The MCA is planning on scaling back the number of marine offices.

[Sybarite]

Just to remind Sybarite, this one's still outstanding

While you are at it, could you explain why the Atlantic 85 is over twice as expensive as the next most expensive similarly sized RIB on the market (among the 20 odd alternatives that I saw)?

(I know, I know it's twice as good because it was made in-house....)

 

[chanelyacht]

unless you consider the funds available...

But then that would be spending money for the sake of it - and as I've explained, there isn't a requirement in the UKSAR structure for them to do it.

 

[chanelyacht]

While you are at it, could you explain why the Atlantic 85 is over twice as expensive as the next most expensive similarly sized RIB on the market (among the 20 odd alternatives that I saw)?

(I know, I know it's twice as good because it was made in-house....)[/I]

Build quality, equipment levels for a start - try buying a public RIB that meets the MCA coding for rescue boats.

 

[chanelyacht]

Generally when boats have a flotation chamber of a superstructure they are self-righting. I tried calling the coxwain whom I know to confirm but he wasn't there today.

No, they're not. There is a lot more to self righting design than that - for a start, the ratio of large windows to superstructure on the boat you pictured would make the windows pop out - then you've got to be able to restart the engines.

 

[Bru]

While you are at it, could you explain why the Atlantic 85 is over twice as expensive as the next most expensive similarly sized RIB on the market (among the 20 odd alternatives that I saw)?

(I know, I know it's twice as good because it was made in-house....)

Have you ever actually looked at an Atlantic 85 in the flesh, as it were?

OK, it's a RIB so it's superficially similar to mass produced commercial RIBs of a similar size and I suspect it's hopeless trying to make you understand that beyond that there is no comparison

The Atlantic 85 is a purpose designed from the ground up SAR vessel which is far stronger than a commercial RIB, is self righting (crew activated IIRC, not automatic), and carries an equipment fit specifically designed for the purpose. How many commercial RIBs have the ability to tow much larger vessels, for example?

Interestingly, I note from the SNSM website that their range of RIBs, based on Zodiac boats designed for military use, have a stated lifespan of less than 10 years. Their statement, not mine. The oldest Atlantic 85s have been in service for a decade and have years of use left in them. There are still Atlantic 75s which are over 20 years old in service with the RNLI and those that they've replaced have been sold to other users (Iceland Search and Rescue x 6 boats, Dorset Police x 4 boats, Royal Netherlands Sea Rescue Association, Red Cross x 2 boats). Only one of the Atlantic 75 fleet has been scrapped.

There are even 40 odd year old Atlantic 21s still in service with other rescue organisations. A testament to how well built and maintained the RNLI boats are.

That's the difference between the bean counter buy something good enough at the lowest cost approach and the engineers build the best we can afford approach. The RNLI can afford the very best equipment and long may they continue to do so

And the reason the surpluses are rising is well understood by those who actually understand these things rather than pretending they do. Everybody in the UK third sector knows all too well that legacy bequests are rapidly drying up as the baby boomer generation passes away. It's highly unlikely that future generations will generate the level of disposable income into old age to anything like the same extent

The Charity Commissioners are not stupid, far from it. They expect charities to operate effectively and efficiently but they are not short sighted and provided that reserves are held for valid purposes they are happy provided they are satisfied it is justified.

And cherry picking a figure such as the percentage of annual income spent on new lifeboats is laughable. You ought to get a job with the Daily Mail and with your background you really ought to know better.

 

[Bru]

And another thing ...

I don't know how I picked up St. Malo either, a mental aberration caused by last nights Scotch perhaps!

So let's have a look at the lifeboat stationed at Locmiquélic

Apparently it's the SNS280 ...

And the maximum speed recorded by Marine Traffic for her is 9.3 knots!

However we'll call than another aberration as the specs for a Vedette Class 2 state a maximum speed of 25 to 28 knots (the older boats are actually faster than the 2nd generation boats! So on speed alone she's comparable to the latest RNLI boats

But she is not an All Weather Lifeboat. She's, as stated, a coastal and inshore boat. And she cannot be beach launched. You may, in your blithe ignorance of engineering, make sweeping statements such as "I am sure that many of the SNSM boats could be beach launched if that were necessary" but that simply demonstrates your total lack of understanding of the subject. Oh sure, almost any boat can be beach launched in suitable circumstances but when it came to designing a boat that can be launched, and crucially recovered and relaunched quickly, in almost all weathers and with the minimum of risk the lifeboat and shore crews the engineers who actually worked on the problem found it was far from simple

Anyway, that's enough fun for tonight!

 

[chanelyacht]

Apparently it's the SNS280 ...

Certainly not self righting either, looking at that dinky little coachroof hatch.

And why is the guy having a pee at the bow not wearing a lifejacket?

 

[Sybarite]

And another thing ...

I don't know how I picked up St. Malo either, a mental aberration caused by last nights Scotch perhaps!

So let's have a look at the lifeboat stationed at Locmiquélic

Apparently it's the SNS280 ...

And the maximum speed recorded by Marine Traffic for her is 9.3 knots!

However we'll call than another aberration as the specs for a Vedette Class 2 state a maximum speed of 25 to 28 knots (the older boats are actually faster than the 2nd generation boats! So on speed alone she's comparable to the latest RNLI boats

Looks a little faster than 9 knots to me...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xeptod_vedette-sns-280-station-snsm-du-pay_auto

Yes she is inshore in the sense she serves the Rade de Lorient and as far out as the Ile de Groix.

Incidentally here is a version of the Vedette NG1 destined for Belgium and built by Chantiers Bernard at Locmiquélic. Because it also has to operate in shallow waters around Ostende, like the Shannon this version is equipped with water jets. It is interesting that both the Chantiers Sibiril who built the CTT and Chantiers Bernard use the same basic pantocarene hull. ie diversification, multiple choices.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1...urnement-reussi-pour-la-vedette-flamande_news

 

[Tranona]

Did you know that over the last 9 years, spend on lifeboats (£101.2m), even the gold-plated ones, represented on average only 6.5% of incoming resources ? This is less than half of what was spent on raising funds. Over that same period the net operating surplus has totalled £211.1m and management pension contributions totalled £85.5m.

This passage alone is enough to demonstrate why it is so difficult to take you seriously.

Just picking numbers out and trying to use them to demonstrate something that they do not just shows how little you understand.

Take pensions. The pension fund does not belong to the RNLI but to the members of the scheme and is funded by both members and the organisation in line with their legal obligation. It is irrelevant what the size of the fund is as it is an accumulation of several decades of contributions. The tests of whether the fund is well managed is whether it is sufficiently funded to meet its current and future liabilities to members - not whether it is big or small and least of all its size in relation to current operations.

As to current contributions to employees pensions, the organisation is required by law to make contributions and the amount is a direct function of the employees remuneration. The current scheme is a defined contribution scheme and again belongs to the members. The only test is whether the scheme is comparable with other schemes for similar occupational groups. Just stating an amount of contributions over a period of time is completely irrelevant. All charities have similar schemes for their employees, as do all commercial and government organisations. So why do you keep on raising this as a (negative?) issue?

Now, this fatuous idea of expressing expenditure on new boats as a %age of income. The RNLI is not a boat buying business. Boats are a tool they need to fulfil their objectives. It is a service organisation primarily and the majority of its income is spent on day to day operations. Purchase of new boats is (as you say) a very small part of its costs and there is nothing you can read that is negative about it being only 6.5% - in fact if they followed your suggestions it would be substantially lower!

The test of whether capital expenditure is correct in this instance is not a %age of anything but whether that expenditure is sufficient to maintain the service and can be met from the resources available. Unlike a commercial business where capital expenditure is the driver of future profitability you simply cannot use capital efficiency measure you might use for a business.

Consider now your specious comment about the level of expenditure on fund raising compared with purchase of new boats. Completely irrelevant comparison. The measure of effectiveness of this kind of expenditure is in relation to funds raised. The measure of whether it is too much or too little is in relation to funds raised - that is the %age of fundraising expenditure to funds raised. Clearly the aim is to minimise this ratio, but the only real comparison is with other similar charitable organisations. Comparing it with any other category of costs in the organisation is just nonsense.

Now to your constant bleat about what donors might think if they "knew" how their donations are spent. Of course they know - it is after all public knowledge. Many may not choose to look, but nothing is hidden. As you have already been told many times, if donors want their donation used for a specific activity such as a new boat or new station they can specify this, hence the large number of boats named after donors. In fact if you look deeply enough you will find much of the capital expenditure is directly linked to specific donations, both private and corporate, so donors know exactly how their money is being spent. On the other hand general fundraising whether by subscription or legacies mostly goes into the general operating "pot" and donors know this and rely on the organisation to spend the money wisely in pursuit of known objectives.

The great thing about funding services such as this through charitable giving is that unlike tax funded services, contribution is voluntary. So if donors are unhappy with the way their money is being spent they don't have to contribute. This is currently a real problem with some charities, notably the RSPCA which has wandered away from its main purpose and as a result has lost a lot of donors and is being directed by the charity commissioners to overhaul its governance. No such suggestions for the RNLI.

I find it really disappointing that somebody who claims some professional knowledge of accounting and finance can be so cavalier with figures, claiming that they mean something that they clearly do not, just to try and support their own prejudice. Pity in a way that I am now retired as your contributions on this subject would have made a perfect case study for my students on how not to analyse an organisation.

 

[Sybarite]

This passage alone is enough to demonstrate why it is so difficult to take you seriously.

Just picking numbers out and trying to use them to demonstrate something that they do not just shows how little you understand.

Take pensions. The pension fund does not belong to the RNLI but to the members of the scheme and is funded by both members and the organisation in line with their legal obligation. It is irrelevant what the size of the fund is as it is an accumulation of several decades of contributions. The tests of whether the fund is well managed is whether it is sufficiently funded to meet its current and future liabilities to members - not whether it is big or small and least of all its size in relation to current operations.

As to current contributions to employees pensions, the organisation is required by law to make contributions and the amount is a direct function of the employees remuneration. The current scheme is a defined contribution scheme and again belongs to the members. The only test is whether the scheme is comparable with other schemes for similar occupational groups. Just stating an amount of contributions over a period of time is completely irrelevant. All charities have similar schemes for their employees, as do all commercial and government organisations. So why do you keep on raising this as a (negative?) issue?

Now, this fatuous idea of expressing expenditure on new boats as a %age of income. The RNLI is not a boat buying business. Boats are a tool they need to fulfil their objectives. It is a service organisation primarily and the majority of its income is spent on day to day operations. Purchase of new boats is (as you say) a very small part of its costs and there is nothing you can read that is negative about it being only 6.5% - in fact if they followed your suggestions it would be substantially lower!

The test of whether capital expenditure is correct in this instance is not a %age of anything but whether that expenditure is sufficient to maintain the service and can be met from the resources available. Unlike a commercial business where capital expenditure is the driver of future profitability you simply cannot use capital efficiency measure you might use for a business.

Consider now your specious comment about the level of expenditure on fund raising compared with purchase of new boats. Completely irrelevant comparison. The measure of effectiveness of this kind of expenditure is in relation to funds raised. The measure of whether it is too much or too little is in relation to funds raised - that is the %age of fundraising expenditure to funds raised. Clearly the aim is to minimise this ratio, but the only real comparison is with other similar charitable organisations. Comparing it with any other category of costs in the organisation is just nonsense.

Now to your constant bleat about what donors might think if they "knew" how their donations are spent. Of course they know - it is after all public knowledge. Many may not choose to look, but nothing is hidden. As you have already been told many times, if donors want their donation used for a specific activity such as a new boat or new station they can specify this, hence the large number of boats named after donors. In fact if you look deeply enough you will find much of the capital expenditure is directly linked to specific donations, both private and corporate, so donors know exactly how their money is being spent. On the other hand general fundraising whether by subscription or legacies mostly goes into the general operating "pot" and donors know this and rely on the organisation to spend the money wisely in pursuit of known objectives.

The great thing about funding services such as this through charitable giving is that unlike tax funded services, contribution is voluntary. So if donors are unhappy with the way their money is being spent they don't have to contribute. This is currently a real problem with some charities, notably the RSPCA which has wandered away from its main purpose and as a result has lost a lot of donors and is being directed by the charity commissioners to overhaul its governance. No such suggestions for the RNLI.

I find it really disappointing that somebody who claims some professional knowledge of accounting and finance can be so cavalier with figures, claiming that they mean something that they clearly do not, just to try and support their own prejudice. Pity in a way that I am now retired as your contributions on this subject would have made a perfect case study for my students on how not to analyse an organisation.

If you say that these numbers are general knowledge then it is surprising the number of people on here - the boating public - who have expressed surprise at them.

I maintain what I said in that I am sure that the general public does not have clue where their money is going. The publicity often stresses how much boats cost and how necessary it is for the public to continue to help them buy them. If they only knew how little of the funds raised actually went on the boats, I am sure you would have quite a few who would change their donating practice. Also if they realized how the RNLI had created their "usine à gaz" for building boats....

And believe me I do not need your endorsement of my skills or lack of them. Those whom I respect, suffice.

Moreover somebody who was an RNLI professional added this:

"After following the various RNLI threads over the years it is my honest opinion that Sybarite has got a more realistic grasp on the RNLI situation than the vast majority of the people on this forum.
My qualification for making that statement? How about 10 years as a 'brave' volunteer, 25 years as a (not so brave???) employee....."

 

[chanelyacht]

Moreover somebody who was an RNLI professional added this:

"After following the various RNLI threads over the years it is my honest opinion that Sybarite has got a more realistic grasp on the RNLI situation than the vast majority of the people on this forum.
My qualification for making that statement? How about 10 years as a 'brave' volunteer, 25 years as a (not so brave???) employee....."

One - out of thousands. How many disgruntled employees could we find if we looked at any organisation?

 

[Sybarite]

One - out of thousands. How many disgruntled employees could we find if we looked at any organisation?

Wowee...!!! You really nailed it there with that scintillating post...!!!

 

[Mister E]

Sybarite as you live in France I can not understand why you are Getting your French Knickers in a twist over something that does not effect you?

I assume you and you family have not contributed to the RNLI?

I an not have a go just trying to understand why the RNLI concerns you so much?

 

[Sybarite]

Sybarite as you live in France I can not understand why you are Getting your French Knickers in a twist over something that does not effect you?

I assume you and you family have not contributed to the RNLI?

I an not have a go just trying to understand why the RNLI concerns you so much?

What has geographic proximity anything to do with it? On that logic the people of Plymouth would be very much more concerned than Londoners.

Let me turn the point. I am fascinated by the number of people who would appear to have no appreciation of the enormity of the sums in question.

Take again the question of the Shannon lifeboat. It was explained to me that it was super well designed because it is the only boat in the world which can be launched from a beach which justifies why it is three times more expensive than the nearest equivalent French boat.

So how many beach launch bases are there in the UK and why are ALL the replacement boats going to be either Shannons - or the even more expensive Tamars?

 

[chanelyacht]

So how many beach launch bases are there in the UK and why are ALL the replacement boats going to be either Shannons - or the even more expensive Tamars?

For a start, the Tamar will never be beach launched, so your lack of knowledge on the subject is appearing again.

The Shannon will be the beach launch boat (as well as being at some other stations) because, in the same way that the Mersey was, it is the only beach launch design, to avoid having different launch systems, different sets of spares, etc.

As to how many stations, off the top of my head, can't say. Certainly many stations in East Anglia are, along with Kent, Sussex, one in West Wales, etc. In short, wherever the geography demands it.

Tamars, by the way, aren't being built any more. The replacement programme for the relevant stations is complete.

 

[chanelyacht]

Wowee...!!! You really nailed it there with that scintillating post...!!!

Aw, sorry, does pointing out the weakness of your evidence upset you? Diddums...

 

[Sybarite]

For a start, the Tamar will never be beach launched, so your lack of knowledge on the subject is appearing again.

You do have some comprehension problems it would appear. I think any half intelligent person would understand that I meant "all" as opposed to "beach-launched".

The Shannon will be the beach launch boat (as well as being at some other stations) because, in the same way that the Mersey was, it is the only beach launch design, to avoid having different launch systems, different sets of spares, etc.

As to how many stations, off the top of my head, can't say. Certainly many stations in East Anglia are, along with Kent, Sussex, one in West Wales, etc. In short, wherever the geography demands it.

Is this like your knowledge of the geographical distribution of French CTT's? In other words you don't know.

So the most expensive gold-plated super-duper Shannon with beach launching capability is going to be rolled out everywhere whether beach launching capability is required or not?

Tamars, by the way, aren't being built any more. The replacement programme for the relevant stations is complete.

So the in-house design team can now concentrate all their attenton on the one single remaining model and find ways of making it platinum-plated I suppose.

 

[chanelyacht]

You do have some comprehension problems it would appear. I think any half intelligent person would understand that I meant "all" as opposed to "beach-launched".

As your sentence started with beach launches, and then said "all replacements", it was logical to assume you were talking about beach launch replacements.

Is this like your knowledge of the geographical distribution of French CTT's? In other words you don't know.

So from 249 stations you expect me to know instantly which are beach launched? I can recall about 25, but for a definitive answer look on the RNLI website. Go to Boats/Class/Locations/ to find out.

So the most expensive gold-plated super-duper Shannon with beach launching capability is going to be rolled out everywhere whether beach launching capability is required or not?

The Shannon will follow the Mersey criteria - beach launch, very short slipway available, or shallow operational area - for example Hoylake on Merseyside will be a full Shannon /carriage, whereas Swanage will be the Shannon in the boathouse.

So the in-house design team can now concentrate all their attenton on the one single remaining model and find ways of making it platinum-plated I suppose.

There aren't any planned revisions for the Shannon design AFAIK, so the in house team (which has actually been scaled back) will be looking at the replacements for the now nearly 30 year old Severn and Trent classes, although this will be a far slower longer term project. Once the final Mersey / Tynes are replaced as part of the Shannon programme, the move to an all 25 knot fleet will be complete.

So the RNLI all weather fleet will all be 25 knot, (unlike SNSM), all self righting (unlike SNSM), maintain a beach launch capacity (unlike SNSM), give the best available in crew and survivor conditions (unlike SNSM), and the entire inshore fleet will be (is now) fully capable of right and restart (unlike SNSM).

 

[dogleg]

For a start, the Tamar will never be beach launched, so your lack of knowledge on the subject is appearing again.

The Shannon will be the beach launch boat (as well as being at some other stations) because, in the same way that the Mersey was, it is the only beach launch design, to avoid having different launch systems, different sets of spares, etc.

As to how many stations, off the top of my head, can't say. Certainly many stations in East Anglia are, along with Kent, Sussex, one in West Wales, etc. In short, wherever the geography demands it.

Tamars, by the way, aren't being built any more. The replacement programme for the relevant stations is complete.

quick count probably 20-22 beach launched Shannons, some will be afloat Lowestoft, Montrose, Fleetwood etc, some Trents will be replaced by Shannons, there are some Merseys afloat will also be replaced by Shannons word is 50 + Shannons will be built

 

[Tranona]

Let me turn the point. I am fascinated by the number of people who would appear to have no appreciation of the enormity of the sums in question.

Absolutely no problem in appreciating or understanding the sums involved - just not as frightened or in awe of them as you seem to be. For those used to working in or with large complex organisations sums of 10's or even 100's of millions of £s hold no fear.

As ever if you want to understand the importance of the numbers you need to understand the context - and that is seemingly your greatest problem. You think in a "corner shop" mentality rather than trying to put yourself in the position of being responsible for the organisation.

Forget how other countries run their services. Just think in terms of how the RNLI defines its own objectives and then assess whether the sums involved are appropriate. If you can do this, then following chanelyacht's last post it becomes clear that the RNLI is a completely different organisation from the French one, with a different set of conditions and uses different solutions to achieve its objectives. The only commonality is that they both provide rescue services at sea. As I have said on many occasions, there is no standard model among states for the way these services are organised nor is the standard the same for every state.

One may of course question whether the chosen objectives (and solutions) are appropriate, but as you have demonstrated over and over again you simply do not have the knowledge or experience to do that.

On the other hand there is a group of people just 2 miles from where I live who have the collective knowledge gained from 150 years of running the best sea rescue service in the world, and are fully aware of how other states (including France) organise theirs - and yet they still choose to do it the way that suits our environment - not that of some other state.