of course, designed to operate in open ocean hurricane conditions (you don't board pilots sixty miles offshore in the Atantic in an F12!) and it does appear to be particularly efficient in the conditions it is designed to operate in. Whether it would have been a suitable base for the Mersey lifeboat replacement is another unknown. I would assume that the RNLI development team looked at it and rejected it, but I don't know that for sure, and I would guess that the answer is no for the above reasons but that is merely my opinion

And then there's the political elephant in the room. Even if the Pantocarene design is suitable, would it be politically (in the broadest sense) acceptable for the RNLI to procure an overseas design from a foreign company? whilst I, and any reasonably sensible person, would say "yes, if it's the best available option", there are plenty of xenophobes, and particularly Francophobes, who would be unhappy, to say the least, with RNLI spending money outside of the UK and I have to say that the elderly well to do legacy benefactors feature more than their fair share of such anti-European attitudes. So a decision to buy a French design could have, I say could not would, impacted on legacy income and fund raising

And that brings us to the decision by the RNLI to take production in-house, which is anathema to Sybarite and his ilk. It stems from the acquisition by the RNLI of Green Marine in Lymington. Green Marine were the only company in the UK with the capability of building the RNLIs lifeboat hulls and the owners were retiring and putting the business up for sale. After investigating all their options, including potential overseas suppliers,, the RNLI (rightly in my opinion) decided to acquire the company and secure its supply chain. From there, the logical step was to carry that through and bring the fitting out of the hulls in-house.

Now in one respect Sybarite is quite right. In-house low volume production tends to be inherently more expensive than outsourcing production to the lowest bidder. But that assumes that there is a competitive market, with spare capacity, for the production of the "product" in question. There certainly isn't that market in the UK and that brings us back to the issue of whether it would be politically acceptable to buy the boats themselves from abroad let alone the design.

There is also the simple fact, and I have far too much personal experience of this, that outsourced production comes with its own significant issues. It may (or may not) be cheaper but it does inevitably mean a loss of direct control over quality, production scheduling, etc. and it leaves the end user vulnerable to external forces over which they have no control such as the supplier going out of business etc.

Given that the RNLI can financially afford to take production in-house, and thus retain a UK based ability and facility to build all weather and inshore lifeboats, I'm all in favour of it both from an engineering and a political perspective (the pursuit of ever lower costs and the drive to outsourcing was one of the significant factors in the decline of much of the UKs engineering industry. Cheaper is not always better!)

Anyway, I've waffled enough and it's time for breakfast :D
 
Bru said:
Anyway, I've waffled enough and it's time for breakfast :D
Click to expand...
Thanks Bru for that posting. We have similar professional backgrounds, but I've not researched the data on the hulls.

I'll have a chat to somebody on the local IET committee who was involved in the production of lifeboats when they were made at Devonport and see what he has to say.

Back to the very long and detailed application for my Chartership, I hold the record for the longest procrastinating in the history of the IET, I am quite sure they handed my wife her accountancy Chartership just because she passed some exams. ;)
 
Sandy said:
Thanks Bru for that posting. We have similar professional backgrounds, but I've not researched the data on the hulls.

I'll have a chat to somebody on the local IET committee who was involved in the production of lifeboats when they were made at Devonport and see what he has to say.

Back to the very long and detailed application for my Chartership, I hold the record for the longest procrastinating in the history of the IET, I am quite sure they handed my wife her accountancy Chartership just because she passed some exams. ;)
Click to expand...

Wow - the hounds are baying.

As I am currently travelling and there is a lot to comment on I will come back on Bru's post later.
 
Sybarite said:
Wow - the hounds are baying.
Click to expand...

What hounds are baying?

Play fair, I'm respecting, and disagreeing with, your opinions, and avoiding it getting personal (as you may recall we mutually agreed some considerable time ago), have the courtesy to do the same otherwise this debate will degenerate into a slanging match

Sybarite said:
As I am currently travelling and there is a lot to comment on I will come back on Bru's post later.
Click to expand...

When you do have time, how about addressing the points already raised in this thread that you've so far avoided (because they bash a dirty big hole in your argument!) :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top