The most bizarre thing you've ever seen someone do on a boat.

[Wandering Star]

I think it's a "warm, calm, Carribean water" thing. Very different environment to "SW Scotland". And even if you would po-facedly strap on your water-wings in such an environment, it is still an odd thing to bring up in an unrelated thread.

Pete

Yep!

 

[onesea]

Yep!

Also fully crewed racing crew with low free board, confident that his mates will pick him up in time...

Cannot say that about SWMBO, she would give it a go she may surprise me. Then I am not insured the day I find I am I will start wearing a lifejacket

 

[JumbleDuck]

I think it's a "warm, calm, Carribean water" thing. Very different environment to "SW Scotland". And even if you would po-facedly strap on your water-wings in such an environment, it is still an odd thing to bring up in an unrelated thread.

The OP asked what was odd, and I find not wearing a lifejacket odd. I also find calling a lifejacket "water-wings" odd - it's not childish to wear one.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Also fully crewed racing crew with low free board, confident that his mates will pick him up in time...

Yeah, because nothing ever goes wrong with the boat. Like a mast falling over, say. Yup, seems like machismo to me.

 

[TQA]

Possibly a locally trained sailor used to racing the local double enders. If anything goes wrong it is usual for all the crew except one to jump overboard. The remaining crew member then bails like fury.

As for life jackets those are rarely seen except on RYA school boats.

 

[prv]

seems like machismo to me.

I guess "machismo" might apply to someone who started by thinking they might wear a lifejacket, then decided not to because they were worried about their image.

If the idea of wearing a lifejacket never crossed their mind, because they never do, the concept is completely alien, and they're in and out of the water all day as a matter of course, then how is that machismo?

If you're determined to be negative about it then I think the worst you can call it is "ignorant", but personally in that place and situation I'd call it "normal". And it still seems an odd thing to bring up in this thread, like some kind of obsession.

Pete

 

[JumbleDuck]

And it still seems an odd thing to bring up in this thread, like some kind of obsession.

As I thought I had made clear, I am not of the Bufton-Tufton lifejacket wearing party. But, as I also said, we were asked to say what was odd, and people in that situation not wearing lifejackets look odd to me. Particularly as two of them ended up in the water, in one case involuntarily. Obsession? No, just mild curiosity.

 

[prv]

As I thought I had made clear, I am not of the Bufton-Tufton lifejacket wearing party.

You do a damned good impression of it

But, as I also said, we were asked to say what was odd, and people in that situation not wearing lifejackets look odd to me.

Really? I see a lot of racing crews in my part of the world, and they are the people *least* likely to be wearing lifejackets. Are things so different in Scotland?

Pete

 

[Racecruiser]

I wonder if the stays were a loose as the lifelines! Maybe they don't race under ISAF regs there.

Certainly was funny seeing the helm leap over like that - didn't see the guy at the front go over at first but that may be the explanation.

I'll keep out of the LJ debate .............

 

[TQA]

Just to throw the odd grenade into the discussion.

Here is something odd, or maybe not.

Racing in fairly lively conditions with no lifejackets, no harness and no lifelines.

 

[prv]

Racing in fairly lively conditions with no lifejackets, no harness and no lifelines.

Getting that fisherman down must be fun

Pete

 

[Greenheart]

Racing in fairly lively conditions with no lifejackets, no harness and no lifelines.

Did the photo of that lovely schooner, predate routine use of LJs?

I'm surprised by the strong objections voiced about anyone expecting LJs to be used. Reminds me of the day I asked in the Lounge, why all cars aren't tested for NCAP standards, when safety seems such a primary gauge of quality for most buyers. A howl went up! I was more or less told to buzz off, for suggesting that safety ought to be on anyone's list of priorities.

I think of seatbelts - and lifejackets - as being a personal preparation for those incidents & accidents that cannot be foreseen - and which skill or experience alone, cannot prevent.

On that basis, any determined racing crew, who drive a boat hard enough for unpredictable damage to be a constant possibility, would surely benefit from LJs on the day it all goes bottom-up? I'm not sure why Jumbleduck's remark was out of place.

 

[TQA]

Did the photo of that lovely schooner, predate routine use of LJs?

I'm surprised by the strong objections voiced about anyone expecting LJs to be used. Reminds me of the day I asked in the Lounge, why all cars aren't tested for NCAP standards, when safety seems such a primary gauge of quality for most buyers. A howl went up! I was more or less told to buzz off, for suggesting that safety ought to be on anyone's list of priorities.

I think of seatbelts - and lifejackets - as being a personal preparation for those incidents & accidents that cannot be foreseen - and which skill or experience alone, cannot prevent.

On that basis, any determined racing crew, who drive a boat hard enough for unpredictable damage to be a constant possibility, would surely benefit from LJs on the day it all goes bottom-up? I'm not sure why Jumbleduck's remark was out of place.

The picture was taken at Classic race week in Antigua last month.

Not many racers were wearing LJs and fewer still harnesses although I did meet a bowman from one of the more spectacular boats who was buying a rearming kit for his autoinflateable jacket which had gone off when it deluged him on a beat. Wet things these Js.

 

[Lakesailor]

I'm surprised by the strong objections voiced about anyone expecting LJs to be used. I'm not sure why Jumbleduck's remark was out of place.

Whether or not it was intended to be ironic, it's the assumption that it is some way wrong to not be wearing a lifejacket when the decision is a personal one.
That seems to make the assumption that everyone who does not wear one is either wrong, unaware or plain stupid.

Whilst that may be the suggestion, if it's not obligatory then it isn't a valid comment.

Exactly the same as the PC debate which seems to have arisen in the Lounge. Your own choice doesn't have relevance to other's decisions. Certain things are illegal, other things are frowned upon by the custodians of correctness.

If it had been a picture of a building site where hard hats were required by law and they weren't wearing them it would be a perfectly valid criticism to suggest that they were wrong.

 

[Greenheart]

If it had been a picture of a building site where hard hats were required by law and they weren't wearing them it would be a perfectly valid criticism to suggest that they were wrong.

Ah. So, it was my wondering why NCAP standards aren't mandatory, that pi55ed off the Loungers. I see.

Funny how safety laws take a while to be accepted by the people who must abide by them...after which, future generations are appalled to think we used not to worry.

I don't think any of us want any new legislation affecting sailing. I'm just surprised that people who must surely recognise a real risk, blithely continue to take it.

 

[Shakemeister]

What is the obsession with lifejackets? Surely if you're at risk of falling over the side a harness would be far more use than a lifejacket.

I also wonder about the ability and confidence of someone who thinks it necessary to wear a lifejacket whilst in the cockpit of a boat slowly bimbling along in a F2 breeze.

In my work I occasionally meet the ambulance HART (Hazardous Area Response Team) - paramedics who are specially trained to operate in environments deemed as too dangerous for us lesser mortals. Their standing orders include mandatory wearing of lifejackets within 5m of water. This leads to the ridiculous situation of them donning their overpowered 250N lifejackets to walk along a canal towpath, I kid you not.

Laugh, I nearly sh@ !

Incidentally, the most bizarre thing I've seen someone do on a boat was this bloke getting out of his tender onto his yacht on a mooring in about 15m of water. He was obviously concerned about the risk of losing his outboard overboard whilst transferring from the tender to the yacht so he took the precaution of tying a length of line from his wrist to the outboard whilst climbing onboard.

And no - he wasn't wearing a lifejacket !

 

[Greenheart]

Surely if you're at risk of falling over the side a harness would be far more use than a lifejacket.

I also wonder about the ability and confidence of someone who thinks it necessary to wear a lifejacket whilst in the cockpit of a boat slowly bimbling along in a F2 breeze.

I s'pose around the deck of a racing boat on a tight inshore course, a harness is a real handicap to free movement. Essential in a blow offshore though...or, not?

As for LJs when they probably won't be needed...there's a bit of difference between victims of H&S rulings using canal paths, and people aboard small yachts at sea. Emergency crews would have to be drunk on duty to fall in the canal, so that's nuts...but passengers on the yacht probably will be drinking...so why not make sure they'll float?

I'm glad LJs aren't legally required, but they're still not optional to me. There's too much that can't be anticipated. I wonder if it's more tragic, comic or ironic, that people who had insisted they didn't need a lifejacket, aren't often available for comment after a disaster?

 

[Shakemeister]

Valid points, but you won't need a lifejacket if you're wearing a harness. Even the occasional Sunday cruise glass of chardonnay type would probably be better off with a harness than a lifejacket if your dynamic risk assesment warranted it.

 

[DJE]

I'm glad LJs aren't legally required, but they're still not optional to me.

In all circumstances?

At home we generally don't leave the mooring without them but there are only two of us on board so it would take some time for the remaining singlehander to get back to the MOB and the water is pretty cold. On a recent charter in the Caribbean with six on board, all good swimmers and competent sailors, in warm water the lifejackets never came out of the locker. (Also somewhat less likely to fall off a 12.5t 45 footer than the 3.7t 29 footer that I usually sail.)

Hard and fast rules are for those who can't assess the risks for themselves.

 

[Greenheart]

I sail an Osprey dinghy. I haven't needed my buoyancy aid yet, in fact I'll be happiest if I never do, but my assessment of the potential necessity, means I always wear it.

And, I'm certain there are plenty of drowned sailors who believed they could assess the risks for themselves.

Besides, why bother assessing the risk? Do you really waste seconds assessing risks, carefully deciding whether a situation warrants carrying personal buoyancy?

If you just habitually put the LJ on, you're most unlikely to be caught out on the day you need it.

This is what I meant comparing it to seat belts. The enormous majority of car trips will be completed without the occupants needing their seat belts. But the assessment of necessity for each trip is done for you, by the law, saying CLUNK-CLICK. Hence so many car crash survivors today, compared with a few decades ago. Imagine if you were expected to assess the probable necessity of the seat belt, on the trip you're about to make. Ridiculous - but not so different from LJs when sailing.

Maybe it's a question of the awkwardness of the garment itself? I'm not bothered by my buoyancy aid, so it's no great concession of comfort or convenience to wear it.