Uricanejack
Well-Known Member
When I go fishing my fishing buddies and I tend to be equaly stupid. When my wife comes fishing she is pretty quick to point out apparent stupidity.
The RNLI at it again.
- Thread starter mainsail1
- Start date
When I go fishing my fishing buddies and I tend to be equaly stupid. When my wife comes fishing she is pretty quick to point out apparent stupidity.
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
Dunno where you were but we used "hostile", "friendly", "unidentified" or sometimes "unknown" to describe returns - which were generically called returns. Target was only used when weapons were authorised and could be used. Casualty is simply the wrong word for the RNLI to use unless someone is injured - even if they would have been injured if the RNLI hadn't intervened they aren't casualties. It's not even spin, it's just lying or incorrect, depending on whether or not it's intentional as is the use of the word incident to describe a launch unless there were unusual circumstances. I have a huge problem with the RNLI about this - they are distorting figures and creating a false impression in the minds of the public. They may do great work saving lives but the corporate tail has starting wagging the dog. The RNLI exist to solve a problem and falsely making the problem look bigger than it is to boost their status/donations is simply dishonest.
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
A couple of match sticks for the fire...
The skipper of the vessel is responsible for the safe navigation.. Whilst the crew place their safety with the skipper when they set on board, they do so voluntarily. If a lifaboat turns up and says, "are you in need of assistance" and the skipper of the vessel says no, the CG cannot force the vessel to take assistance. Nor should they try to do so.
The lifeboat are volunteers... The get a shout, go out, rescue a boat come home.. go back to work Etc. The notion that a public sector jobsworth can "instruct" a volunteer to remain away from work, home and family it totally wrong... The CG can ask the volunteers to remain on station, but it goes no further.
Once the lifeboat has offered assistance and it has been refused by the skipper, they can and should offer same to all passangers on board. Who are then at libety to take that assistance and get on the lifeboat... If the passengers also refuse assistance, the lifeboat and coastguard has discharged their responsibility.
If everything goes pair shaped afterwards and one or both fisihermen are killed,, Well they have just been nominated for a Darwin, (if they have no children).. Any lawsuit is between the skipper of the fishing boat and his passangers..
If there is a present lawsuit it is a claim for compensation for lost wages between the lifeboat crew who were instructed to remain on station and the CG who issued an "instruction" to the volunteers.
The skipper of the vessel is responsible for the safe navigation.. Whilst the crew place their safety with the skipper when they set on board, they do so voluntarily. If a lifaboat turns up and says, "are you in need of assistance" and the skipper of the vessel says no, the CG cannot force the vessel to take assistance. Nor should they try to do so.
The lifeboat are volunteers... The get a shout, go out, rescue a boat come home.. go back to work Etc. The notion that a public sector jobsworth can "instruct" a volunteer to remain away from work, home and family it totally wrong... The CG can ask the volunteers to remain on station, but it goes no further.
Once the lifeboat has offered assistance and it has been refused by the skipper, they can and should offer same to all passangers on board. Who are then at libety to take that assistance and get on the lifeboat... If the passengers also refuse assistance, the lifeboat and coastguard has discharged their responsibility.
If everything goes pair shaped afterwards and one or both fisihermen are killed,, Well they have just been nominated for a Darwin, (if they have no children).. Any lawsuit is between the skipper of the fishing boat and his passangers..
If there is a present lawsuit it is a claim for compensation for lost wages between the lifeboat crew who were instructed to remain on station and the CG who issued an "instruction" to the volunteers.
fireball
Well-Known Member
I can see your black and white example and agree with the spirit of it ...
But unfortunately, life isn't black and white - and the CG & RNLI crew know of the local dangers that may occur - whereas they don't know that the skipper of the "casualty" vessel does ... or that the skipper is of sound mind.
In dinghy racing it is quite a usual practice to stand by whilst the "casualty" vessel sorts itself out having refused (usually quite reasonably) assistance... the RNLI vessel standing by "waiting for the inevitable" is not significantly different ...
So.... if you saw a vessel in what you would consider inappropriate circumstances - would you offer assistance and then move on when it was refused or would you stooge around and wait for conditions to deteriorate to the point that they need assistance ... ?
I guess most of us would probably move on - but if we considered it serious enough we may just put in a call to the CG ... who would then task the RNLI to go and have a looksee ...
Personally I wouldn't want the RNLI hanging around after they had offered me assistance and I'd refused, but then perhaps I should be questioning why they offered assistance in the first place - and if they're hanging around after I've given my explanation then perhaps I should re-evaluate what I'm doing there!
But unfortunately, life isn't black and white - and the CG & RNLI crew know of the local dangers that may occur - whereas they don't know that the skipper of the "casualty" vessel does ... or that the skipper is of sound mind.
In dinghy racing it is quite a usual practice to stand by whilst the "casualty" vessel sorts itself out having refused (usually quite reasonably) assistance... the RNLI vessel standing by "waiting for the inevitable" is not significantly different ...
So.... if you saw a vessel in what you would consider inappropriate circumstances - would you offer assistance and then move on when it was refused or would you stooge around and wait for conditions to deteriorate to the point that they need assistance ... ?
I guess most of us would probably move on - but if we considered it serious enough we may just put in a call to the CG ... who would then task the RNLI to go and have a looksee ...
Personally I wouldn't want the RNLI hanging around after they had offered me assistance and I'd refused, but then perhaps I should be questioning why they offered assistance in the first place - and if they're hanging around after I've given my explanation then perhaps I should re-evaluate what I'm doing there!
oldharry
Well-Known Member
This is a very curious debate, based on assumptions from a newspaper report that has little to do with the facts.
Several members of the public rang the coastguard concerned about a rubber dinghy that was apparently drifting off Birnbeck. The LB was tasked to go and investigate. This was the second 'shout' for this particular dinghy, the first having been stood down earlier in the day when it was seen the craft was under control. The official report continues:
"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, the casualty vessel along with Weston Lifeboat No 1 arrived at Clevedon at 15-30hrs, Swansea Coastguard then requested that Weston No1 stand off and maintain a watch until enough water is available to recover vessel to shore. At 16:50 Weston No.1 handed the vessel overto Clevedon Coastguard and proceeded back to Weston..."
There is no evidence in this case the lifeboat stood by waiting for the fishermen to go home or insisted on rescuing someone who didnt want to be rescued.
So where is the debate? I too would be more than a little put out if a LB came roaring up insisting on 'rescuing' me, unless they knew something I did not.
Equally, It must be very difficult for RNLI crews when somebody is doing something obviously stupid and dangerous: it would be their job to go back and try to recover the bodies if things went badly pear shaped. A job even qualified and paid experts find deeply distressing in any situation. Ask any RNLI crew, Ambulance crew or Traffic policeman.
Several members of the public rang the coastguard concerned about a rubber dinghy that was apparently drifting off Birnbeck. The LB was tasked to go and investigate. This was the second 'shout' for this particular dinghy, the first having been stood down earlier in the day when it was seen the craft was under control. The official report continues:
"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, the casualty vessel along with Weston Lifeboat No 1 arrived at Clevedon at 15-30hrs, Swansea Coastguard then requested that Weston No1 stand off and maintain a watch until enough water is available to recover vessel to shore. At 16:50 Weston No.1 handed the vessel overto Clevedon Coastguard and proceeded back to Weston..."
There is no evidence in this case the lifeboat stood by waiting for the fishermen to go home or insisted on rescuing someone who didnt want to be rescued.
So where is the debate? I too would be more than a little put out if a LB came roaring up insisting on 'rescuing' me, unless they knew something I did not.
Equally, It must be very difficult for RNLI crews when somebody is doing something obviously stupid and dangerous: it would be their job to go back and try to recover the bodies if things went badly pear shaped. A job even qualified and paid experts find deeply distressing in any situation. Ask any RNLI crew, Ambulance crew or Traffic policeman.
Last edited:
mainsail1
Well-Known Member
mainsail1
Well-Known Member
aroona
Well-Known Member
I think it is this point that was the main factor for the ILB staying, the helm will have asked his/her crew if they were ok staying on scene. We stayed with a fishing boat 9 hrs waiting for divers to come & clear his gear after his crew was injured & airlifted off.
As for the term casualty, there is a case for it to be used more judically in press reports. It is a term taught in the SAR courses & gets carried over.
laffinskip
Well-Known Member
Quite right,the press will never let the facts get in the way of a story.
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
I agree that it is unhelpful to use a non-neutral word like "casualty" to describe those the RNLI assists. In the Care Industry, the people who receive care are referred to as "clients" or "users" - neutral terms without negative connotations. I think the RNLI would do well to adopt neutral terminology in their reports. I think they should use terms such as "vessel", "crew" or more specific terms where appropriate rather than saying "casualty".
I doubt there's any conspiracy involved int he terminology they use - it is simply that they haven't really considered the impact of the terms they are using.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
It should also be remembered that we are all constantly learning. The process starts with no knowledge and never stops. The skipper of a boat may well say he's Ok and everything is under control, he may know no better though.
When you have some knowledge and you think you cannot learn any more, then things can get dangerous, because, you will not listen or take advice from anyone. Everyone is a fool except you.
Remember, you dont know what you dont know.
When you have some knowledge and you think you cannot learn any more, then things can get dangerous, because, you will not listen or take advice from anyone. Everyone is a fool except you.
Remember, you dont know what you dont know.
Cantata
Well-Known Member
When you do this stuff you need to be able to use a single clear word that establishes beyond all doubt exactly who/what you are talking about, particularly on the VHF. Can't mess about being PC. If you can think of another word, let's hear it.
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
A bit more fuel to the fire
From old Harry's report, it appears this debate has been created by an inaccurate report in the meja..
The tone of the report implied the RNLI was being unnecessarily interfering, hence he OP title, "The RNLI at it again"..
It seems the meja have defamed the good reputation of the RNLI in their desire to sex up a non story into something to tut tut about..
I do take Harry's point that if the lifeboat does leave the idiots to kill themselves, it is very unpleasant for the crews picking the bodies out of the sea afterwards..
From old Harry's report, it appears this debate has been created by an inaccurate report in the meja..
The tone of the report implied the RNLI was being unnecessarily interfering, hence he OP title, "The RNLI at it again"..
It seems the meja have defamed the good reputation of the RNLI in their desire to sex up a non story into something to tut tut about..
I do take Harry's point that if the lifeboat does leave the idiots to kill themselves, it is very unpleasant for the crews picking the bodies out of the sea afterwards..
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting that crews etc. change their terminology, which is obviously developed for use in the environment of an call, and needs to be clear and unambiguous in that environment. PC (which is not what I'm advocating anyway) doesn't matter in that environment.
However, those writing the press releases etc. could easily ensure that the terminology they use is neutral; all it takes is an awareness of the lack of neutrality of some terms. And perhaps crew members could receive a little training on handling the press, if they don't already? I used to work in a high profile scientific establishment, and the majority of staff received at least basic training in dealing with press enquiries - not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the organization. After all, you never knew when the press would decide that a piece of work was newsworthy (though I suppose my colleague's paper "Penguins from space: faecal stains reveal the location of emperor penguin colonies" was a pretty predictable media hit!)
awol
Well-Known Member
The term "casualty" may emanate from the Coastguard. Certainly they refer to "casualty working" when they are involved with an incident.
Maybe we should dumb down the vocabulary of all professions and activities to avoid impacting on the sensibilities of the lowest common denominator of the public. Or maybe the concept of LCD is too complex?
Maybe we should dumb down the vocabulary of all professions and activities to avoid impacting on the sensibilities of the lowest common denominator of the public. Or maybe the concept of LCD is too complex?
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Shorn100
Well-Known Member
I don't think everyone on here that's suggesting the lifeboat simply goes away has completely thought through the problem the rescue services face.
The reason for the Coastguard requesting a lifeboat was a well-meaning 999 call from, in this case, someone ashore. Evidently, it appears as if a small boat requires assistance. There's no way of contacting the boat so they request a lifeboat to investigate. The lifeboat launches and finds the boat who say they are OK. However, they can see why the person ashore had their concerns - it's a small inflatable boat, that doesn't have a vast amount of safety equipment.
If the lifeboat leaves there could well be another call to the CG from another person ashore saying they've seen a small boat that appears to need assistance.
The Coastguard now has to ask itself is it the same boat that said they were OK? Or is it another boat? Or is it the same boat who were previously OK but who are now in trouble?
To be safe and sure, they will have to request the lifeboat again. The lifeboat crew who have just spent the last 30 minutes to an hour or so recovering and cleaning their boat, packing away their gear etc and may have left the lifeboat station, are paged again and go through all the launch procedures again. As before, they have to search and find the boat and go through the same procedure.
Clearly, the easiest solution therefore is simply to hang around and accompany the boat home. It can then be ruled out of any other further calls and the fact that a bright orange lifeboat is next to the boat will probably prevent any further calls.
In short, the CG and lifeboat have no choice but to stand by - it's the easiest solution in a case such as this.
Shorn
The reason for the Coastguard requesting a lifeboat was a well-meaning 999 call from, in this case, someone ashore. Evidently, it appears as if a small boat requires assistance. There's no way of contacting the boat so they request a lifeboat to investigate. The lifeboat launches and finds the boat who say they are OK. However, they can see why the person ashore had their concerns - it's a small inflatable boat, that doesn't have a vast amount of safety equipment.
If the lifeboat leaves there could well be another call to the CG from another person ashore saying they've seen a small boat that appears to need assistance.
The Coastguard now has to ask itself is it the same boat that said they were OK? Or is it another boat? Or is it the same boat who were previously OK but who are now in trouble?
To be safe and sure, they will have to request the lifeboat again. The lifeboat crew who have just spent the last 30 minutes to an hour or so recovering and cleaning their boat, packing away their gear etc and may have left the lifeboat station, are paged again and go through all the launch procedures again. As before, they have to search and find the boat and go through the same procedure.
Clearly, the easiest solution therefore is simply to hang around and accompany the boat home. It can then be ruled out of any other further calls and the fact that a bright orange lifeboat is next to the boat will probably prevent any further calls.
In short, the CG and lifeboat have no choice but to stand by - it's the easiest solution in a case such as this.
Shorn
oldharry
Well-Known Member
Which is the strongest argument I know against compulsory training for leisure boat owners.
"I've done the course so I know all about it"
"Here lies the body of poor John Gray
who knew he had the right of way..."
Searush
Well-Known Member
Small boats only need to be able to show a white light, if necessary. So provided they have a head torch, or even a mobile phone, they can do that & could not be prosecuted. Probably even a fag lighter or box of matches would meet the legal requirements.
ProMariner
Well-Known Member
SAR deal with the 'casualty vessel', and 'casualties in the water'. No change is needed. The time needed to flesh this out according to the laws of language, may cost lives.
Do not take it personally, the only thing required to turn your beloved boat into the 'casualty vessel', is a dog walker passing / blind old bird looking out her window, etc, calling the coastguard, and telling them so.
It does not mean the vessel is actually in trouble, any more than a Dr referring to someone as a patient, makes that person sick. It's simply shorthand to define the relationship between them.
Do not take it personally, the only thing required to turn your beloved boat into the 'casualty vessel', is a dog walker passing / blind old bird looking out her window, etc, calling the coastguard, and telling them so.
It does not mean the vessel is actually in trouble, any more than a Dr referring to someone as a patient, makes that person sick. It's simply shorthand to define the relationship between them.
