Life rafts on small bluewater boats

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Taking into account long, life raft survival in the multi-months timefram is just not relevant in current day situations. All of these events took place long before modern communications were available, including EPRIB, national RCCs, and the organized GMDSS system. It is more doomsday survivalist thinking, than practical cruising passage making preparation. No one is likely to survive on a life raft for more than a few days when abandoning a small boat. Matter of fact, even the odds of making it into the raft isn't great.
One thing to improve your chances in a liferaft is to pack a PLB in the raft when it is repacked.

How is it not relevant to current situations?

The 440d drift was 7yr ago.

It all depends on how much you trust the electronics. And being near somebody that can effect a rescue. I have heard stories that when the USCG has requested rescue for a triggered EPRIB from the Indonesian CG, their response was something to the effect of "We don't go looking for our own fishermen, why should we go looking for your recreational boater?" Uncertain about the veracity of that story.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Adelie

How is it not relevant to current situations?

The 440d drift was 7yr ago.

It all depends on how much you trust the electronics. And being near somebody that can effect a rescue. I have heard stories that when the USCG has requested rescue for a triggered EPRIB from the Indonesian CG, their response was something to the effect of "We don't go looking for our own fishermen, why should we go looking for your recreational boater?" Uncertain about the veracity of that story.

I am not familiar with the small boat cruiser who drifted in a liferaft for 440 days. Can you give me the link?

It is not relevant to today because it is not practical to prepare a cruising boat to have a reasonable life raft platform that will preform well for weeks at sea in conditions where a well founded, well prepared, far larger mothership has already failed. Safety gear preparation for cruising needs to be practical and cover a decent percent of likely risks. It is only on online forums where things get taken to the absurd level and then defended.


As far as your comment on the Indonesian CG. Having recently sailed 3,000 miles through Indonesia I'll call BS on your quote to the USCG from the Indo CG, but can't argue with the meaning. In this case the USCG (for a US flagged vessel) would contact via the GMDSS system one of the hundreds of commercial ships passing through Indo to investigate.

[SteveSadler]

We recently had our liferaft certified. i wasn't impressed by it's thin material or scarce supplies. We carry our 12' rib with 20hp engine, 6 gal fuel, ditch bag, water,etc on the foredeck in chocks rightside up, ready to launch on passages and overnighters. While I'd bring the raft with us, it wouldn't be my first choice to save our lives.
!t only takes a few minutes to raise it 2' ,clear the lifelines and drop it in. In a fire the foredeck is the last place to burn, the cockpit where the raft is, would be closer to the fire if it started below. If sinking, we'd have plenty of time to launch the rib and the raft plus collect whatever we needed from mother ship. In a hurricane, pitchpoled or upside down, the raft would be the only option, but even launching it and boarding in massive seas is doubtful. My advice, stick to mothership until it it has already sunk it's your best option.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I am not familiar with the small boat cruiser who drifted in a liferaft for 440 days. Can you give me the link?

It is not relevant to today because it is not practical to prepare a cruising boat to have a reasonable life raft platform that will preform well for weeks at sea in conditions where a well founded, well prepared, far larger mothership has already failed. Safety gear preparation for cruising needs to be practical and cover a decent percent of likely risks. It is only on online forums where things get taken to the absurd level and then defended.


As far as your comment on the Indonesian CG. Having recently sailed 3,000 miles through Indonesia I'll call BS on your quote to the USCG from the Indo CG, but can't argue with the meaning. In this case the USCG (for a US flagged vessel) would contact via the GMDSS system one of the hundreds of commercial ships passing through Indo to investigate.

Salvadoran fisherman from Mexico to the Marshalls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3...ador_Alvarenga

Three mexican fishermen went 270d in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs_Vida%C3%B1a

You made the point that a dinghy would be unlikely to survive long periods at when in the same conditions led the mother ship to flounder. But really, if you make it into the dinghy after a propane explosion on the mothership what are the odds you are going to bring a canister of propane along to recreate the possibility of a propane explosion on the dinghy? Also I would expect a hard dinghy to survive a propane explosion better than an inflatable anything. You made a blanket statement that implied an inflatable liferaft would be the best option following the loss of the mothership. In reality there are a number of difference scenarios where mothership comes to grief and the best means of egress will depend on the particulars of the sinking and of the weather at the time.

You are correct that it is not practical to prepare a liferaft for weeks at sea, but it is practical for a solid dinghy. It's just debatable whether it is worth the effort when electronics can summon quickly rescue. Earlier in this thread BreakingWaves eloquently pointed out philosophical conflict that is at the root of this discussion.

You are using the minimizing rhetorical tactic by writing "It is only on online forums where things get taken to the absurd level..." which implies going without isn't done in the real world by people with experience such as your self and to consider anything else is "absurd". But people with decades of experience and multiple circumnavigations have chosen to go without: The Pardeys, Leonard/Starzinger.

As far as preparing for likely risks, sinking is a pretty low odds outcome. No unheard of but not likely by any stretch of the imagination. At the same time the cost appears to be high so the net risk is moderate, preparations are reasonable to pursue Frankly preparing the mothership with sealed tanks and crash bulkheads may be a better use of the money, except in case of fire or explosion.

I'm not saying people shouldn't carry liferafts, but at the same time the argument that they MUST be carried is not a slam dunk.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Salvadoran fisherman from Mexico to the Marshalls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3...ador_Alvarenga

Three mexican fishermen went 270d in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs_Vida%C3%B1a

You made the point that a dinghy would be unlikely to survive long periods at when in the same conditions led the mother ship to flounder. But really, if you make it into the dinghy after a propane explosion on the mothership what are the odds you are going to bring a canister of propane along to recreate the possibility of a propane explosion on the dinghy? Also I would expect a hard dinghy to survive a propane explosion better than an inflatable anything. You made a blanket statement that implied an inflatable liferaft would be the best option following the loss of the mothership. In reality there are a number of difference scenarios where mothership comes to grief and the best means of egress will depend on the particulars of the sinking and of the weather at the time.

You are correct that it is not practical to prepare a liferaft for weeks at sea, but it is practical for a solid dinghy. It's just debatable whether it is worth the effort when electronics can summon quickly rescue. Earlier in this thread BreakingWaves eloquently pointed out philosophical conflict that is at the root of this discussion.

You are using the minimizing rhetorical tactic by writing "It is only on online forums where things get taken to the absurd level..." which implies going without isn't done in the real world by people with experience such as your self and to consider anything else is "absurd". But people with decades of experience and multiple circumnavigations have chosen to go without: The Pardeys, Leonard/Starzinger.

As far as preparing for likely risks, sinking is a pretty low odds outcome. No unheard of but not likely by any stretch of the imagination. At the same time the cost appears to be high so the net risk is moderate, preparations are reasonable to pursue Frankly preparing the mothership with sealed tanks and crash bulkheads may be a better use of the money, except in case of fire or explosion.

I'm not saying people shouldn't carry liferafts, but at the same time the argument that they MUST be carried is not a slam dunk.

Your fishermen examples have nothing to do with passage making in a small boat. They are taking the argument to the absurd.

And my first post in this thread explicitly says I have no issue making the choice to passage make without a liferaft. I then went on to explain why I don't think using a portland pudgy is a good replacement. Feel free to use whatever you want on your passages.

[aqfishing]

I would say a life raft is an essential item. Along with an EPIRB, SART and good radio equipment.

A life raft cannot be replaced with a dingy of any type.

However!
You should do a survival course that involves a practice run with a life raft. I have done this and I highly recommend it. It teaches you all sorts of things about the raft and its equipment, along with other useful survival tips.

The life raft must be regularly serviced, this could be tricky when cruising certain areas. Our rafts on our commercial vessels get serviced every year, not sure if this is just a money making racket. There must be rafts out there with longer service intervals.

The raft needs to be easily accessible and rapidly deployable.

The other handy thing is the raft contains handy survival goodies like food, water, fishing gear, first aid kit etc.

Use the right tool for the job, as someone else pointed out in the thread, multipurpose items often can do multiple things, but usually very poorly. (I think they said it better though.)

As others have also pointed out, but worth saying again, where at all possible, stay with the mothership!

[aqfishing]

Originally Posted by Mara Mae

Excellent points.

Agreed! Re Wingsails post!

[OldManMirage]

What I am still seeing in these posts is the argument for a life raft being the only answer for storm conditions. I will agree that in some cases that may very well be true.

My point is I don't see very many cruisers heading into the kind of storm conditions that sink sailboats. We have fantastic weather information and routing capabilities nowadays. Most people going cruising are planning their itinerary around the weather. We know "when" to go "where." And if bad weather develops, they (should) know about it and can sail around it. So again, I don't see abandoning your boat in a storm as the most likely scenario.

I will put the money that a liferaft would cost into good electronics, epirbs and PLB's. I will know where the weather is, and people will know where I am.

[aqfishing]

Originally Posted by OldManMirage

What I am still seeing in these posts is the argument for a life raft being the only answer for storm conditions. I will agree that in some cases that may very well be true.

My point is I don't see very many cruisers heading into the kind of storm conditions that sink sailboats. We have fantastic weather information and routing capabilities nowadays. Most people going cruising are planning their itinerary around the weather. We know "when" to go "where." And if bad weather develops, they (should) know about it and can sail around it. So again, I don't see abandoning your boat in a storm as the most likely scenario.

I will put the money that a liferaft would cost into good electronics, epirbs and PLB's. I will know where the weather is, and people will know where I am.

Good points! But not all cruisers seem to think having updated weather info is important….

https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3503432

To be fair though, they all see the benefit, but some feel they can do without it and that the money could be better spent elsewhere! (Maybe on a good life raft and a sturdy tender!)


Now if you have a well constructed catamaran you will probably never need to abandon it, even when upside down!

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by OldManMirage

What I am still seeing in these posts is the argument for a life raft being the only answer for storm conditions. I will agree that in some cases that may very well be true.

My point is I don't see very many cruisers heading into the kind of storm conditions that sink sailboats. We have fantastic weather information and routing capabilities nowadays. Most people going cruising are planning their itinerary around the weather. We know "when" to go "where." And if bad weather develops, they (should) know about it and can sail around it. So again, I don't see abandoning your boat in a storm as the most likely scenario.

I will put the money that a liferaft would cost into good electronics, epirbs and PLB's. I will know where the weather is, and people will know where I am.

Your argument might apply pretty well to coastal cruisers. I just don't see it as valid to long passage makers. Weather forecasting and the ability to obtain it is far, far better than in the past. But that has little to do with the extreme conditions that can and do occur while offshore from time to time. Are your odds of getting nailed high? Of course not, just like your odds of a man overboard, or a fire, or medical emergency are not high. The longer you cruise the higher likelihood you will experience one. You still measure those risks for yourself and crew and have what you think is appropriate onboard. Same for a life raft -- but just to be clear, I do not believe everyone offshore needs a life raft. It's a personal choice.

To emphasize that it can happen to cruisers. Here is the story of two acquaintances who were lost last year on their catamaran in tough weather after deploying their liferaft. These were typical Mom and Pop cruisers doing what cruisers do ( with some Covid restrictions thrown in to make their plans more complex)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-...coast/12483886

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by thomm225

As I said, he had an EPIRB. (It was 1981. What did you expect?)

The point is his experience is very unlikely under GMDSS , these days life rafts are optimised for 3 day residency. Callaghan s experience was of its time

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Adelie

I have heard stories that when the USCG has requested rescue for a triggered EPRIB from the Indonesian CG, their response was something to the effect of "We don't go looking for our own fishermen, why should we go looking for your recreational boater?" Uncertain about the veracity of that story.

This did actually happen - we were involved in the incident response.

BUT it was like 2 decades ago, AND the Indonesian CG has been comprehensively restructured/reoriented since then.

However, there are certainly still other places in the world where the local CG resources are not very rich or responsive. Most of those places you would still get help decently soon (48-72 hrs) from gmdss response.

However, there have more recently been some gmdss screw-up resulting in no response at all - again we were directly involved in one in Chile. There are hand-offs and language issues and humans involved and things can (and do occasionally) get screwed up. It is a good system but it can and does fail. (edit the Chilian's navy were the direct GMDSS response they started to spin up assets and then misunderstood the situation and never launched and there was no other response. Boat was lost all crew dead - honestly, they were probably dead even with an excellent response as conditions were terrible - we were right within 60 miles of them)

Pretty much everything can fail - good brand life rafts can and do fail (fail to inflate, fail to hold their inflation, get rolled in 8m breaking waves, etc).

The skipper and his seamanship is BY FAR the most important point for minimizing risk. WAY way more important than any gear. The basic boat structure and quality is a strong 2nd, again WAY way more important than gear. EPIRB and other communication methods (2 way coms can be quite important in response time and quality) is the 3rd priority, along with some of the basic safety stuff like fire fighting equipment and repair materials and hole plugging stuff. Beyond that . . . you are mostly working around the marginal edges.

Going to remote places, doing challenging things simply poses risks - relatively small risk and that is mitigable by good seamanship - but in the end **** can and does occasionally happen. How you deal with this is more a matter of life philosophy than a logically debatable point.

[aqfishing]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Salvadoran fisherman from Mexico to the Marshalls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3...ador_Alvarenga

Three mexican fishermen went 270d in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs_Vida%C3%B1a

You made the point that a dinghy would be unlikely to survive long periods at when in the same conditions led the mother ship to flounder. But really, if you make it into the dinghy after a propane explosion on the mothership what are the odds you are going to bring a canister of propane along to recreate the possibility of a propane explosion on the dinghy? Also I would expect a hard dinghy to survive a propane explosion better than an inflatable anything. You made a blanket statement that implied an inflatable liferaft would be the best option following the loss of the mothership. In reality there are a number of difference scenarios where mothership comes to grief and the best means of egress will depend on the particulars of the sinking and of the weather at the time.

You are correct that it is not practical to prepare a liferaft for weeks at sea, but it is practical for a solid dinghy. It's just debatable whether it is worth the effort when electronics can summon quickly rescue. Earlier in this thread BreakingWaves eloquently pointed out philosophical conflict that is at the root of this discussion.

You are using the minimizing rhetorical tactic by writing "It is only on online forums where things get taken to the absurd level..." which implies going without isn't done in the real world by people with experience such as your self and to consider anything else is "absurd". But people with decades of experience and multiple circumnavigations have chosen to go without: The Pardeys, Leonard/Starzinger.

As far as preparing for likely risks, sinking is a pretty low odds outcome. No unheard of but not likely by any stretch of the imagination. At the same time the cost appears to be high so the net risk is moderate, preparations are reasonable to pursue Frankly preparing the mothership with sealed tanks and crash bulkheads may be a better use of the money, except in case of fire or explosion.

I'm not saying people shouldn't carry liferafts, but at the same time the argument that they MUST be carried is not a slam dunk.

I have read the book 438 days by Jonothan Franklin. Interesting reading. The real question is… did he eat his mate to survive?

However that story is hardly relevant to this discussion. He was in a 23 ft boat capable of going to sea 10 days at a time and carrying 1500 Lbs of fish. He also carried no other safety equipment other than a dodgy radio. So no EPIRB!
Hardly a dinghy.

A life raft does not need to be prepared to go to sea, it should have all you need in in it for x number of pax for a certain number of days(3?), cannot remember the number of days off hand. Life rafts are also not designed to be at sea for months. I think there is definitely some reliance on electronics to bring someone to your rescue. I guess this is why some are saying maybe solid dinghy is better, however, if you really have to leave in a hurry there may be no time to pack your dinghy! Also as pointed out by others, the life raft will most certainly be more sea worthy!

For me, a good aluminium tender (inflatables are prone to puncture and falling apart, same as any life raft) AND a life raft! I believe in redundancy and options!

I know there are plenty stories of people who did survive short and long periods in a life raft, and that for me is a good enough reason to want one as a last resort option.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by OldManMirage

...My point is I don't see very many cruisers heading into the kind of storm conditions that sink sailboats. We have fantastic weather information and routing capabilities nowadays. Most people going cruising are planning their itinerary around the weather. We know "when" to go "where." And if bad weather develops, they (should) know about it and can sail around it. So again, I don't see abandoning your boat in a storm as the most likely scenario.

I will put the money that a liferaft would cost into good electronics, epirbs and PLB's. I will know where the weather is, and people will know where I am.

OldManMirage, Even with excellent weather knowedge or routing one can find themselves in really bad conditions. Sailing around a suddenly developing low pressure system is not always possible and often these systems arise after you have departed. If the boat is badly damaged in a storm you may not have much choice about abandoning.

But your point about it not being the most likely scenario is the wrong position to take. None of these potential disasters are ever the most likely scenario. If we only prepared for the most likley scenario we'd never take any safety equipment. Because you are playing for keeps you should prepare for almost all of the possible scenarios. Losing my vessel at sea is definately one that I will prepare for.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by wingssail

We had that point of view, but we were younger and felt immortal. Plus it was, franky, a money thing too. But it's one thing to think that since we're putting ourselves at risk, why should someone else put themselves at risk to rescue us, while the danger seemed like something intangible, something that would happen to someone else, not us, but it's quite another thing when you are face to face with the bear.

Even the wilderness analogy gives you a little breathing room, after all, you can walk away, or build a shelter. I dunno, I didn't do much of that, maybe the risks are similar.

But there we were, full of self confidence and fully prepared, and yet it happened and we were powerless, totally vunerable. It just came. And it was awesome, and it killed.

We made it, not because we were better than those who perished, but because we were luckier. The wave with our name on it did not visit.

And we realized that we were not immortal. And if the next storm came, and we were not so lucky, we knew we'd pull the epirb switch in a second and be thankful if we got out alive and could start a new life in the desert somewhere far from the sea.

Now we do coastal passages. But even a 350 mile crossing is enough. Storms happen there, boats sink. We have a friend whose vessel (with five people on board) hit a whale off the coast of Baja and it broke out the rudder post and the boat sank. She got the life raft and got the crew in it as the boat sank and saved them all. Within the sight of land.

So we do get our life raft out of storage before departing for our little trips, and we've checked and replaced the epirb battery, too. And we are not going down without a fight.

Thanks Wing, but your comparison does not generalize to everyone. I have had an acute understanding of my mortality since a very early age when I decided to take the quick way down an elevator shaft. I think I have a better sense of the fragility of my life than most.

But as I said in my opening remarks, it is about money. More accurately, it is a risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis,. As I said, if I was richer, or liferafts were a lot cheaper, and had a boat that could more easily manage a liferaft, then the decision would tip in a different direction. It's about mitigating risk, and given limited resources, there are often better ways to address the issue.

This discussion is the same as when we look at financial insurance. It's about mitigating risk, assessed through a cost-benefit analysis. The thing that is important is to face these questions with the best information possible, and with eyes-wide-open to the real risks and costs.