Solo Sailor Rescued Because of PLB

[RunAgroundHard]

This came across my FB feed from the MCA. On occasion comments are made about the risk of PLBs not working and the risk of solo sailing being a death sentence if the sailor falls overboard. Glad to see that in this instance both these perceptions are demonstrated to be wrong.

If anyone has other news on this story, what type of PLB, type of alert via AIS or COSPAS-SARSAT satellite system, please post as it would be good to know. However, reading the long link text, it suggests it was COSPAS-SARSAT.

Posted on the 23 of May 2025 22.564 Aufrufe · 295 Reaktionen | A sailor who broke bones in 13 places after falling during a solo voyage in rough conditions was rescued with the help of his registered personal locator beacon (PLB). When activated, the signal was picked up by HM Coastguard's Joint Rescue Coordination Centre, who then deployed RNLI lifeboats to bring him safely back to land. Richard spent the next nine days in hospital recovering from his injuries. The incident demonstrates the value in carrying a registered beacon, as well as ensuring your vessel is maintained correctly and fit to go out to sea. RNLITorbay | Dart RNLI Lifeboat #Coastguard #Rescue #Boat | Maritime and Coastguard Agency

 

[KevinV]

From the looks of it he didn't go overboard though, did he?

 

[Mark-1]

From the looks of it he didn't go overboard though, did he?

...the video says it took them two days to get to him. Doesn't support the idea that PLBs generate an immediate response.

 

[ylop]

...the video says it took them two days to get to him. Doesn't support the idea that PLBs generate an immediate response.

I’m not sure that’s quite what it says - it’s said something like a harrowing 2 day ordeal. It didn’t say when in his troubles he actually activated the PLB, and how long to get to him?

 

[Mark-1]

I’m not sure that’s quite what it says - it’s said something like a harrowing 2 day ordeal. It didn’t say when in his troubles he actually activated the PLB, and how long to get to him?

You reckon he let off the PLB significantly after his ordeal started? Why? To save the batteries?

 

[ridgy]

A PLB is an EPIRB made by the same manufacturers but with a shorter battery life and no inbuilt flotation.
Why would you believe that they are unreliable?

 

[Mark-1]

A PLB is an EPIRB made by the same manufacturers but with a shorter battery life and no inbuilt flotation.
Why would you believe that they are unreliable?

Are you asking me or asking the OP?

I think they're incredible devices and about as reliable or more reliable than any emergency comms method we have. If you're in a life raft or striken vessel it's a near certainty you won't die if you have a PLB in most places in the world. (The guy was rescued and didn't die in the OP.) The OP says "not working" so he needs to explain what he means by that.

In the specific case of being in the water (in UK coastal waters) I think mobile phone or HH VHF would generate a quicker rescue because two way comms eliminates the steps that have to be taken to eliminate false alarms. (Of course, that assumes you have signal and there's someone around to hear the VHF transmission.)

 

[RunAgroundHard]

A PLB is an EPIRB made by the same manufacturers but with a shorter battery life and no inbuilt flotation.
Why would you believe that they are unreliable?

… because the term PLB now includes AIS devices. And there are claims from Cheeki Rafilki incident that the PLBs failed to continually transmit, unlike an EPIRB. The transmission frequency of the signal being received was recorded. The US coastguard stated that the transmission frequency signature from Cheeki Rafiki was that of a person floating in the water and loosing consciousness. PLB antennas have to be held upright to work. In the last ARC an MOB PLB that activated AIS did not alert the vessel, suspected that wave height masked the signal, the body was not recovered. That’s the gist of it. Still best to carry a PLB and EPiRB if affordable.

 

[Roberto]

A PLB is an EPIRB made by the same manufacturers but with a shorter battery life and no inbuilt flotation.
Why would you believe that they are unreliable?

Different type of reliability: an Epirb left alone in the water works, a plb cannot be left alone either it sinks or its antenna lays flat in the water, both things rendering it useless.

 

[Koeketiene]

...the video says it took them two days to get to him. Doesn't support the idea that PLBs generate an immediate response.

They don't - only the CG/MRCC/RNLI have an asset in your immediate vicinity.

If not, when they receive an EPIRB/PLB distress signal the first thing the MRCC will do is try to contact your contacts you gave when you registered your EPIRB/PLB.
This might take a while.
Only when your contacts confirm that you could be in the area where the signal originated will assets be deployed to come to your aid.
Or when you have made contact yourself via other means, such as satphone, satellite messenger, ...

So, it's important that the contact details of your emergency contacts are up to date and that they are aware of your intended movements.

 

[Juan Twothree]

In the specific case of being in the water (in UK coastal waters) I think mobile phone or HH VHF would generate a quicker rescue because two way comms eliminates the steps that have to be taken to eliminate false alarms. (Of course, that assumes you have signal and there's someone around to hear the VHF transmission.)

An epirb/plb alert is received by the MCC, which then passes it to whichever CG ops room is covering the relevant area. This is done via a flash message, so is instantaneous.
The ops room will then start contacting relevant shore contacts to ascertain whether the alert might be genuine. However because an epirb/plb is classed as distress, they have to start tasking assets within five minutes of being notified of the alert, regardless of whether or not their phone inquiries have proved conclusive.

Once assets are tasked, then further inquires will continue, if necessary.

All the above information was checked with my local CG ops room last September, when this question previously arose on this forum.

 

[ylop]

An epirb/plb alert is received by the MCC, which then passes it to whichever CG ops room is covering the relevant area. This is done via a flash message, so is instantaneous.
The ops room will then start contacting relevant shore contacts to ascertain whether the alert might be genuine. However because an epirb/plb is classed as distress, they have to start tasking assets within five minutes of being notified of the alert, regardless of whether or not their phone inquiries have proved conclusive.

Once assets are tasked, then further inquires will continue, if necessary.

All the above information was checked with my local CG ops room last September, when this question previously arose on this forum.

That sounds like it’s an improvement from the process which was in place when the FV Louisa sank in 2017. That involved faxes! Do something within 5 min is good but that’s within 5 min of the message hitting the local MRCC. The unknown remains how long from hitting the button to the MRCC receiving that message, everyone talks about EPIRB and PLB as though those steps are essentially near instant, but that doesn’t seem to be the case: device needs to get a GPS fix (or satelllites have a lot of work to do to pin you down to a vague area), the message needs to get into Corpassat, then the message needs to get the U.K. national service; then they need to identify the right MRCC and pass to them. It may well be the local MRCC operatives are not even aware of how long that first step takes to generate the “flash message”.

Start tasking assets is an interesting turn of phrase - it sounds to the uninitiated like there’s guys running down the slipway pulling on yellow wellies, but I think there’s a subtle difference, it might trigger an immediate launch but it might just involve the asset’s launch authority being made aware and some preparation? Ultimately the decision to launch marine or air assets doesn’t rest with the local ops room.

I’m not knocking PLB and EPIRB if I needed one of them I would be delighted to have them. I know someone who went for an unplanned swim and believes his PLB saved his life. But I wouldn’t want anyone to think hitting the PLB will get as fast a response as DSC/Mayday message. If I was a regular solo sailer id probably have a PLB on my person.

 

[ducked]

From the looks of it he didn't go overboard though, did he?

I thought that.

Its also hard to see how any incident can demonstrate the perception of "the risk of solo sailing being a death sentence if the sailor falls overboard." to be wrong, since it quite obviously isn't wrong.

You would need to add"inevitable" in front of death sentence, and probably remove the word risk, for this to make sense, even IF he fell overboard and was recued

 

[Mark-1]

they have to start tasking assets within five minutes of being notified of the alert, regardless of whether or not their phone inquiries have proved conclusive.

You've stated two completely different versions to this before. The MAIB reports suggest the "investigation" phase takes the total rescue time way longer than any likely survival time in water. (Of course by definition they are the times it went horribly wrong, so prrhaps not typical, but equally they don't mention a 5 minute best practice limit.)

I'd love it to be true and for someone to provide a credible link to back up the five minutes so I don't have a phone and VHF hanging round my neck. Until then I'm not ditching 2 way comms.

 

[Mark-1]

So, it's important that the contact details of your emergency contacts are up to date and that they are aware of your intended movements.

I"ve often pondered how to game this system and I was wondering if it would be better to not have any contact details. That way they can't do *any* checking and have to launch to find out if it's genuine.

Disastrous if everyone does it, the whole system would grind to a halt, but if it was just one person...

 

[Mark-1]

If I was a regular solo sailer id probably have a PLB on my person.

Probably best to cover all bases and have Mobile/HH VHF and combined PLB/AIS. But the ideal would be to ditch the bulk of the mobile/VHF and just have one small device which would be the PLB.

None of this would be a problem if they'd put limited two way comms in the spec 40 years ago when this stuff was developed. (So press the button 4 time if its genuine or some such.)

 

[Juan Twothree]

That sounds like it’s an improvement from the process which was in place when the FV Louisa sank in 2017. That involved faxes! Do something within 5 min is good but that’s within 5 min of the message hitting the local MRCC. The unknown remains how long from hitting the button to the MRCC receiving that message, everyone talks about EPIRB and PLB as though those steps are essentially near instant, but that doesn’t seem to be the case: device needs to get a GPS fix (or satelllites have a lot of work to do to pin you down to a vague area), the message needs to get into Corpassat, then the message needs to get the U.K. national service; then they need to identify the right MRCC and pass to them. It may well be the local MRCC operatives are not even aware of how long that first step takes to generate the “flash message”.

Start tasking assets is an interesting turn of phrase - it sounds to the uninitiated like there’s guys running down the slipway pulling on yellow wellies, but I think there’s a subtle difference, it might trigger an immediate launch but it might just involve the asset’s launch authority being made aware and some preparation? Ultimately the decision to launch marine or air assets doesn’t rest with the local ops room.

I’m not knocking PLB and EPIRB if I needed one of them I would be delighted to have them. I know someone who went for an unplanned swim and believes his PLB saved his life. But I wouldn’t want anyone to think hitting the PLB will get as fast a response as DSC/Mayday message. If I was a regular solo sailer id probably have a PLB on my person.

The reason for faxes years ago was that HM Coastguard wasn't fully networked. Stations were "paired", to cover each other's working if necessar (i.e Thames and Dover), but that was the extent of it. It's very different now.

Satellite alerts used to be sent via Falmouth CG, they now go to Fareham. Assigning the incident to the right MRCC takes seconds.

"Tasking" in this instance doesn't mean a vague chat with the launch authority to make them aware of a possible job, it involves requesting a launch, confirmation that they will proceed, and then assigning that asset into the incident, The CG's incident management software records to the second when the alert was received, when assets were assigned etc, plus every radio message and phone call in and out of the MRCC is recorded.

And finally, the decision to REQUEST marine and air assets does indeed rest with the local ops room. A lifeboat LA can turn down the launch request, but they need a very solid reason for doing so.

Request for air assets goes to the ARCC, which used to be at RAF Kinloss, but is now part of the JRCC at Fareham.

 

[Juan Twothree]

You've stated two completely different versions to this before. The MAIB reports suggest the "investigation" phase takes the total rescue time way longer than any likely survival time in water. (Of course by definition they are the times it went horribly wrong, so prrhaps not typical, but equally they don't mention a 5 minute best practice limit.)

I'd love it to be true and for someone to provide a credible link to back up the five minutes so I don't have a phone and VHF hanging round my neck. Until then I'm not ditching 2 way comms.

As you state, the incidents in the MAIB reports are there because something has gone wrong with the process. HMCG has changed beyond all recognition over the last few years, not all of it for the better IMHO, but some parts definitely have.

The fact that epirbs/plbs now have GPS makes it much easier to determine whether an alert is likely to be genuine. In the past we been launched to carry out a search for a vessel in distress, only for the epirb to be found in someone's shed, or in once instance left on the local recreation ground by some kids,

I get your point about two ways comms, and a waterproof mobile phone is a good call assuming you have a signal, although one disadvantage is that a lifeboat or helicopter can't home in on the signal, which they can do with either a plb or VHF.

 

[Dellquay13]

I"ve often pondered how to game this system and I was wondering if it would be better to not have any contact details. That way they can't do *any* checking and have to launch to find out if it's genuine.

Disastrous if everyone does it, the whole system would grind to a halt, but if it was just one person...

IIRC when I registered my ocean signal PLB1 last year, the guidance notes said to NOT supply a shore contact if the contact could not give 100% accurate guidance in every instance.

 

[Babylon]

I've been reading this thread with interest as I single-hand most of the time, mostly inshore or coastal these days, and as I've aged I've become ever more aware that my single greatest risk is going overboard when under way.

My boat is a very safe and seaworthy design despite its small size, and if I have to move around on the foredeck I do so either clipped on in bouncier conditions or just very carefully gripping my way as I go. The vessel itself carries a fully-serviced EPIRB as well as in-date flares, a DSC radio and of course my non-waterproof mobile phone. BUT the only safety item that is on my actual person when under way is a self-inflating life-jacket! I don't doubt that I'd only have a short time in cold Channel waters before hypothermia gets me (if cold-shock induced cardiac event didn't get there first), so am considering one of these.

Am I being over-cautious?