The RNLI at it again.

[Iliade]

Maybe

...
In this case by refusing assistance the RNLI vessel had been stood down by the vessel in apparent distress.

The desisision to remain in the area and stand by was over and above the duty required. The only problem is the resource is tied up in event of another distress.
...
The RNLI were concerened about the fishermens safty so stood by incase a distress situation resulted.

Maybe the crew just needed a break from the incessant eating and family socialising for a few hours. After all, if a genuine shout arose, where better to be than at sea not very far from base?

 

[caiman]

How would it be if the Coasties 'order' the LB to stay on scene and the LB was lost ?Unlikely in this case I know.I repeat,the decision to remain on scene,remains with the Cox/Helm.
You cannot 'force' someone to accept 'help'.
My sympathies are also with the RNLI on this,as they are with all that the Crews strive to do.
The people that have benifitted most from this are the press-Ops normal.
Cheers

 

[Cantata]

How would it be if the Coasties 'order' the LB to stay on scene and the LB was lost ?Unlikely in this case I know.I repeat,the decision to remain on scene,remains with the Cox/Helm.
You cannot 'force' someone to accept 'help'.
My sympathies are also with the RNLI on this,as they are with all that the Crews strive to do.
The people that have benifitted most from this are the press-Ops normal.
Cheers

This really is not difficult.
CG is in charge of the shout.
If the CG, on receipt of all available info about the circumstances, request the lifeboat to remain on scene, the lifeboat will remain on scene until circumstances change. The change in circumstance might be that the cox'n decides it's too dangerous to stay. It seems unlikely that this point will be reached before the casualty has accepted assistance!

 

[aroona]

It seems that there has been some sexing up of the inital RNLI report ( how very un-BBC )

Just to add to the mix - the crew will have had a wealth of local knowledge & sea conditions, maybe the fishermen were local maybe they werent.

As ILB Crew, the thought of leaving someone out in conditions you know to be worsening & then having to live with the repercussions if something did happen, would be too much .

The RNLI will never get to the point were they tow in people against their wishes - we always ask "do you accept a tow" before passing a line.

 

[caiman]

Cantata. I assure you,I am not having difficulties with this.
Aroona-I agree with you on all four points.
Cheers

 

[Boo2]

But what did they do? They simply remained in the vicinity of the idiots until they finally returned to shore; is it not a free sea? Why shoudln't they stay there? Who was hurt by it? As I said, it's what they do.

There is a law against stalking

Boo2

 

[HoratioHB]

Wearing my Devil Advocate set of horns, if you were to jump over the side of your boat with a life jacket on, I presume your mobile would operate normally?

Have you tried it and if so how did you get on?

.

Nah that would be silly but as a mobile phone is a radio just like a hand held VHF I guess the answer would be the same whether it was a VHF (non waterproof) or a phone. My son dropped his phone in the bath over Christmas and strangely it doesn't work now.
Just out of interest the Raymarine manoverboard lifetags use this principle. Even if the device stays working, water is a tremendous moderator of radio and will kill low power transmission - (I know as I came up with the idea in 2001)

 

[Boo2]

Should the day ever come when I make a wrong call, go to sea in marginal conditions, and somebody sees me and calls for help for me - but me being too tired, or too proud or too stubborn to take it – then may the coastguard and or RNLI please come and get me and bring me in whatever I say.

As long as they do that to you and not to me then that's fine, but are you suggesting the RNLI should maintain a database of those who should be forceably prevented from sailing when they choose ?

In my opinion, the professionals do not make the decision to launch and help lightly or for no good reason. Even if they have got it wrong (and I am not sure they did in this case) then let’s all be dammed pleased that they are there to make the decision in the first place.

It's not the RNLI's decison when I should sail, it's mine.

Boo2

 

[Boo2]

And where does it say that the lifeboat skipper "continually insisted on helping" the fishermen? There is no reason to believe any such thing.

I said if the Lifeboat Skipper continually insisted on helping me after being told I did not need assistance. The word "if" in that context is a predicate and I was not remarking on the situation in the OP's post about which I have no extra information.

Maybe its time to establish a lifeboat opt-out. Those who do not wish to be helped can register their preference with the coastguard and will be free of all "harassment" by the wasteful and officious rescue services. If they get into trouble, they will be on their own.

Why is that necessary or useful ? Under the circumstances that radio comms cannot be established and the lifeboat is unfortunately called out then all that is necessary is for the lifeboat skipper to ask if assistance is required, then if it is declined to return to base. There is no need to classify people into those who are to be permanantly denied assistance and those who are not ? What use is that ? Are you trying to punish people for not needing assistance ?

Those who choose not to opt out might, however, have to agree to allow some independent judgment to the people whose business it is to assess these situations and those who give up their time and risk their lives to offer those same services.

Not necessary at all. All that is required is for people to accept responsibility for their own actions.

Boo2

 

[Juan Twothree]

They should have gone home when they were told to IMHO. It's the lifeboat skipper's decision, not the coastguards anyway...

Boo2

Totally incorrect.

Once a lifeboat has agreed to launch, it can only be released from the incident by the CG. The only exception is when, as has already been mentioned, there is a risk to the safety of the lifeboat or her crew.

The coxswain (or helmsman in the case of an ILB) can't simply decide that it's a waste of time and to go home.

 

[Juan Twothree]

Before the blood pressure of the anti-RNLI section of this forum rises any further, could I draw your attention the the RNLI's account of the call?

After consultation with Swansea Coastguard and the LOM it was decided that Weston No.1 would escort the casualty up to Clevedon subject to the occupants agreeing, this was agreed and at 15:15hrs Weston No 1 began the escort of the vessel to Clevedon,

There had been several calls to the CG expressing concern for the safety of the craft, there was less than an hour's daylight remaining, the occupants had no lights, and, above all, they agreed to be escorted by the lifeboat.

So what's the problem?

 

[Boo2]

Totally incorrect.

Once a lifeboat has agreed to launch, it can only be released from the incident by the CG. The only exception is when, as has already been mentioned, there is a risk to the safety of the lifeboat or her crew.

The coxswain (or helmsman in the case of an ILB) can't simply decide that it's a waste of time and to go home.

With respect, you are completely wrong. It is the skipper's responsibility to determine what course s/he follows in any boat. Nobody can override the skipper's decisions as to what is the right thing to do and the RNLI are not owned or controlled by the coastguard. As others have pointed out the skipper can certainly return to base if s/he believes that it would endanger their crew but they are the skipper and it is their decision whether to remain on station.

Boo2

 

[glashen]

It's not the RNLI's decison when I should sail, it's mine.

Boo2

I agree with that and I agree people should take personal responsibility for themselves and their actions, but I don't agree that the RNLI/CG could leave someone to their own devices if they believe they are in a dangerous situation, I think most of us agree help cannot be imposed, but IMHO it is just plain silly to say the RNLI should not be able to observe any vessel they and the CG have concerns over. Being a free country cuts both ways after all.

 

[Boo2]

Before the blood pressure of the anti-RNLI section of this forum rises any further

I am not in any way anti RNLI, and I doubt that anyone on these forums takes such a stance. I am anti RNLI-chugging at boat shows, and I am anti being told when I can sail by them or by anybody else, to precisely the same extent that I am anti being told when I can go hill walking by the mountain rescue people (for whom I also have the greatest respect).

So what's the problem?

I have no problem with anyone accepting assistance from the RNLI.

My issue it that, as per the original post and as the mis-reporting by the BBC, the RNLI did not apparantly accept that assistance could be declined. I'm glad to hear that version of events is not true, but it doesn't affect the stance that the RNLI should not insist on giving assistance where it is not wanted. Others have pointed out here that they don't in fact do so and that is excellent news.

Boo2

 

[ProMariner]

The problem continues to be, the BBC article, with sensational headline, and poorly chosen quotes, taken out of context, packaged with no actual 'news', foisted on the UK public, by a disinterested Beeb 'professional journalist', aided and abetted possibly, by an un-named 'RNLI spokesman'.

Nobody posting here, has and issues with the on scene staff, who were doing what they do, probably very well.

Any bad vibes you are reading has more to do with the RNLI communications protocol seemingly obsessed with turning a non-issue launch like this one, into a garbled 'all boat users are stupid, and need to be saved from themselves' type message.

Had a proper story been researched, facts presented, conclusions drawn by knowledgeable experienced folk, i.e. a mini MAIB, then the conclusion and headline may have been appropriate.

As a sailor who often could look as bad as these fishermen have been left looking, I simply want the RNLI to make sure all national level communications are handled in a way that is fair, accurate, and as professional as the rest of the organisation, so we may all gain from the experience.

How much longer will we be able to go to sea without a boaters licence (£200, plus £20 annual charge), a full safety kit in date and professionally MOD'd (£150 P.A. for your tender, sky the limit for your yacht), And a random spot check, any time you are on board your yacht, including your Logbook, Training Log, Maintance Log etc. When do we have to start filing passage plans online, 24 hours in advance, to go fishing in the dink in the bay?

Sorry about the rant. If you are happy that the state can come along any time and save you from yourself, because they know better, then I am happy for you, you are probably a better rounded person than I. One of the main attractions of sailing for me, is I can still take full responsibility for all my decisions and actions at sea.

Any article that seeks to paint sea users as the hapless who need to be protected from themselves, has to be much more thought out than the one referred to here, and every article in this vain is one step closer to a compulsory boaters licence scheme. I accept that the RNLI has it's heart in the right place, it has to raise revenue, and setting themselves up as ROSPA for the sea is fine to me, but they also need to take a little of the responsibility for an article that would have looked amateur even in the Sun, but for a headline on the Beeb site, to gives it automatic credibility approaching a government press release.

 

[fireball]

So what's the problem?

The problem is that the Beeb have apparently turned the report around completely....

It is a skippers right to refuse or accept assistance .. it is the RNLI/CG right to remain "on station" or "go home" if they so desire.
BTW - Ultimately the RNLI vessel is under the command of the vessels skipper - so whilst the CG can request they stay on station, the skipper has the final call.

As to whether the rescue services remain on station when help is refused - that depends entirely on the situation.

 

[Daydream believer]

Of course no one has mentioned where all this might lead
The compulsory licensing of craft
That would suggest that one would then have to obey the rules in force at the time & we know some jobsworth would put in that if the CG says it is too rough then we all stay at home
I was told- but have no proof- that some E U countries already restrict users to the limits recommended by the EU cert of their boat
As we know whatever France& Germany says goes & our idiots enforce the rules to the "Nth" degree
It could be coming!!

Late edit
Sorry promariner--- missed your blog i agree with you

 

[Juan Twothree]

With respect, you are completely wrong. It is the skipper's responsibility to determine what course s/he follows in any boat. Nobody can override the skipper's decisions as to what is the right thing to do and the RNLI are not owned or controlled by the coastguard. As others have pointed out the skipper can certainly return to base if s/he believes that it would endanger their crew but they are the skipper and it is their decision whether to remain on station.

Boo2

You state that the RNLI are not owned or controlled by the Coastguard. True, but RNLI lifeboats are a declared facility to HMCG, and as such are coordinated by the CG once afloat.

The protocols are set out in the RNLI/MCA Agreement on Search and Rescue Operations and Planning.

The actual relevant wording states that the SAR unit (lifeboat/hovercraft etc) commander has a responsibility to carry out the search plan as required by the SMC (SAR mission coordinator).


It also states that if the SAR unit commander, in the light of his local knowledge or experience, considers that the plan needs modifying, due to local conditions or whatever, then consultation about alternatives shall take place with the SMC.

But it does not give him carte blanche to take his lifeboat home simply because he feels enough is enough.

 

[Boo2]

But it does not give him carte blanche to take his lifeboat home simply because he feels enough is enough.

You are wriggling. The skipper of any boat may do as s/he pleases in respec of staying out or coming home.

Boo2

 

[Sans Bateau]

"Any bad vibes you are reading has more to do with the RNLI communications protocol seemingly obsessed with turning a non-issue launch like this one, into a garbled 'all boat users are stupid, and need to be saved from themselves' type message."

But it was the BBC, not the RNLI who sensationalised this. The BBC are doing it all the time if you had not noticed.