The RNLI at it again.
- Thread starter mainsail1
- Start date
Koeketiene
Well-Known Member
It has been a a couple of years since I went to sea on a warship, but a radar return was referred to as a 'contact'. It only got designated as 'target' once it had been positively identified and we were going to engage it with weapons.
Sometimes semantics are important.
Last edited:
Talulah
Well-Known Member
It has been a a couple of years since I went to sea on a warship, but a radar return was referred to as a 'contact', it only got designated as 'target' once it had been positively identified and we were going to engage it with weapons.
Sometimes semantics are important.
The next step being "target aquired".
wadget
Well-Known Member
The coastguard is a lawful authority.
The RNLI are more similar to a merchant vessel than they are a yacht.
They are tasked by a coastguard to do a job, it is the skippers responsibility to do that job unless it would put the vessel or the crew at risk.
Boo2
Well-Known Member
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
Not quite.
To have compelled the crew to return to shore, we would have to gain authority from the Secretary of State's Representative, a formal process. It's not up to a watch manager or MRCC to issue that instruction.
Bear in mind, these guys had no lights (darkness would not be far away at that time), apparently from the photo no life jackets, no dry suits, and only mobile phones as a means of communication.
Given the number of small boat deaths in 2012, if people want pleasure craft legislation, keep acting like that.
wadget
Well-Known Member
No they can only refuse if it is dangerous.
wadget
Well-Known Member
Sorry what I was trying to say is that the skipper is not at liberty to do what he wants because he does not agree with what he his being told to do, unless it is dangerous.
mainsail1
Well-Known Member
chanelyacht :
"Given the number of small boat deaths in 2012, if people want pleasure craft legislation, keep acting like that."
I wonder if you have available the number of UK leisure boat accidents on the sea that caused death in 2012?
I suspect the answer is very few when you leave out spurious events such as drunks jumping off bridges etc. As a sad old git, I avidly read the MCA accident reports and I think I may be able to recall pretty much all such events in the ten years before 2011, but all of those in 2012 may not yet be reported on.
The point at issue is to have safety rules that are proportionate to the risk and I think the number of leisure accidents at sea is thankfully small in proportion to the number of participants. Of course, if you add in professional fishermen the situation is very different but on this forum I think we are talking leisure sailors and we all should not be tarred with the same brush.
"Given the number of small boat deaths in 2012, if people want pleasure craft legislation, keep acting like that."
I wonder if you have available the number of UK leisure boat accidents on the sea that caused death in 2012?
I suspect the answer is very few when you leave out spurious events such as drunks jumping off bridges etc. As a sad old git, I avidly read the MCA accident reports and I think I may be able to recall pretty much all such events in the ten years before 2011, but all of those in 2012 may not yet be reported on.
The point at issue is to have safety rules that are proportionate to the risk and I think the number of leisure accidents at sea is thankfully small in proportion to the number of participants. Of course, if you add in professional fishermen the situation is very different but on this forum I think we are talking leisure sailors and we all should not be tarred with the same brush.
epervier
Well-Known Member
It has been a a couple of years since I went to sea on a warship, but a radar return was referred to as a 'contact'. It only got designated as 'target' once it had been positively identified and we were going to engage it with weapons.
Sometimes semantics are important.
It's been over four decades since serving in HM unseen fleet, we were referred to as boats, everything else was a target
If memory serves, it was the sonar watchkeeper that reported a contact, OOW looking through the scope, asks target bearing?
Rigger Mortice
N/A
Yup.
If the boat did return in the dark with no lights then it would be poetic justice if they had been prosecuted.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
I don't have the national figures yet, the MCA feed into a national database and those figures are usually published a few months into the year.
The point I was making is that every time people go out ill equipped, the media will jump on it - and we all know that politicians follow media like gulls behind a trawler.
The best way to avoid legislation is to act responsibly - and, sorry, but my personal (not the MCAs) view is these fishermen were far from that.
One accidental death is one too many.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
No requirement under colregs for a craft that size to be lit.
glashen
Well-Known Member
Is this not the rule,
A power-driven vessel of less than 7 metres (23.0 ft) whose maximum speed does not exceed 7 knots (13 km/h; 8 mph) must be capable of showing a white light
Does that not mean they must have a torch at least.
chewi
Well-Known Member
The point was not that a phone was infallible. it was originally inferred that it was no use at all in an emergency
A VHF can be called and RDF'd, which makes it the instrument of choice but if it was dead I'd be pleased to have a mobile in reserve. It is far from useless, it's the second sharpest knife in the drawer. My mobile professes o be waterproof. I hope it is , as my plan C after the ships and H/H VHF's.
chewi
Well-Known Member
So in summary:
1) several concerned observers called the coast guard, and its their fault
2) the coastguard called the RNLI and asked them to stand by, so it's their fault too
3) The RNLI did so, so its their fault ultimately
it's all clear to me now. thanks guys.
oh and the BBC too, let's not leave them out!
1) several concerned observers called the coast guard, and its their fault
2) the coastguard called the RNLI and asked them to stand by, so it's their fault too
3) The RNLI did so, so its their fault ultimately
it's all clear to me now. thanks guys.
oh and the BBC too, let's not leave them out!
mainsail1
Well-Known Member
Look what I have found! or maybe I have missed it in the posts already.
This is where the BBC lifted the story from - the main RNLI website itself:
http://rnli.org/NewsCentre/Pages/We...ir-duty-when-most-are-celebrating-Christ.aspx
Poetic licence or what? A load of spin?
This is where the BBC lifted the story from - the main RNLI website itself:
http://rnli.org/NewsCentre/Pages/We...ir-duty-when-most-are-celebrating-Christ.aspx
Poetic licence or what? A load of spin?
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
That looks a very reasonable account which was then sexed up by the BBC.
Havent you got anything better to do than to spend your time trying to discredit the RNLI? You must be one sad man.
NormanS
Well-Known Member
That clearly shows that it was a (named) RNLI person who claimed that a mobile phone was "no use". I have already pointed out that I know of at least one case where a mobile phone saved a man's life. He and I had already tried VHF with no response. While VHF is certainly preferable, there are times when a phone is the answer.
Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
There are no minimum manning requirments for pleasure craft.
Even in the event of a comercial craft. "the emergency" would have priority over the minimum manning requirments.
As for mutinty. well that would be quite a streach.
RNLI assists New Bounty mutineers escape from the terrors of the sea and Capt Bligh. would make an intersting reality show. perhaps we could pitch it to channel 4
