So, what is wrong with the RNLI?

[toad_oftoadhall]

so no one outside the UK wears life jackets?

I'm willing to bet that there are and always have been bouyancy devices considered to be life jackets abroad that would not not be considered life jackets in the UK (and Europe now). It's a pretty arbitary term after all.

I'm calling it a night too. Hopefully someone with a better memory/google skills than us will be able to confirm if the standard preceding BS EN 399:1994 allowed for inflatables or not.

I'm betting it did not, and then BS EN 399:1994 was the first time inflatable bouyancy aidss were permitted to be Life Jackets in the UK and then over the next couple of years LJ useage went into the stratosphere. Be interesting to see if I'm right.

I'm astonished other people don't remember this happening. It was a big thing at the time, it wasn't that long ago, and the average poster on YBW was walking the Earth then Pontius Pilate was still taking flying lessons!

 

[Ubergeekian]

Here again we meet the problem they face. I'd assert that for the vast majority of people the injunction is a good piece of advice and likely to be taken as such.

No. It's a terrible piece of advice. It's hectoring, nagging nannyism. It's health and safety gone mad. It's probably political correctness gone mad as well.

Only a tiny, tiny minority of beaches are lifeguarded, and for a small fraction of the time. 99.99% of the population are perfectly capable of evaluating and using beaches without lifeguards. The suggestion that they can't is a further move towards national wussiness and should be resisted.

 

[Ubergeekian]

With the speed and reliability of the service as it stands, that is effectively what you have already.

May I, with all due respect, suggest that you have a look at the lifeboat map of Britain before making damn fool statements like that. You might care, in particular, to look at the West Coast of Scotland between the Mull of Kintyre and Cape Wrath.

 

[oldfatgit]

In summary, so far, it appears that in answer to my original question, there are concerns regarding the following issues to do with the RNLI.

An overly authoritarian attitude shown by some lifeboat crew and beach life guards when dealing with the public, which assumes that the public is not competent to make judgements about their own safety. In extremis this has led to assistance being forced on boat skippers when, in the judgement of the skippers, it was not necessary.
Concern about the generous funding position of the Institution leading to expenditure on publicity campaigns and expansion into areas where their efforts are seen as at best unwelcome and worst authoritarian interference into the right of individuals to apply their own judgement and take their own risks.
Concern that the RNLI in pursuit of its purpose is, effectively, reducing individual rights to take risks.
The bossy tone of publicity campaigns regarding where to swim from beaches and whether or not one should wear a life jacket.
Concern that the RNLI is not promoting what constitutes a complete and safe life jacket; this could apply to other safety equipment.
Belief that the RNLI could both endorse and sell safety equipment, particularly life jackets, made to the right standards at reduced cost by virtue of its purchasing power thereby promoting the use of such equipment by all, including those who currently do not spend what it currently costs on such equipment.
Concern that the RNLI is effectively part of the “nanny state”, promoting regulation at the expense of personal freedom.

Have I missed anything or is there anything else?

 

[Ubergeekian]

That said I really can't understand the reaction the RNLI get on here and I suspect that overwhelmingly it is from people who have had nothing to do with them. For example, the posts about forced rescues - has anyone here ever experienced it?

Yes, me. I've already posted about it.

And do you think that a rescue situation is one where democracy and debate ought to flourish or one where someone should take control?

When a private organisation is doing the rescuing - yes, it should be up to the victim whether or not he is rescued. Am I welcome to roar up beside you in a RIB any time I like and rescue you if I think it's justified - or would you want a bit of democracy and debate?

 

[Ubergeekian]

I'm betting it did not, and then BS EN 399:1994 was the first time inflatable bouyancy aidss were permitted to be Life Jackets in the UK and then over the next couple of years LJ useage went into the stratosphere. Be interesting to see if I'm right.

Definitions aside, I think you have an excellent point. When I was in the Sea Scouts in the late 70's, one of the leaders had an inflatable lifejacket - and an expensive item of wonder it was, too. Hardly any leisure sailors had them - lifejackets were for most bulky items which you put on in bad weather only.

There has undoubtedly been a huge increase in the proportion of leisure sailors wearing flotation devices, and that should certainly show up in the statistics.

 

[oldfatgit]

May I, with all due respect, suggest that you have a look at the lifeboat map of Britain before making damn fool statements like that. You might care, in particular, to look at the West Coast of Scotland between the Mull of Kintyre and Cape Wrath.

I have looked at the map, and I concede that the density of lifeboat stations is less than along the more populated and busy coastlines and this must be of concern for those who sail in that magnificent area (something I look forward to in the future). Nevertheless, assuming that you fell into trouble at a likely but remote location, how long would it take a a lifeboat to reach you? Suitably equipped, would you expect to be able to survive until it arrived? I believe that the location of life boat stations is a compromise between likely deployment areas and the location of centres of population from whom volunteer crew can be recruited. That is why the only full time crew are placed on the remote location that is Spurn Head at the mouth of the Humber; reason being that the demand for the lifeboat at sea in that area is comparatively high and so remote from local centres of population to that not enough people live to furnish volunteer crew. Perhaps a similar approach would be needed on the West Coast of Scotland to fill any gaps in the cover.

 

[oldfatgit]

No. It's a terrible piece of advice. It's hectoring, nagging nannyism. It's health and safety gone mad. It's probably political correctness gone mad as well.

Only a tiny, tiny minority of beaches are lifeguarded, and for a small fraction of the time. 99.99% of the population are perfectly capable of evaluating and using beaches without lifeguards. The suggestion that they can't is a further move towards national wussiness and should be resisted.

I would agree with you if we did not have the right to ignore it. Currently we do, but I suspect that when somebody ignores the advice and, say, their child drowns, then an ignorant politician will force legislation granting powers to the RNLI. So I share some of your concerns.

 

[CSFenwick]

I have looked at the map, and I concede that the density of lifeboat stations is less than along the more populated and busy coastlines and this must be of concern for those who sail in that magnificent area.

Why would you think that a lower density of lifeboat stations would be a concern?

 

[mikefleetwood]

Why would you think that a lower density of lifeboat stations would be a concern?

Because the context of the original remark was "only sailing when accompanied by a safety boat"

Back several pages (I am just catching up!) there was the suggestion that RNLI patrols were displacing volunteer lifeguards. As far as I can recall, many of the original "surf lifesaving clubs" seem to have folded due to lack of interest/members. In any case, they usually only operated at weekends. Local authoritys responsible for popular beaches tried to run their own lifeguards, but were more than happy to contract to the RNLI instead.

As for lifejackets - there is the likelyhood that the RNLI would opt for the best design available - crotch straps, hoods and flashing lights - at a cost far higher than a standard manual/auto-inflation model. But with their buying power there is every possibility that the cheaper manufactureres would be forced out of the market, leaving no real choice. There are a lot of sailors who don't venture into offshore or rough conditions where the higher-spec lj is essential, or affordable, so where do they start?

I never venture more than a mile offshore, in any more than 1-2' sea or significant wind. I always wear my £30 manual-inflation lj. But if I had to spend £50-60 on it, would I bother?

 

[pvb]

I never venture more than a mile offshore, in any more than 1-2' sea or significant wind.

Interestingly, despite the many dramatic photos in their publicity material, the vast majority of RNLI launches take place in what many sailors might consider relatively benign conditions. Over 77% of launches last year were in winds of force 4 or less. Only 1.9% of launches were in gale force or stronger winds. As for not venturing far offshore, the vast majority of launches are of Inshore Lifeboats.

 

[Searush]

Is it a lifejacket?

Dear Toady,
While I smile at your naive belief in the efficacy of rules & regulations, and I can remember BoT ships' Mae West "lifejackets" filled with Kapok back in the 50's & 60's, the definition of the difference between BA & LJ has long been that BA's are designed to help you remain afloat & LJ's are intended to turn an unconcious casualty on their back, with head above the water.

In the late 50's/ early 60's Beaufort were making inflatable collar LJ's designed to be worn part inflated & fully inflated manually by CO2 canister if you fell in. These, as already mentioned were not cheap (back then I could only afford one bought from the factory as a cosmetic second and used by swmbo for many years). IIRC they were RNLI specified for their crews at the time.

So, they were sold as life jackets & I'll bet the CAA requirements of the time would have been for life jackets on intercontinental air flights. They will have fufilled the BoT requirements for lj's at the time. They may or may not meet current "rules" but that is quite irrelevant. Back in the 1900's lifeboat men wore cork waistcoats that were always described as lifejackets, but would only class as buoancy aids by later regulations.

 

[oldfatgit]

Interestingly, despite the many dramatic photos in their publicity material, the vast majority of RNLI launches take place in what many sailors might consider relatively benign conditions. Over 77% of launches last year were in winds of force 4 or less. Only 1.9% of launches were in gale force or stronger winds. As for not venturing far offshore, the vast majority of launches are of Inshore Lifeboats.

Umm.. I would be very surprised if they were to put boring pictures in their publicity material it is, after all, designed to impress.

 

[oldfatgit]

Why would you think that a lower density of lifeboat stations would be a concern?

Good question, perhaps I wish I'd written "I have looked at the map, and I concede that the density of lifeboat stations is less than along the more populated and busy coastlines and this might be of concern for or some of those who sail in that magnificent area." In mitigation I plead that I was already late for work and hence rushed my writing.

 

[oldfatgit]

Yes, me. I've already posted about it.

Please forgive me, I have looked but cannot find the post, tried via "All posts made by Ubergeekian". Please could you post a link as I'd like to read it?

 

[Cookee]

It is a fact, proven by rigorous research carried out by the MOD, that to expend energy swimming to stay afloat, causes one to loose heat and strength faster than if you do not. If wearing a life jacket one should put on the hood, curl up into a ball, and keep still to prolong life, only expending energy swimming where it will improve your situation (such as swim for a life raft or river bank).

Sorry to disagree with you, but having just done my STCW 95 Reg. Section A-VI/I-1 course (That's Sea Survival!) we were trained that by far the most efficient way of conserving heat was to put your legs out straight and cross them as tight as possible, this prevents the arteries which are situated on the inside of your thighs from being exposed to moving water, we were also told that tucking your hands into your lifejacket would also preserve heat.

To prove this worked we were told to jump into the heated pool and stay in this position for several minutes, after which we were instructed to extend your arms and legs and even in a heated pool the difference was very noticeable!

Apologies for the diversion - Carry on!

 

[oldfatgit]

Sorry to disagree with you, but having just done my STCW 95 Reg. Section A-VI/I-1 course (That's Sea Survival!) we were trained that by far the most efficient way of conserving heat was to put your legs out straight and cross them as tight as possible, this prevents the arteries which are situated on the inside of your thighs from being exposed to moving water, we were also told that tucking your hands into your lifejacket would also preserve heat.

To prove this worked we were told to jump into the heated pool and stay in this position for several minutes, after which we were instructed to extend your arms and legs and even in a heated pool the difference was very noticeable!

Apologies for the diversion - Carry on!

Need to check my notes from my sea survival course, which are, of course, on board. I am sure though, in the open water bit we crossed our ankles, tucked our hands in as you suggested and curled into a ball to conserve heat. Nevertheless, swimming to keep head above water because not wearing a life jacket results in quicker loss of heat than inactivity with one on. Thanks, I need to check this out.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Examples of Questionable Behaviour By RNLI

Please forgive me, I have looked but cannot find the post, tried via "All posts made by Ubergeekian". Please could you post a link as I'd like to read it?

Read through the link below, including the attached links and you will find Ubergeekian's example and at least 2 others. It was these examples which promted me to make this Post and Link.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I smile at your naive belief in the efficacy of rules & regulations,

Personally, I think the introduction of the BS EN 39x:1994 standards was the sole significant factor that opened the water gates to the uptake of life jacket wearing by yachtsmen. As I've said, I could be wrong, I'm relying on nothing more than memory.

I will find the standard that preceded BS EN 39x:1994 and see if that prohibited inflatable LJs.[1] However, that will only show correlation, not causality. There can be no conclusive proof.

[1] Maybe someone's got an elderly LJ with kite mark in the shed and can post the details?

 

[pvb]

I will find the standard that preceded BS EN 39x:1994 and see if that prohibited inflatable LJs.[1] However, that will only show correlation, not causality. There can be no conclusive proof.

An earlier standard was BS3595. Lifejackets to this standard were around in the 70s. Inflatable lifejackets were permitted - although I'm not clear whether this included automatic inflation as well as manually-triggered inflation.