would you call a pan pan in this situation

[OGITD]

No! but I communicate with the Coastguard if required.

"And, regrettably, a lot of people think that what they've seen on a television documentary is necessarily true... "

Oh!....the old one of..."it was on the telly! and!! in colour" (for us old chaps.....SORRY!)

Just how many times have we heard examples of this!?

Also I was reliably informed by a senior club member that the salt water spray from the tell-tail on my water pump was an indication of correct function...and that all was OK. So! when I phoned BUKH down in Pool for a non related matter...but just happened to mention this they fell off their chairs laughing. Once they had regained composure and thanking me for the "daily funny" they explained the facts which resulted in a complete new set of seals etc.

It's a learning curve....on many! levels.

 

[snowleopard]

I think it comes down to use of the words 'panpan' or 'urgency'. If you really don't want to see a lifeboat coming over the horizon burning 100 gals per hour, avoid using them!

Yes, this has been a useful debate. Those who like to tell us what we may and may not discuss are best ignored.

 

[Pete7]

No way! , I wouldn't bother.

Well, except he gave the location north of the Brambles bank, next to the deep water channel. If you knew that on Saturday afternoon 5 cruise ships were due to depart Southampton you really wouldn't want to drag an anchor and drift into the channel, or have the diver slowly float away.

As I said earlier what it did do was shut everyone up, particularly those who kept asking for marina berths, but wrongly using channel 16 instead of 80 and regular requests for radio checks. Coasties cancelled it once under tow, then we went back to "Foxy Lady, this is Scooby Doo" calls of folk trying to meet up for drinkies

Pete

 

[lw395]

I think the rule I would apply is 'if you have a problem and you think things could be about to get much worse, then speaking to the CG is good idea'. Much better than compounding things by trying too hard to be self-reliant. Loss of steering or direct threat of such is generally a case for accepting help, it is much more serious imho than loss of prop, at least on a sailing boat! The central solent is too crowded for jury steering heroics, you might act differently if you had more searoom.
The CG can always suggest you anchor and wait if he considers there is no emergency.

 

[ChiPete]

Nathanlee,

I was NUC. E of the deep water shipping channel with a S-SW set. Cruise ships and all sorts of heavy traffic coming and going.

The conditions meant that had I entered the water where I was and got under the boat, the chances I would be killed by having the stern/rudder/prop bounce up and down on my head.

But thanks for the input anyway...!

All,

As has been noted, it's certainly been a good debate.

It's been stated numerous times on these forums and repeatedly by the authorities - they'd rather get a shout early and help out or turn back than get it late and deal with a larger, more difficult (putting the responders at higher risk) and possibly tragic incident.

Cheers,
Pete

 

[DogWatch]

thanks pete. Sounds like your predicament was indeed worse than it sounded on your message - or your voice conveyed. I'm sure if i had been in that situation it would have all been a lot more garbled than your calm tones conveyed.

Glad to hear it all ended well!

Unbelievable!

 

[Blue5]

Unbelievable!

seconded !!

 

[ninky]

But thanks for the input anyway...!

tbf, i think nathan was commenting on the situation based on my OP rather than the subsequent info provided about loss of steering / NUC. i've heard you can steer a boat with sails alone....but i'm certainly a long way off from being able to do that myself, and as has been pointed out the solent is too busy not to have adequate steering.

btw is there something you can hoist or display to show you are NUC or sailing under jury? must look up those rya notes again......

 

[jonjo]

Thought this might get picked up here!!

I think we are getting to the stage where the YBW.com dissection of one's nautical predicaments is a greater disincentive to frivolous use of the emergency services than a French style rescue invoice.

Anyhow about your predicament ... I too would have called up the CG after the rudder jammed since I know that stretch of water very well and the potential for impeding big ships. With hindsight the PanPan was wrong but compared with the usual comedy show on Solent 16 your call was hardly an abuse of VHF procedure.

The tow was the right outcome, plus you provided a training opportunity to the multitude of rival Solent rescue outfits looking for action on a bank holiday weekend.

 

[Grehan]

they'd rather get a shout early and help out or turn back than get it late and deal with a larger, more difficult (putting the responders at higher risk) and possibly tragic incident.

And that's the point. And it applies to mountain rescue and all sorts of other quasi-rescue/semi-rescue situations. WTF (as the Americans say) whether it was a Pan Pan or a call-up on Ch.16 or whatever. The skipper evidently took the correct safe course of action and is to be commended, not nit-picked. I'm pretty sure the CG/RNLI would rather be called for a genuine emergency like this (however the actual degree of emergency might be discussed by those who weren't actually there); or treat it quite legitimately as a training opportunity (which is how some quite innocent and sensible 'notifications' come to become 'rescues' as other posters have noted). I suspect better that than the great volume of easily avoidable mechanical breakdowns and avoidable running-out-of-fuels that they also get called to - and probably view as 'part of the job' anyway.
It's probably the complete dunderheads that navigate with a road atlas, don't have a VHF, or haven't the slightest clue how to use it (let alone using the 'correct' form of words or the WikiPedia/RYA/Merchant Shipping Act/ColRegs definitions), or mis-use it, have never heard of 'tides', etc. that constitute the problem and the irritation.

 

[Perry]

i did smile when he gave his sail number "to aid identification"

So did I, and when CG asked "do you have your main sail up Sir" he replied, good point !

 

[jonjo]

The CG can always suggest you anchor and wait if he considers there is no emergency.

Beware of such anchoring advice from Solent Coastguard, I think it is just a standard piece of text in the call center computer driven script. Over the years I have heard Solent CG advise skippers to anchor when doing so is impractical, dangerous or a distraction from dealing with the problem at hand.

When calling Solent Coastguard be alert to the possibility that you are talking to a call center operative with no substantial background in either big ship or leisure boating.

 

[snowleopard]

i've heard you can steer a boat with sails alone....but i'm certainly a long way off from being able to do that myself, and as has been pointed out the solent is too busy not to have adequate steering.

There is no chance of steering with sails alone if the rudders are jammed to one side. I have managed to steer a twin-engined cat under those conditions by use of the throttles but it wouldn't be possible with a single engine.

 

[LadyInBed]

Now look at the wider picture. If they had been in a shipping lane or unable to anchor then perhaps a pan-pan would have been in order.

It has happened to me three times!
First time SW of Guernsey returning from Paimpol I sent an 'Information' message to CG to say that I was going over the back to try and free rope from prop, then another when I was back on-board.
The second time was off the Casquets, picked up some net, flat calm and strong current pushing me towards said rocks. Called CG and asked for assistance, they got a fishing boat to tow me into Alderney.
The third time was coming back across the Channel, I sent an 'All Ships' (on low power) giving position and that I was drifting, whilst we tried to free rope from prop.
I have never felt a Pan was necessary as it does rather raise the game.

 

[BrendanS]

the problems with Wikipedia are about malicious edits, vandalism and bigotry. Also, a spotty teenager in Kansas has just as much ability to edit a piece as a person with a lifetime's knowledge and understanding of the topic!

I suspect you haven't checked out wikipedia in a while then?

Nothing gets posted or edited now, without the content being checked and vetted by volunteer editors first. So malicious edits, vandalism etc, should be largely eliminated.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I suspect you haven't checked out wikipedia in a while then?

Nothing gets posted or edited now, without the content being checked and vetted by volunteer editors first. So malicious edits, vandalism etc, should be largely eliminated.

Actually, that change hasn't happened yet but it is supposed to be coming in soon; AFAIR it is still in "beta" testing. And yes, I did know about it; I occasionally contribute to Wikipedia on subjects I know about. But you still have the situation that the "experts" and editors are self selected, with no real vetting of qualifications or experience except in terms of Wikipedia itself. It is still, even under the new regime, possible for a subject area to be dominated by people who have little depth of knowledge. Unfortunately, those who do know a lot about a subject area often don't have the time - or perhaps the inclination - to contribute to Wikipedia. And they are discouraged by the "No original research" policy; within my own area of expertise, that is a difficult one for me to avoid!

Don't get me wrong; if taken with a little scepticism, Wikipedia is a great resource. But it can be spectacularly wrong sometimes! My advice is simple; if it's critical information for you, check the references! And Wikipedia itself is NOT an authoritative reference.

 

[BrendanS]

Don't get me wrong; if taken with a little scepticism, Wikipedia is a great resource. But it can be spectacularly wrong sometimes! My advice is simple; if it's critical information for you, check the references! And Wikipedia itself is NOT an authoritative reference.

Totally agree. It's a fantastic resource if used with some caution. For information on subjects like films, music etc, which can be easily checked, it's usually very good. For complex subjects I'd rather go to source material, which may not even be quoted as references, though some of the wikipedia articles can be remarkably good overviews.

 

[bilbobaggins]

It's been stated numerous times on these forums and repeatedly by the authorities - they'd rather get a shout early and help out or turn back than get it late and deal with a larger, more difficult and possibly tragic incident.

You done good....

Endit.

 

[Refueler]

"And, regrettably, a lot of people think that what they've seen on a television documentary is necessarily true... "

Oh!....the old one of..."it was on the telly! and!! in colour" (for us old chaps.....SORRY!)

Just how many times have we heard examples of this!?

Also I was reliably informed by a senior club member that the salt water spray from the tell-tail on my water pump was an indication of correct function...and that all was OK. So! when I phoned BUKH down in Pool for a non related matter...but just happened to mention this they fell off their chairs laughing. Once they had regained composure and thanking me for the "daily funny" they explained the facts which resulted in a complete new set of seals etc.

It's a learning curve....on many! levels.

Reminds me of out in Saudi ... many shops there had Smoke Alarms going BLEEP .... BLEEP ... and I gave up asking shop-keepers why they didn't change the batterys ... most replied : The Bleep is to tell you it's working ! To which I usually replied ..... and what if it's fitted in your bedroom ?

 

[jenku]

Courtesy of Wikipedia

Pan-pan

Pan-pan (from the French: panne - a breakdown) indicates an urgent situation of a lower order than a "grave and imminent threat requiring immediate assistance", such as a mechanical breakdown or a medical problem. The suffix medico used to be added by vessels in UK waters to indicate a medical problem (Pan-Pan medico, repeated three times), or by aircraft declaring a non-life-threatening medical emergency of a passenger in flight, or those operating as protected medical transport in accordance with the Geneva Conventions

Yes, but Wikipedia also claimed that channel 16 ONLY was used for emergencies. Not a word about call-up. Until I edited it....

Also, the "medico" suffix is still in the courses here in Sweden, so if it isn't used anymore then I'd guess this only applies to Britain, which would be a little funny considering it is supposed to be an international code...