Life Raft Discussion.... Yes or No?

[mowerandy]

Once, in a decent blow (of around 80 knots) I had urgent occasion to remove the outboard from the 10 foot zodiac tied alongside (needed the yacht power plant back in a hurry - dragging onto the bricks).
Trouble was, that the zodiac, complete with heavy 10HP Merc and full 25litre fuel tank, was flying alongside, up to a couple of metres above the coachroof, occasionally crashing down into the water and then taking off again.
This gave me cause to wonder about the usefulness of an inflatable rather than a raft (with water ballast flaps) under storm conditions....

[hpeer]

I’d like to revisit the threat analysis a bit, for my situation.

The way I hear people talk there are a finite number of reasons why you might need a raft.
1 - Yacht damages due to sever weather.
2 - Keel falls off.
3 - collision with a container or some such thing
4 - collision with another vessel/ship
5 - fire

These are somewhat modified by your cruising ground: Chesapeake Bay, coastal, off soundings. Warm vs cold water.

We have steel boats, one in the Carribean and one in Newfoundland.

1 - Yacht damaged due to sever weather.

I think this is assuming the boat will structurally fail due to the wave action. Obviously some boats are more stout than others, some are better at keeping water out. Large ports are a hazard. We have a solid metal hull, small ports, and a wrongly attached mast that is unlikely to come DOW, and if it did it’s unlikely to puncture the hull. The risk here is not zero but is towards the lower end of the scale.

2 - Keel falls off.

Impossible. Zero risk of this.

3 - collision with a container or some such thing

Our risk of collision is the same as anyone else’s but the damage is likely to be less than on most other boats. So some risk but less than average.

4 - collision with another vessel/ship

Our risk is slightly mitigated by having steel boats because the 1) will survive a harder hit than most glass boats and they present a bigger radar target. Also we have active AIS, which helps. So our risk here is somewhat lower than average.

5 - fire

The chance of fire is about even. We don’t use propane, kerosene. Our Steel hull will not burn, but I don’t know that will do us much good if it’s too hot to stay aboard. Maybe a shade better than average.

So I evaluate my potential risk of needing a life raft as lower than average, not zero. Comments welcome

On a second point consider this: if you have $2,000 to spend, and for you and your crews demographic, what is the most likely event to kill or seriously injure someone, and would the money be more wisely spent on some other piece of gear? For me I felt I had a better chance of injury due to a unintentional jibe, so I bought and fitted a Dutchman Brake. I don’t know I’ve ever seen another one. Is my thinking wrong? Perhaps the $2,000 should go to buy a automatic defibulator?

Again comments welcome.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Perhaps the $2,000 should go to buy a automatic defibulator?

Some years ago I discussed the defibrillator with the doctor I was using to prescribe medicines for my on-board kit. His opinion was that without access to very prompt outside assistance, all the defib did was to likely turn a quick death into a long persistent vegetative state. Perhaps he was being pessimistic?

[Steadman Uhlich]

The discussion of having an inflated dinghy on deck instead of a life raft reminds me of the Sinking of La Rosa, in 2013, a steel hulled 40 foot boat that was owned by a CF Member (RIGORMORTIS) who sailed it almost all the way around the world.

I had read his blog from the beginning of his voyage and was impressed by his stories as he sailed around the world. I enjoyed his writing and photos showing his travels. I did not know then, as I read his blog, that his voyage ended with his nice boat sinking. It was a real sad shock to read that final blog entry.

Here is a short excerpt from his description of the event.

His steel boat swamped and sank after a breaking wave (estimated as 8-9 meters) rolled it 360 degrees and dismasted it, and....

"A big, bad, breaking wave caught us sideways and rolled the boat through 360 degrees. Hatches collapsed; the heater chimney was ripped clean; the mast snapped at deck level and water poured in everywhere. Our inflatable dinghy was torn in half. "

"I was deathly cold, sitting in the cockpit. My clothes were soaked and I shivered uncontrollably. It was getting dark and I knew I would not make it through the night. The boat was taking on water, batteries flooded and no pumps working. We were sinking. "

"The boat was awash now and I told Paul to get ready. Two more waves and she went down. We stepped up into the ocean with no sign of a helicopter in sight but I held the strobe light beacon in one hand and tried to keep my head clear of the breaking waves. I drank a lot of sea water."
____________

His account of the sinking is a striking example of what can happen to a boat offshore, despite the steel hull, and despite an experienced owner who had made it 3/4 of the way around the world.

I encourage folks to read the full story here:
https://petepowell.wordpress.com

And then read his more detailed description of the damage to his boat, here on CF:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1571784

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by mowerandy

Once, in a decent blow (of around 80 knots) I had urgent occasion to remove the outboard from the 10 foot zodiac tied alongside (needed the yacht power plant back in a hurry - dragging onto the bricks).
Trouble was, that the zodiac, complete with heavy 10HP Merc and full 25litre fuel tank, was flying alongside, up to a couple of metres above the coachroof, occasionally crashing down into the water and then taking off again.
This gave me cause to wonder about the usefulness of an inflatable rather than a raft (with water ballast flaps) under storm conditions....

That would make a strong impression! The dinghy was flying like a kite!

Thanks for adding your anecdote.

[IdoraKeeper]

This is certainly a spirited discussion. Ken has already said he is leaning toward getting a raft and selling it after the crossing. This proves that the pajama people are not like the borg and he has not been assimilated :-). There is however the matter of the Bobcat that never gets an oil change. Chances are that he will get to the Med and forget to sell the raft. Then he's covered both ways. All is well that ends well. Bon voyage Ken!

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

It is actually not an opinion, but rather a known fact about myself.

I speculate that I may not be too unusual and others may share the trait, but not have had the experiences necessary to know it. And I speculate that others do not share the trait. Who is who, is rather difficult to tell unless you have been thru several extreme survival situations. PS - but it is again a fact and not simply opinion that there HAVE been incidents where people have left boats too early, and could have saved the boats if they had not . . . And yes, also cases of people who worked very very hard to save their boats. so both types of incidents do exist.

I dont have much interest in try to convince people of this, but do think it would be worthwhile to be aware of some of the possible psychology of extreme situations.

Even in non-extreme situations, having options can determine a different course of action. We occasionally cruised with insurance and occasionally without, and I (would not have guessed it and was not so pleased to discover it) realized that I did in fact act (a little bit) differently in the two situations. Having the ability to 'walk away whole' did have a practical effect.

Finally, while on psychology and philosophy . . . many people feel their death would be an ultimate tragedy and to be avoided or risk minimized at great cost. I am rather more in the 'we are in fact all going to die, and the important thing is to live now to the fullest'.

Hi Evans, I don't dispute the psychological response your talking about but you can't say it applies to all, in all situations, in fact you can't even put a % on it, circumstances vary as well as the individual, such things as fatigue levels play apart as well, many variables come into play that dictate how one responds, , that's my point.

Also sometimes you just don't have the time, yachts can go down fast as my mate Matt of the New Zealand coast experienced. Do you just die?

I gave an eg of the Malo that kept fighting to keep the boat floating for many hours when they could have abandoned ship much earlier as they had options. He didn't react the way you suggest he will?

How do you argue that the dinghy dosent give you the same escape option as the life raft thus instigating the non fight but abandon response?

In regards to accepting death, sure we are all going to die but personally I'm in the "deferring death" category. I'd be awfully pissed if I couldn't save my boat and I'd given myself no option to abandon it into a life raft. At that particular point in time I'm sure you'd desperately want to live, I assume life is very precious at that moment your about to lose it.

I accept others choices in this area.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

I tend to agree.

The Seatow thread on here demonstrates this.
People tend to do silly things and or pay less attention to nav and depth when someone is there to bail them out.
If you don't have an easy out you do things differently.

Possible lack of real experience as well.
I was reading a site recently where some yachts sailing in a rally were caught in fishnets.
Conditions weren't bad and lives weren't at risk but they activated epirbs.

I don't see the life raft as an easy out if your a thousand miles from land. Leaving the mother ship with all its food and shelter to board a little life raft is not a preferred option imo.

[daletournier]

I should say I do acknowledge what Evans says regarding one does not know how one will react until put in to that unique position. I, fortunately have never been on a sinking boat therefore I do not know how I would react in the moment.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by daletournier

Hi Evans, I don't dispute the psychological response your talking about but you can't say it applies to all, .. . . circumstances vary as well as the individual, such things as fatigue levels play apart as well, many variables come into play that dictate how one responds, , that's my point.

We agree, I do not know much about the distribution of this effect. I know enough about myself to have have been satisfied we made the right decision about ourselves. I have never suggested it was necessarily correct for everyone (or anyone specifically) else. However, looking at incident reports, it does seem to me that I am not totally unique and that it does clearly apply to some other people/situations.


Also sometimes you just don't have the time, yachts can go down fast as my mate Matt of the New Zealand coast experienced. Do you just die?

Yes, we would just have died. However, we were probably better prepared and more committed to avoid/prevent that sort of outcome than many (arguably precisely because we knew we would have died).

This sort of 'commitment' has been explored in the military (and other leadership situations), typically shorthanded by 'burn the boats on the beach' if you are interested . . . .
http://travisrobertson.com/leadershi...s-succeed-die/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-w...alok-tamhankar

Sometimes you are just going to die. Sometimes you might have been able to carry gear to prevent that but choose not to. Physically you can't carry it all, and you can instead focus on preventing/risk reduction for many risks. We accepted that, and accepted that we had made the best trade-offs for ourselves.


How do you argue that the dinghy dosent give you the same escape option as the life raft thus instigating the non fight but abandon response?

We never sailed on (long/serious) passage with the dinghy inflated on deck. I considered that poor seamanship (a greater risk of causing problems at sea than the risks it might possibly reduce by being inflated on deck). On Hawk, it was deflated and stowed below in the workshop. note: we did often coastal cruise with it inflated on deck, but for pretty much anything longer than an overnight we deflated it and properly stowed it.

..............

[Albro359]

Originally Posted by Uncle G

We have a liferaft that is now 19 years old. It was only 'used' as a safety aid for its first few years and has been in storage for the rest of that time. It has never been deployed or serviced.

I inflated it myself in the garage the other day (using a vacuum cleaner to blow air in). The raft itself was like new. The torch was shot - with corroded batteries - and the flares were obviously well out of date.

However, I discovered that there was a rubber seal missing from one of the tube bungs. So there was no way to retain the air in one of the tubes for very long. Also, there were no bellows or method of re-inflating the raft after the CO2 supplied had been used.

Had we needed to use it in earnest, it would have been useless. This was as supplied from new.

Quite an eye opener.

There is normally a requirement to have liferafts inspected / serviced at an authorised safety station. I'm not surprised your 19 yr old liferaft is useless.
Ours is inspected and refitted every 3 years !

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Albro359

There is normally a requirement to have liferafts inspected / serviced at an authorised safety station. I'm not surprised your 19 yr old liferaft is useless.
Ours is inspected and refitted every 3 years !

Like several other people reading that post, you missed the key point; which was that his raft was not usable the day after it was serviced (because of a QA failure).

[Uncle G]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Like several other people reading that post, you missed the key point; which was that his raft was not usable the day after it was serviced (because of a QA failure).

I'm glad that someone realised the point I was trying to make !

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

We have four bilge pumps including a spare for the largest.

Predator pumps are total junk, we returned ours when it self destructed after only six weeks last season due to galvanic corrosion, the company mixes stainless and aluminum parts (see photos). I have the replacement pump which is brand new, sent under warranty if you’d like to buy it. Another issue.... it failed to lift the bilge water more than three feet and self prime.

Yikes! That is awful! I wonder if you got a fake one? These are used by all the lifeboats and many of the workboats and commercial fishermen in the UK. Never heard of such a case before, but it will surely make me think twice.


In any case, however, I wasn't asking about bilge pumps -- I was asking about DEWATERING pumps -- a different animal. No bilge pump, nor four, nor ten of them, can cope with a serious flooding emergency.

I'm not saying and never said, that it is unreasonable per se not to carry a life raft. That's an individual decision (unless you are legally required like I am). I think however that anyone seriously considering going without a raft in waters with a significant chance of conditions too rough for the dinghy, should give some serious thought about dewatering, and fire fighting.

A serious dewatering pump -- like what the Coast Guard or lifeboats bring out to boats having flooding emergencies, saving probably dozens of boats every year just around the UK coast -- will significantly reduce the risk of sinking even with a moderate hull breach. Many boats are saved with such devices. Even with two life rafts on board, I do not intend to allow my boat to sink. I have five bilge pumps including two monster Rule 4000's, but no bilge pump will do the job in a serious flooding emergency.

The harder case is a fire. I think there are fires which are basically impossible to put out no matter what kind of equipment you have. Interesting coincidence -- just yesterday on passage in the North Sea, one crew of mine who used to crew on an Arctic expedition vessel, mentioned that the day after he left the boat the last time, it burned to the waterline in 5 minutes and sank. This was an aluminum boat built in Norway, and just had a total refit including all new electrical system, done in Norway at enormous expense. He said the boat was full of smoke in one instant and flames in multiple places and no way in the world to do anything with it. The crew escaped in the life raft and were rescued -- fortunately it happened near the Faroe Islands where SAR services were available, so they were picked up in some hours.

It was a bloody close thing -- no time to get dry suits on or anything -- they just threw the raft over and jumped in, and miraculously everyone got off safely. Fire at sea is a terrifying thing. That's just one data point, and the risk of such a case is not large, but this kind of situation does happen sometimes, and is just one more reason why I wouldn't go to sea in these cold waters up here without a raft. YMMV.

[hpeer]

I find communicating on these boards is very difficult, it is often nearly impossible to “make a point.” We get so set in our own view points we can not see something new.

FWIW I try to read sympathetically, that is from the writers perspective. Not alas at successful.

Like my example of the AED, it’s not about an AED per se (although the response comment was useful), it’s about thinking through the risk scenarios and applying your limited resources in the most useful fashion. In this line of thinking the chance of needing a life raft is very low, the expense (capital and continuing) is high, which makes it a difficult decision.