How Many EPIRBS and Liferafts Ever Save Lives ?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by monte

I have 2 hypothetical questions..
1/ Evans, if someone on the dock handed you a package the size and weight of a matchbox at no charge that would deploy into a 4 person liferaft if needed, would you take it?
2/ Phil, will you be sharing your next delivery with the spot tracker with CF ?

It is a possibility... but guys..
No crying 'WOLF' this time please...
With SPOT I have my own Red Button..

[goboatingnow]

I am reminded of the conversation about "would you sleep with him for 100 bucks, etc etc etc "

Measuring the effectiveness of safety devices, especially in ocean/sea rescue is actually very difficult. A person that is so rescued after deploying these devices will of course be convinced as to their 100% effectiveness.

My local fire station has a mixed track record in saving buildings, some it does and some it doesn't. However no one questions the propose of a fire service, because in effect one life saved justifies the service ( if you see the argument)

90% of EPIRB activations are false, sometimes resulting in wasted SAR efforts. I see no demand to discontinue SEN style systems. In fact the rescue agencies are trying to improve them.

Equally its clear there are many rescues ( from a small pot) where casualties have been recovered from life rafts. Whether this was a justified abandonment is a mute point. Its not really relevant.

In my experiences almost all safety gear "works", but it works in a context and sometimes that context is wrong. Leaving aside the "wacko" inventions of course.

Iceland did a major study of life rafts, it substantially altered liferaft design. It did not suggest discontinuing such devices. In that regard its rather like the EPIRB.

My own personal experience, and the empirical cases I have studied, is that the 'moral hazard' issue is much stronger with the 'press here for rescue' devices and less with rafts.

I suppose here is where you and I differ considerably. I take the SAR industry view,that irrespective of objective evaluation, if you feel you need to be rescued, then its better to be able to be rescued then not. ( Boaties recent Azorian escapade, shows that reaction is the name of the game , rather then evaluating potential danger, though rescuing him from two women alone on a slow cat should be justification for any right thinking man , its just not fair and can't be allowed sort of thing )

Its easy to sit back, and "review" abandonment cases, god knows its been done enough on this forum. But what matters it to us, if someone decides to leave a boat, in a circumstance that you or I might not. People get scared, some handle it, others want off.

Most of the rescues , are a function of insufficient knowledge leading to under evaluating of the risks, few are of the "inevitable" type. ( certainly in leisure rescues)

Hence your annoyance, might be better directed at the underlying cause of such rescues rather then criticising the method of their rescue.

Should be allow people to die to prove a point I think not.

The moral hazard contention I, afraid remains just that a contention, intellectually interesting, but with no practical application.

Dave

[weavis]

Originally Posted by boatman61

It is a possibility... but guys..
No crying 'WOLF' this time please...
With SPOT I have my own Red Button..

They gave you a red button?!

[weavis]

Its a case of:

This vessel is no longer functioning. You need to get off this vessel. Please step onto the emergency vessel you brought with you.

[goboatingnow]

No crying 'WOLF' this time please

Well Boaty, f you could keep the women on board in single digits, we wouldn't get get worried and rescue you again!!!

Seriously that in my mind is some serious "moral Hazard", though I suspect you hazard level in the morals is somewhat elevated then the rest of us - damm you.

dave

[Mike OReilly]

I don't understand the vehemence you seem to bring to this discussion Dave. There are good rational reasons to go without a liferaft. There is enough data to question the efficacy of these tools, and despite your off handed dismissal, cost/benefit IS the only way to rationally analyse the need for any tool on board. It's no different than the choice to carry money insurance, or storm sails, or some expensive medications. You can't create 100% safety no matter what you do, and wasting resources on questionable tools in favour of clearly efficacious ones (fire extinguisher example) is foolish.

Life is a risk. The objective with safety tools (and financial insurance) is to mitigate or manage that risk. Liferafts are one tool, but given their real world failure rates, high cost, and challenging maintenance needs, it seems perfectly reasonable to question if they offer the biggest bang for your safety buck.

And of course the presence of the liferaft will alter how most people behave in a crisis, perhaps for the better but maybe for the worse. Your decision making may remain unaffected, but most everyone will be. There is tons of social research on the subject of how humans behave in panic situations. This is why military and emergency folks spend so much time in training. It's hard to remain rational and calm in the face of cascading catastrophe.


Why go fast, when you can go slow

[monte]

Thanks for the replies, and for intensive purposes #3 would be that it would work as intended. So it seems you would trust yourself to make the judgement about abandoning ship and not be tempted by the easy out 'moral hazard'
From that I would conclude (maybe incorrectly) that you would have one on board if not for cost and storage and the main bias against is that others might be tempted by the 'moral hazard' which has been the case with some. Let's face it that not all safety gear works 100% of the time and shouldn't be relied on to work. Fire extinguishers have been know to just go fsss, Epirps go flat, satphones can lose service, which is why they should be maintained, serviced and checked regularly.

And thanks Phil, it gives us something to do watching your little bleep across the oceans and armchair weather forecasting :d although we are heading from smir to lanzarote tomorrow so might miss some of the action..

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Well Boaty, f you could keep the women on board in single digits, we wouldn't get get worried and rescue you again!!!

Seriously that in my mind is some serious "moral Hazard", though I suspect you hazard level in the morals is somewhat elevated then the rest of us - damm you.

dave

'Moi'...??
The Saint (1966) Opening Theme - The Queen's Ransom - YouTube

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by boatman61

'Moi'...??
The Saint (1966) Opening Theme - The Queen's Ransom - YouTube

Thats the great thing at your age ---- delusion

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by monte

Thanks for the replies, and for intensive purposes #3 would be that it would work as intended. So it seems you would trust yourself to make the judgement about abandoning ship and not be tempted by the easy out 'moral hazard'
From that I would conclude (maybe incorrectly) that you would have one on board if not for cost and storage and the main bias against is that others might be tempted by the 'moral hazard' which has been the case with some. Let's face it that not all safety gear works 100% of the time and shouldn't be relied on to work. Fire extinguishers have been know to just go fsss, Epirps go flat, satphones can lose service, which is why they should be maintained, serviced and checked regularly.

I'm not sure if your question was aimed at me Monte, but the answer is yes. If I became convinced of that liferafts are highly effective (in real world scenarios), then the cost/benefit analysis would skew in their favour. If I could have your fabled raft in a matchbox for no money I'd take it in a heartbeat.

Moral hazard discussions are real, but my superpower is remaining unaffected by these influences. But I panic just as easily as the rest of my species ;-)


Why go fast, when you can go slow

[monte]

Mike I don't think anyone is advocating buying a raft if you can't afford fire extinguishers first. Safety gear costs money and somwhere (after fire extinguishers) you might have to draw the line. Personally my line is drawn after a raft, satphone.(although purchased for weather updates it does serve as possible emergency communication as well), some AIS SARTs etc

Flares/VHF/ EPIRB/extinguishers/life rings and lifejackets emergency repair tools and materials should all go without saying as being necessary on board any vessel venturing offshore

[mpatter894]

well how would you like being lost in the woods with no matches to start a signal fire?

[goboatingnow]

Moral hazard discussions are real, but my superpower is remaining unaffected by these influences. But I panic just as easily as the rest of my species ;-)

Whether or not its real is irrelevant, what do you care if someone else is rescued, using a judgement call thats significantly different to you. Its of no relevance.

Moral hazard is purely a consideration for those providing the rescue service, not those requesting it. I see no debate amongst the SAR community that is seriously discussing making people "tough" it out to save tax dollars.

Hence why I dismiss it out of hand.

dave

[colemj]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

So...How many fire extinguishers can you carry for the price of one life raft? (G)
I'd think one automatic in the engine space, one automatic over the galley, although it would be safer to just eat cold food, any fireman can tell you about kitchen fires. And one 10BC mounted about every three feet on every bulkhead, right?

Still cheaper than a life raft.

We are a big proponent of fire extinguishers. We have many more than required, and of several types fit for separate problems (foam, halon, dry, CO2). We have them in all compartments - both entering and exiting. For much of the boat, if you stretched out your arms, you would be able to reach one with each hand.

However, we are also aware that it is possible that a fire could break out and cause the space containing it (or the entire boat) to be too dangerous to approach - in effect, rendering any fire-fighting moot.

We don't think of fire-fighting equipment and epirb/liferaft in the same categories or in terms of dividing dollars. For that matter, we don't consider epirb and liferaft in those terms/categories.

Mark

[weavis]

Here is a question.

If you could only afford Either fire extinguishers or a liferaft. One or the other.

Which would you buy?