# Liferafts! VERY Important Thread for all Cruisers



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I briefly mentioned this in my Tortugas thread, but did not want to screw up a great thread and memories with an absolutely frightening discovery.

Anyone that was in Miami, Tampa, Ft Myers, the Keys (including Key West), or the surrounding area likely heard about what happened if they were monitoring CH16. I know that because the USCG posted a PAN-PAN across those areas. The dates were the evening of April 8th, all of the 9th and 10th, 2010.

This discussion is not meant to scare anyone. However, for those that leave sight of land and go beyond VHF range for hours/days at a time, I hope you will take the time to carefully read this thread. I don't know that it will save your life, but I think it needs to have a firm impression on seamanship and the reality of offshore cruising along with its dangers.

I am pulling this out of my log book right now:

At 15:15 hours, position 25.20.587N and 82.32.562W, while trying to sight in a tower used by the navy for verification of GPS coordinates, I spotted something orange floating on the horizon. THe wind was mild at 5-10 and roughly 4 foot seas. The skies were sunny and clear.

I immediately knew what it was, but did not want to believe it. I knew it was a life raft. My kids were aboard and both them, and my wife, were asleep below. I called Kris up (my wife) and had her take a look. SHe agreed, it had to be a raft. I was certain that I would find inside what I did not want to find and might cost us cruising forever.

We threw off the sheets and did not even bother trimming them from flogging. We punched the engine at full throttle and made the raft within 15 minutes (my girl will fly when she needs to). What we found was indeed a life raft, overturned. It was an 8 person. I know this because it was imprinted on the side, upside down. Running windward of the raft was what I suspect a drogue. It trailled off and dropped and dissapeared in the deep blue. 

We repeatedly circled the raft, trying to find some marking or possible sign of life. We found none. THe raft was relatively fresh. It had no observeable growth or marine life/fish under it. There was no wreckage we could find. But if it was a drogue, I doubt we would have found it anyways as the drift would have been very different.

We repeatedly tried to raisse the USCG, but were well out of range. There were no other vessels close as we tried to reach out to spread the word. We could not investigate closer with our main vessel as we would get fowled in the drogue. And dropping the tender and investigating on my own seemed a poor decision in those seas and without obvious life in danger. In the end, we hauled in the sheets and made for Fort Myers. We tried to raise the USCG every 30 mins or so.

At approximately 1740 hours, we were able to hail the USCG. We were about 40 miles out of Cape Romano, making NEast. The USCG immediately went into action. The details and length of time we spoke is probably irrelevant here, but they immediately went into action with a PAN-PAN. I later became aware that they started flying C130's and diverted their interests to that area (and I think their cutter and helis). I have to tell you, the professionalism and absolute intensity of the USCG in those situations is amazing to me. Thank you guys.

The next day I got a call from two members of the USCG. They were very professional and asked me considerable detail of the event, yet again. They were both on the line and shooting questions back and forth. It was being taped also. I learned that they were flying more missions out to the raft and would report back their findings to me. As of that day, they still had not located the raft. I was told that they would let me know if the did find anything or anyone, but I have yet to hear back and can only conclude that the search was called off after repeated attempts.

I made one mistake in all of this that I will regret a long time - I did not take a pic of the raft. I do not know why. I shoot a picture of everything it seems these days and we were on our trip back with camera in sight. But for some odd reason it never crossed my mind until we were an hour back on course. At that point, it seemed more logical to stay the course and make our best time to get back into VHF range.

Now comes the point of discussion(s) I want to share with everyone. I have made some observations/conclusions from our find. They are my opinions and should be taken as such. Whether that raft was someone's bad day and lost at sea in a breaking swell or someone's empty-coffin is really irrelevant at this point and I have little interest in discussing it as it is all speculative. But I will tell you what I strongly believe:

1) If your raft flips over, you are dead. You will not die immediately, but you are not flipping it back over. Also, there were NO handholds on that raft on the bottom. The ballasts were just laying there limp and using them to hold onto would not last long. I saw no handholds along the bottom of the tube and certainly not on the bottom of the floor. So, when picking out a life raft, the number one key thing to choose from is its ability to stay upright. And for anyone thinking they could flip that raft over in a sea or crawl atop it in a sea, you can forget it. Ain't gonna happen or you will not be there for long. The rolling seas and slick canvas would be like sitting atop roller coaster made of wet ice. You would be back into the water within minutes. Even if you could hold on long enough, you would die of hypothermia before long (assuming the big fish don't find you first). So I say again, if that raft flips, you die. I cannot be more blunt than that.

2) The USCG is awesome. They are the best men and women in the world watching out for us as sailors. However, given an exact fix, only a few hours later, along with a very good drift information, in very fair conditions, only 60 ish miles offshore, they could not find it. THat is NOTHING against them. It is the grim reality of how big the ocean is and how small a speck a life raft is. And if you choose the liferaft option, you are at the mercy of someone finding you, not the other way around. 

3) I would like to genuinely propose that everyone considering a liferaft also consider the more modern thought (or old sailor's thought, before you could even wish for a rescue) of a sailing tender that can double as a raft. I am becoming more and more convinced that you should take your rescue into your own hands and hope for a rescue along the way. A sailing dink can be righted in many conditions, and can be sailed to your destination. This might not work in a hurricane, but that probably is not what takes down most well founded vessels. And if a hurricane took down your mother vessel, I cannot imagine riding it out in some flip-easy liferaft where I can guarantee you its tortoising will cost you your life. At least with a sailing-tender that is 'unsinkable' you have the CHANCE to hold on until the weather permits righting it, crawling inside, and making your own decision on whether to bob along or start making for port. In a raft, assuming she stays ass down, you are just going to be sitting there and waiting and hoping you can stay alive until some lucky soul finds your unlucky soul. Hopefully you are still breathing.

4) I will probably make a fuss of this, more than I should, but I think that we as sailors need to challenge life raft companies to test their products in real life conditions. SOrry, I do not sail in a swimming pool. Drop her offshore in 6, 8, 10, 20+ foot seas and see how she resopnds. Drop her in 20, 30, 50, 90 kt winds and see whether she flips. I can tell you taht somebody makes a raft that will flip over! I saw it! And if by some chance it was an empty coffin, then shame on the raft makers who should have known better. Look for deep, wide, ballasts. Look for handholds on the bottom and a means of easy entry. I can tell you that in the little 4 foot seas we were in, climbing atop that raft should there have been handholds would have been arduous at best. 6 footer, 12 footers, 20 footers... I cannot imagine.

5) A extra EPIRB and flares should be considered for ocean crossings. That means for the mother vessel AND the raft. I have to conclude that a C130 flew close to that raft. A few flares or a spare EPIRB might have given them the fix they needed. If nothing else, keep your old flares in a ditch bag to be taken should you have to abandon ship and choose to step up into your raft. 

6) DO NOT LEAVE YOUR MAIN VESSEL! Good lord known that has been harped on a thousand times, but I will say it again. Assuming the vessel did not sink, and should I have found wreckage, my entire action plan would have changed. And I gotta tell you, it would have been a lot easier to see the mother vessel from the sky than that little raft. As said a thousand times, step up into your life raft, not down.

There are probably a lot of other things to say, but I am tired and will see if we can pick it up tomorrow. Thank you for reading the above. I truly hope it was a waste of your time. If not, I hope you keep in mind some of our findings. 

All the best,

Brian


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

Wow Brian. First hand accounts of stuff like this always drive the point home so much better than a second hand article. So whatcha think? The raft got away before the folks could get in or something?


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

A good review CD, lot's to think about. Thank you.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Yes; there was an article in the current Good ol Boat magazine about making your own sailing lifeboat. With any small lifeboat or raft there are tradeoffs. The problem I see with the boat is that it could easily turn turtle and leave you in a similar situation as the overturned raft. Deployment is also an issue/consideration. There are LOTS of things to consider here; and I agree with you that liferaft mfr's should test their equipment in real world situations.

I went to a liferaft seminar/demo last week as Strictly Sail Pacific; and was told that the owner of Winslow liferafts rode one of his rafts in to a beach through heavy breaking surf to demonstrate stability and safety. The raft they demoed had straps for righting on the bottom was designed to deploy right side up by careful placement of the CO2 cannister and packed weight distribution. IASF and USCG now have specs for upright deployment that the raft MFR's must build to (based on what I was told by the industry rep).

Sorry to hear about the deployed raft and nothing else found. Hopefully it was lost; not deployed and needed for survival.


----------



## mtuckerb (Jan 15, 2010)

I can only hope that the failure there was on the deck mounting; that this liferaft was swept off an otherwise intact boat, and her crew kept on sailing through whatever conditions liberated the raft. 

I've heard this scenario (raft swept off deck) used as an endorsement for valise style rafts, though I'll still be mounting mine to deck. 
Thank you for the post, and the concern!


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

Very good write up, you got my attention.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Fantastic report CD, makes ya want to rethink the norm


----------



## JimHawkins (Aug 25, 2006)

Perhaps setting off your epirb and staying with the raft would have gotten the CG to the right location.

Not meant as criticism - more as a suggestion of what someone might try if they find themselves in a similar situation.


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

I'm not so sure setting off an eprib is such a good idea. That would suggest that people are in danger and there was no evidence of that, it would also suggest that Brians boat was in danger and that was not the case. 

This is most likely a life raft that was lost. It was not worth risking others to do any more than what was done (though a photo would have been nice, missed those shots myself so I understand why). 

It would be nice to know what brand it was as being upside down is a damning statement and a warning that not all life rafts are created equal.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

Architeuthis said:


> I'm not so sure setting off an eprib is such a good idea. That would suggest that people are in danger and there was no evidence of that, it would also suggest that Brians boat was in danger and that was not the case.
> 
> This is most likely a life raft that was lost. It was not worth risking others to do any more than what was done (though a photo would have been nice, missed those shots myself so I understand why).
> 
> It would be nice to know what brand it was as being upside down is a damning statement and a warning that not all life rafts are created equal.


We don't know what the case was. Seeing a life raft like that is a good indicator that something happened. There could have been a missing boat and crew. There could have been somebody in the life raft. He did not want to speculate. I think he did the right thing at the right time, but I agree, a situation like that would justify setting off your epirb.


----------



## bjung (Apr 8, 2009)

When I was researching liferafts last year for a purchase, I ran across something I found very strange. Most liferaft companies calculate the weight of the potential occupants as ballast. In other words, an 8 person raft is calculated to be stable with 8 people, not with one. 
Also, selfrighting at deployment should be a requirement for all liferafts in my opinion.
Definetely an eerie story, good thing the family got spared any nasty discoveries.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd point out that the liferaft could have also been accidentally lost overboard in a storm, say a loosely secured canister on deck broken free by green water over the cabintop... Most liferafts would deploy in such a situation and be easily capsized without the people in the raft to act as ballast.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Regarding the EPIRB, it came to mind to use it. We decided against it because there was no loss of life or apparent signs of life. If we had found any wreckage, or made a grisly discovery in the raft, I think I would have had to react differently. But setting off an EPIRB would start a cascade of events that I did not feel was warranted in that situation. If there was anyone on that raft, they were dead. At taht point, we had switched to a salvage and answer operation, versus a life saving one.

I have been offshore many times, but this was the first time I had felt that isolated. I was in what I felt was a very serious situation that required immediate attention, yet I could reach no one. We were on our own. My kids were on board. A front was making its way across the gulf and I knew I had to make realtively fast decisions. 

Sitting back now, calmly typing up my thoughts on the computer, I realizse that I might have done things differently. But when that moment is on you, your kids staring around the horizon for wreckage, your wife staring at you waiting for you to decide what to do (stay or go) and your eyes glued to a flipped over raft well offshore, I gotta tell you, it is tough to think through every scenario. I concluded, right or wrong, that no one would have survived that and my primary goal at that point was to get my boat and family to a safe location and report the findings to the USCG.

Like I have said before, my biggest regret and screw up was not shooting pics of the raft.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

BTW, in case anyone is thinking it, there is absolutely no way to get that raft on board and it would have been unsafe to try. The weight and size of them even dry would have been considerable. Wet, turned over, and requiring someone jumping the water.... that would have been a very poor decision in that instance.

Brian


----------



## eryka (Mar 16, 2006)

Yikes! Scary finding.

I remember as we were coming back across the Gulf Stream toward Florida, we'd been in the emptiness for almost 24 hours. Then, about 5 AM we first heard an American voice, the U.S. Coast Guard ... and just looked at each other and smiled. We felt safe again. Couldn't agree with you more about the professionalism of those guys.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Wow - great report CD. That had to be extremely spooky. I totally agree with you on the EPIRB call. This situation didn't warrant it.

And I'm amazed, with the coords and drift, that the CG didn't find the raft. Now that's scary stuff.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

For people that sail offshore, a good liferaft and a good epirb are just items were money should not be saved.

There are some that are self-righting.They deserve the extra money, in my opinion.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=595625

HOME YACHTING - VIKING-LIFE

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> 1) If your raft flips over, you are dead. You will not die immediately, but you are not flipping it back over.


Brian,
Do you have any real evidence on this, or is it just your observation from this incident? You were looking at a larger raft, 8-man. When I had my raft re-packed, the packer took us through the process of righting the raft. There are straps and clear large labels on where to right from. The canister is set at the pivot point, as it is the heaviest part of the raft - helps to right it and you avoid being hit by it. Statements like "If your raft flips over, you are dead", just may contribute to someone giving up in a situation where some perseverance would have ended in a successful outcome.

Paul L


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

Ah the endless life raft discussion, to have one and trust it or to leave it behind and trust the boat. People have died either way, more apparently by counting or trying to use the life raft than not, yet they are required equipment for some, not so much for others. 

Finding a life raft in this situation does not mean people are in trouble. It is much more likely that it was just lost overboard and left. Of course there is a possiblity that someone in trouble tried to deploy it or did and it flipped. That is unlikely but the risk to life is so high it must be investigated. 

But without any other indication of trouble in the area I would expect nothing more than a basic search. I would hope that those losing or leaving a life raft would report it but off shore that could be days later, maybe never if it didn't have the ships name on it. Larger boats can loose these items and not even notice until the next inspection. 

Safety items are lost all the time. Consider life jackets and cushions. Having lost every cushion and PVD not being worn when knocked down I know the majority of those are just that, lost. They either got washed out by a wave, or as I have seen, went flying out of the cockpit of a powerboat on plane. 

Still when ever I see a cushion or PFD floating I always look around yet I never report it as it has been clear they are old. Would I if I found one that looked new? I doubt it but maybe, depends. If I was off shore I would be much more likely to do so. 

I know, have met, a number of boaters who would not have reported this at all so I'm glad to see that it was reported. If it was mine I would want it reported ASAP.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Paul-

This is highly dependent on what make/model life raft you're talking about. Some are designed to be easily rightable in the case of a capsize-others aren't.


Paul_L said:


> Brian,
> Do you have any real evidence on this, or is it just your observation from this incident? You were looking at a larger raft, 8-man. When I had my raft re-packed, the packer took us through the process of righting the raft. There are straps and clear large labels on where to right from. The canister is set at the pivot point, as it is the heaviest part of the raft - helps to right it and you avoid being hit by it. Statements like "If your raft flips over, you are dead", just may contribute to someone giving up in a situation where some perseverance would have ended in a successful outcome.
> 
> Paul L


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

These guys seem to have a pretty good track record judging by this story:

Givens Marine Survival - Safety Equipment & Life Rafts - Survivors


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

sailingdog said:


> Paul-
> 
> This is highly dependent on what make/model life raft you're talking about. Some are designed to be easily rightable in the case of a capsize-others aren't.


Certainly there is a wide variance in rafts, but the statement "If your raft flips over, you are dead" is just wrong.

Paul L


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I understand your point Paul - no one should EVER give up. But I for one think about safety from a worst-case scenario standpoint. After reading through the hundreds of MOB cases that JRP(?) put up a few months ago, I now start with:

"If you fall off the boat in a stink - you're dead".

It's not that far of a reach to apply the same logic to a turtled life-raft.


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> I understand your point Paul - no one should EVER give up. But I for one think about safety from a worst-case scenario standpoint. After reading through the hundreds of MOB cases that JRP(?) put up a few months ago, I now start with:
> 
> "If you fall off the boat in a stink - you're dead".
> 
> It's not that far of a reach to apply the same logic to a turtled life-raft.


It may not be that far a reach, but the absolute statement about not being able to right a raft is plain wrong. The thread is marked with some magic caution icon and has a title like it is authoritative. It isn't. It is misleading at best.

Paul L


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Paul_L said:


> Brian,
> Do you have any real evidence on this, or is it just your observation from this incident? You were looking at a larger raft, 8-man. When I had my raft re-packed, the packer took us through the process of righting the raft. There are straps and clear large labels on where to right from. The canister is set at the pivot point, as it is the heaviest part of the raft - helps to right it and you avoid being hit by it. Statements like "If your raft flips over, you are dead", just may contribute to someone giving up in a situation where some perseverance would have ended in a successful outcome.
> 
> Paul L


Hi Paul,

I was very clear in the sentence right before you quoted me that, "... they were my very strong beliefs."

There is no way in earth any man would be able to right the raft I saw. My wife even commented as such. I cannot comment on all rafts. I simply have not studied them all, but I would ask you:

Under what REAL WORLD conditions has the 'righting' of your raft been tested? In what kind of seas? What kind of wind? In what water temps? What kind of crew? Was it tested in a swimming pool, coastal waters, teh open ocean in a storm?

SO I ask you, how confident can you be that you will be able to right your raft? What if you are cold? Injured? And let me just say that in any sizeable sea, the reality of doing that might just be a pipe dream.

And here is the most critical question: can you right it if it is partially deflated? The raft we saw was partially deflated.

As far as your comment about, _"Statements like "If your raft flips over, you are dead", just may contribute to someone giving up in a situation where some perseverance would have ended in a successful outcome."_ I find that absurd. Do you really believe that someone will be in a life/death situation, but they read a comment from some guy on Sailnet that if their raft flips, they are dead, and will let go and drift off below??? They will hold on to the bitter end.

The reason I said that is not so anyone will give up after an accident, but so they can be proactive well before. This includes selection of life rafts and deployment of them. Accident prevention and life preservation starts well before you cast off the lines. I believe that a key (or the key) point to look for in the selection of a life raft should be based upon its ability to stay right-side up.

Brian


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> I understand your point Paul - no one should EVER give up. But I for one think about safety from a worst-case scenario standpoint. After reading through the hundreds of MOB cases that JRP(?) put up a few months ago, I now start with:
> 
> "If you fall off the boat in a stink - you're dead".
> 
> It's not that far of a reach to apply the same logic to a turtled life-raft.


I remember to hear stories of guys that had to re-right a life-raft and have done it successfully.

Sailingdog is right. It depends on the model of life-raft. I had an Offshore series Avon and every year, before the season I used to read the instructions to re-right the raft (life-raft instructions), with all crew (my wife and kids) protesting that they new already everything about it

But one thing is reading the instructions, other thing is having the job done. However I am confident that probably we could have done it, if needed. We all are good swimmers and we don't panic easily.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## glassdad (Feb 21, 2009)

I am not trying to second guess you here, I would like to know why you could not get too close to the raft. You said due to the drogue line. Was it floating? 

Thanks


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

glassdad said:


> I am not trying to second guess you here, I would like to know why you could not get too close to the raft. You said due to the drogue line. Was it floating?
> 
> Thanks


IF we came to a stop leward, we would drift off faster than the raft. If we stopped winward, we would drift into the line and foul the prop. We circled it within 10 feet and closer the first time (almost got caught up in what I suspect was the drogue).

Brian


----------



## glassdad (Feb 21, 2009)

Thanks. Now I understand. For what is worth, I would not have deployed the EBIRB.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> I remember to hear stories of guys that had to re-right a life-raft and have done it successfully.
> 
> Sailingdog is right. It depends on the model of life-raft. I had an Offshore series Avon and every year, before the season I used to read the instructions to re-right the raft (life-raft instructions), with all crew (my wife and kids) protesting that they new already everything about it
> 
> ...


Hi Paulo. How are you?

I just want to comment here that I am not doubting that some rafts are made to be righted. What I am doubting is the reality of doing it in real world conditions. The raft that we saw could not be righted. Maybe some could. But in what conditions? Crew in what condition? What water temps?

And the most critical thing that I want to harp on: Does the raft have to be fully inflated? Again, the raft we saw was not. Any nunmber of things mght keep a raft from fully inflating (or subsequently deflating). WIthout the rigidity of full tubes, can you right it?

Food for thought.

Brian


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

As for whether a life raft can or cannot be righted in challenging conditions, I would recommend reading the MOB stories posted by JRP:

Lifesling Case History

And looking through the Southern Straits thread:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/racing/63484-2010-southern-straits-carnage.html

In the latter, you see the story of Icon which assisted with pulling two COBs out of the water when another boat sunk.

The thing you read over and over and over again is that EVERYTHING is way harder than you ever think it would be in those conditions. Your strength, due to any number of reasons, is gone very quickly.

Can it be done? Sure. Can it be done reliably in bad conditions? Questionable.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

> At 15:15 hours, position 25.20.587N and 82.32.562W...
> 
> ...We repeatedly tried to raisse the USCG, but were well out of range. There were no other vessels close as we tried to reach out to spread the word.
> 
> ... In the end, we hauled in the sheets and made for Fort Myers. We tried to raise the USCG every 30 mins or so.


The foregoing is one of the best reasons for installing an SSB or carrying a Sat Phone. (We have both simply because I want to be sure we can reach the Coast Guard one way or another.) That position is about 57 miles from the radio tower at Cape Romano. In fact, between Capa Romano and Smith Shoal, while one may technically be "near shore", unless there's other traffic, a VHF simply doesn't cut it, in my opinion.

FWIW...


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

You know, I don't want to be cynical of the response that was made, God knows I am cynical enough in my age. I can only hope that I would do the same in the exact circumstance. I cruise around Florida and do not have an SSB or a HAM even though I have my HAM Tech license. I agree that this would have gotten in contact with somebody easier and sooner, but I don’t' see it as a requirement for cruising; especially coastal. I mentioned earlier that I would have set off the Epirb, but I don't even carry one of those right now. I think that this is a good example on how to handle a situation we don’t normally encounter.

Thank you so much for sharing this with us.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

remetau said:


> You know, I don't want to be cynical of the response that was made, God knows I am cynical enough in my age. I can only hope that I would do the same in the exact circumstance. I cruise around Florida and do not have an SSB or a HAM even though I have my HAM Tech license. I agree that this would have gotten in contact with somebody easier and sooner, but I don't' see it as a requirement for cruising; especially coastal. I mentioned earlier that I would have set off the Epirb, but I don't even carry one of those right now. I think that this is a good example on how to handle a situation we don't normally encounter.
> 
> Thank you so much for sharing this with us.


Thank you for the nice response. I was beginning to feel like I had fallen into the Spanish INquisition - but it is all good. You cannot participate on teh net unless you have thick skin. I did not do everything right. I am sure I made mistakes in my conclusions of the incident too. But hey, all I can say is that it was done with the right intentions.

We will be rounding Marathon before long. If you guys are still there, lets have a beer. You can meet the fam and I will show you how to fish and scuba dive (snicker). Nice blog btw.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

svHyLyte said:


> The foregoing is one of the best reasons for installing an SSB or carrying a Sat Phone. (We have both simply because I want to be sure we can reach the Coast Guard one way or another.) That position is about 57 miles from the radio tower at Cape Romano. In fact, between Capa Romano and Smith Shoal, while one may technically be "near shore", unless there's other traffic, a VHF simply doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
> 
> FWIW...


You are right that you will be out of range of VHF. You actually can hear the USCG, just cannot transmit back. THere is also very little commercial traffic which makes it a nice ride. The negative is that you are on your own.

The HF radio is high on our list, right behind the watermaker. We are prioritizing the wm first. Most of our travels are within VHF range. If we do head to the Carib this summer, or anything more distant, we will not go until we have the SSB or sat.

As for the sat phone, that is still being debated. Not for that type of contact, but so family can get ahold of us in an emergency. Right now it is unecessary as cells work where we are now.

If you make yoru way south before we head off, let me know and we can have a beer or meet and say hi.

Brian


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

No problem. I meant everything I said. You never know how to really deal with something until you encounter it. I meet all kinds of people on boats down here in the keys, and I have to admit, most of them would have seen the raft and try to determine what they could salvage out of it. It doesn’t matter what was left on or off the raft, I admire you for your response and continual commitment to raise the CG.
We were planning on cruising up the east coast to the Chesapeake this year, but we had so much fun down here last summer we decide to do it again. Plus we are planning a trip to the Tortugas! If you make it down here, shoot me an email, and we’ll hook up!


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Hi Paul,
> 
> I was very clear in the sentence right before you quoted me that, "... they were my very strong beliefs."


OK. That doesn't make the statement any more less false.


Cruisingdad said:


> There is no way in earth any man would be able to right the raft I saw.


The raft you saw was an 8 man raft. It would most likely be righted using more than 1 person.


Cruisingdad said:


> ....
> 
> Under what REAL WORLD conditions has the 'righting' of your raft been tested? In what kind of seas? What kind of wind? In what water temps? What kind of crew? Was it tested in a swimming pool, coastal waters, the open ocean in a storm?


Of course my raft has not. It has never been launched and I don't plan to ever need to launch it. There are many real life stories of rafts that were launch over turned and then righted, as well as rafts that get overturned after deployment and get righted. Of course it isn't easy or desirable, but it is doable in many cases.


Cruisingdad said:


> ....
> As far as your comment about, _"Statements like "If your raft flips over, you are dead", just may contribute to someone giving up in a situation where some perseverance would have ended in a successful outcome."_ I find that absurd. Do you really believe that someone will be in a life/death situation, but they read a comment from some guy on Sailnet that if their raft flips, they are dead, and will let go and drift off below??? They will hold on to the bitter end.
> ...


So why do you mark the post with a very important caution icon, title it like it is some authoritative document that 'all cruisers' should read and end it with the stamp of I'm a 'moderator'. The #1 item on your list is false and I just felt like calling it out. Enough said.

Paul L


----------



## speciald (Mar 27, 2007)

Friends of ours lost their's overboard two Falls ago - South of Bermuda. It was brand new for the trip. It washed overboard in boarding waves. Expensive lesson on how not to store a raft.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Yep....If you said it CD ..Its Gospel...Im going to die...I might as well swallow water and get it over with..


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

I don’t agree with CD’s comment that once a raft flips you will die, but he brings up good points much like Steve Callahan did. A life raft should never be upside down. If I am on a boat with 6 others that do not make it, and I am the last to step up into the life raft, even though it is an 8 person raft, I do not expect it to overturn. Am I wrong in this thinking? Maybe we should ask the person that was left in the water.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Well when I get around to buying one it will be a Givens..Then I don't have to worry about it..

Givens Buoy Life Rafts - Safety Equipment & Liferafts


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

remetau said:


> I don't agree with CD's comment that once a raft flips you will die, but he brings up good points much like Steve Callahan did. A life raft should never be upside down. If I am on a boat with 6 others that do not make it, and I am the last to step up into the life raft, even though it is an 8 person raft, I do not expect it to overturn. Am I wrong in this thinking? Maybe we should ask the person that was left in the water.


A life raft is full of design trade-offs, just like any other boat. You can't have the raft light enough so it can be handled by a short-handed crew in severe conditions, stable enough that it won't go over even after the mothership that is 10-20 times longer has already gone down in the conditions, cheap enough that a cruiser would actually buy it, small enough that it can be stored in launchable place........, and spec it to: "A life raft should never be upside down." It is certainly a desirable quality, but it isn't anywhere near an absolute. Think of the conditions these things are used in. Many have flipped just from the downwash from Helicopter blades.

Paul L


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> 3) I would like to genuinely propose that everyone considering a liferaft also consider the more modern thought (or old sailor's thought, before you could even wish for a rescue) of a sailing tender that can double as a raft. I am becoming more and more convinced that you should take your rescue into your own hands and hope for a rescue along the way. A sailing dink can be righted in many conditions, and can be sailed to your destination. This might not work in a hurricane, but that probably is not what takes down most well founded vessels. And if a hurricane took down your mother vessel, I cannot imagine riding it out in some flip-easy liferaft where I can guarantee you its tortoising will cost you your life. At least with a sailing-tender that is 'unsinkable' you have the CHANCE to hold on until the weather permits righting it, crawling inside, and making your own decision on whether to bob along or start making for port. In a raft, assuming she stays ass down, you are just going to be sitting there and waiting and hoping you can stay alive until some lucky soul finds your unlucky soul. Hopefully you are still breathing.
> 
> 4) I will probably make a fuss of this, more than I should, but I think that we as sailors need to challenge life raft companies to test their products in real life conditions. SOrry, I do not sail in a swimming pool. Drop her offshore in 6, 8, 10, 20+ foot seas and see how she resopnds. Drop her in 20, 30, 50, 90 kt winds and see whether she flips. I can tell you taht somebody makes a raft that will flip over! I saw it! And if by some chance it was an empty coffin, then shame on the raft makers who should have known better. Look for deep, wide, ballasts. Look for handholds on the bottom and a means of easy entry. I can tell you that in the little 4 foot seas we were in, climbing atop that raft should there have been handholds would have been arduous at best. 6 footer, 12 footers, 20 footers... I cannot imagine.
> 
> ...


Portland Pudgy multifunction dinghy -- the fun boat that could save your life!

And thanks for posting the story CD, even though there were nits picked about what you wrote. Sometimes, no matter what you write, it will happen. Thanks for posting it anyway.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

Paul_L said:


> A life raft is full of design trade-offs, just like any other boat. You can't have the raft light enough so it can be handled by a short-handed crew in severe conditions, stable enough that it won't go over even after the mothership that is 10-20 times longer has already gone down in the conditions, cheap enough that a cruiser would actually buy it, small enough that it can be stored in launchable place........, and spec it to: "A life raft should never be upside down." It is certainly a desirable quality, but it isn't anywhere near an absolute. Think of the conditions these things are used in. Many have flipped just from the downwash from Helicopter blades.
> 
> Paul L


If a raft can't handle those conditions, then why buy it? I just think that if you have a raft on board, and for the premium that you pay for it, it should freakin' work! I shouldn't need 6 people to fill a 6 person raft for ballast since I may have a 6 person boat currently being crewed by 2! A life raft should have the ability to stay upright in disastrous conditions no matter how many people are left aboard. If it can't do that, then why the heck bother with it?


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Paul_L said:


> A life raft is full of design trade-offs, just like any other boat. You can't have the raft light enough so it can be handled by a short-handed crew in severe conditions, stable enough that it won't go over even after the mothership that is 10-20 times longer has already gone down in the conditions, cheap enough that a cruiser would actually buy it, small enough that it can be stored in launchable place........, and spec it to: "A life raft should never be upside down." It is certainly a desirable quality, but it isn't anywhere near an absolute. Think of the conditions these things are used in. Many have flipped just from the downwash from Helicopter blades.
> 
> Paul L


For what its worth the Winslow Superlite meets or exceeds all of your requirements and even my 104# wife is able to handle the 4-man valise pack. See http://www.winslowliferaft.com/downloads/raftspecs/16.pdf ).


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

svHyLyte said:


> For what its worth the Winslow Superlite meets or exceeds all of your requirements and even my 104# wife is able to handle the 4-man valise pack. See http://www.winslowliferaft.com/downloads/raftspecs/16.pdf ).


It would meet my needs, but it doesn't meet remetau's requirements, as it also has a righting ladder.

Paul L


----------



## bjung (Apr 8, 2009)

Stillraining said:


> Well when I get around to buying one it will be a Givens..Then I don't have to worry about it..
> 
> Givens Buoy Life Rafts - Safety Equipment & Liferafts


I ended up buying a Givens, it had more ballast than other brands and is selfrighting at deployment. Was it the right choice? Who knows, until you deploy and spend some time in the raft, and who actually wants to go through that to find out? When it is time to repack, I am planning to deploy it, and give the family some practice... Of course this will only be done after plenty of Goombay Smash to keep things real...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Paul_L said:


> So why do you mark the post with a very important caution icon, title it like it is some authoritative document that 'all cruisers' should read and end it with the stamp of I'm a 'moderator'. The #1 item on your list is false and I just felt like calling it out. Enough said.
> 
> Paul L


C'mon dude. You're reading WAY too much into the icon.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

blackjenner said:


> Portland Pudgy multifunction dinghy -- the fun boat that could save your life!


NOW THAT'S COOL! I've never seen those. Great link black!


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

Paul_L said:


> It would meet my needs, but it doesn't meet remetau's requirements, as it also has a righting ladder.
> 
> Paul L


It may meet my needs, but I already have a Givens 4 man though and am considering on replacing. I'm just saying that a 6 or 8 man raft should not require 6 or 8 persons to keep it upright since many life situations will have a raft of that size with less people aboard.

To me, a 4, 6, or 8 man raft should be deployed upright and stay that way! If it can't, then it is not worth the purchase!!!!!!!!!! I can get a frigin' dinghy for much cheaper!!

There will be times when a 4, 6 or 8 man/woman raft has only one or two people in it. I can guarantee that if it is the person that bought that raft, they expect it to stay upright!


----------



## catamount (Sep 8, 2002)

I just bought a life-raft for my boat -- it's required by the racing rules for a race I want to enter. To be compliant with the racing rules, the raft must meet or exceed some detailed standards, for example they are required to have a means for crew in the water to right an overturned raft. Unfortunately, these rafts are more expensive than models that don't have all these features. But then the less-expensive rafts are usually only marketed for coastal sailing, and not offshore. 

This spring, I also attended a hands-on personal survival at sea course, where among other things we had to right an overturned raft in the pool and then board the raft from the water, all while wearing our foulies and seaboots (and PFD). Of course, this was in a pool and not at sea with big waves, but it was still a good and sobering experience -- recommended!


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> NOW THAT'S COOL! I've never seen those. Great link black!


I've seen those here in Marathon and think that they are great, if you have the deck space for them.


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> C'mon dude. You're reading WAY too much into the icon.


Trust me, I know how to value web forum posts, *especially* Sailnet posts.:hammer

Paul L


----------



## bjung (Apr 8, 2009)

I found this a good article: The Story Behind the Givens Life Raft Endorsement | BoatTEST.com
They were really beating up one brand without mentioning the name, but left enough clues for the average SN'er to figure it out..


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> C'mon dude. You're reading WAY too much into the icon.


I think so too. So it had an icon. <shrug> There was good information and good lessons learned from that story.

Thanks again, CD for the story and the target on your back.


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> NOW THAT'S COOL! I've never seen those. Great link black!


You are welcome. Someone here posted it month or so ago. Anyway, a great multi-function boat. I'm sure someone can find fault but, overall, worth considering.


----------



## TQA (Apr 4, 2009)

Some 20 years ago I participated in a liferaft exercise and found that although I could just right a 4 man liferaft I could not get back inside it wearing foulweather gear. This was in a swimming pool.

My survival chances in a seaway with some wind blowing were not good. 

I would like to do this again with a modern liferaft and contrast it with my previous experience but I suspect that I still might have difficulty getting aboard.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

blackjenner said:


> You are welcome. Someone here posted it month or so ago. Anyway, a great multi-function boat. I'm sure someone can find fault but, overall, worth considering.


I know what I'm asking for for Xmas...

"Honey, you know, you're really giving me a Portland Pudgy."


----------



## wunhunglo (Apr 5, 2010)

*Extreme sweeping generalization on liferafts*



Cruisingdad said:


> ......snip...............
> 
> 1) * If your raft flips over, you are dead. You will not die immediately, but you are not flipping it back over.* Also, there were NO handholds on that raft on the bottom. The ballasts were just laying there limp and using them to hold onto would not last long. I saw no handholds along the bottom of the tube and certainly not on the bottom of the floor. So, when picking out a life raft, the number one key thing to choose from is its ability to stay upright. And for anyone thinking they could flip that raft over in a sea or crawl atop it in a sea, you can forget it. Ain't gonna happen or you will not be there for long. The rolling seas and slick canvas would be like sitting atop roller coaster made of wet ice. You would be back into the water within minutes. Even if you could hold on long enough, you would die of hypothermia before long (assuming the big fish don't find you first). So I say again, if that raft flips, you die. I cannot be more blunt than that.
> ......snip..............
> Brian


Sweeping generalizations like that do no one any favors.

Perhaps on the raft you discovered, there were some "features" that made THAT brand and design of raft questionable.

To make the sweeping statement of all rafts is a gross exaggeration.

From personal experience, properly designed rafts for offshore use, can be righted. I have personally righted a 12 man commercial raft. It was very awkward, sometimes exhausting, but it was done. It was righted empty and with crew inside. Some brands of smaller yacht life rafts are designed to self right.

I'd recommend that you visit your nearest Coast Guard base and say what you have posted here and tell us all what you were told; then visit the nearest merchant marine institute/academy and say the same thing and report back; lastly, follow it up with a commercial liferaft course at your nearest merchant marine institute/academy and report back on your findings.

BTW: For anyone else looking for a liferaft, they may find some very useful specs in the ISAF Offshore Special Regulations. These specs are used by most, if not all offshore racers in most countries, and are very comprehensive.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

Hey Wunhunglo,

Maybe you should change your member status to Low Hanging Member!


----------



## wunhunglo (Apr 5, 2010)

*getting aboard a raft*



TQA said:


> Some 20 years ago I participated in a liferaft exercise and found that although I could just right a 4 man liferaft I could not get back inside it wearing foulweather gear. This was in a swimming pool.
> 
> My survival chances in a seaway with some wind blowing were not good.
> 
> I would like to do this again with a modern liferaft and contrast it with my previous experience but I suspect that I still might have difficulty getting aboard.


Many current designs have an inflatable platform to assist the climb into the raft. The webbing ladders are almost useless, particularly when exhausted. The key problem with the webbing ladders is that your feet disappear under the raft as you try and haul yourself up. Having an inflated PFD only makes that more difficult because it pushes your chest away from the raft when trying to get in solo.

The inflating boarding ramp is a significant improvement and I believe should be a minimum requirement.

BTW: This model of Viking liferaft is self righting and has the inflated boarding platform.


----------



## wunhunglo (Apr 5, 2010)

remetau said:


> Hey Wunhunglo,
> 
> Maybe you should change your member status to Low Hanging Member!


What's your problem?


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

wunhunglo said:


> What's your problem?


Huh? No problem. Just commenting on your name.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Hi Paulo. How are you?
> 
> I just want to comment here that I am not doubting that some rafts are made to be righted. What I am doubting is the reality of doing it in real world conditions. The raft that we saw could not be righted. Maybe some could. But in what conditions? Crew in what condition? What water temps?
> 
> ...


Thanks Brian, I am allright...waiting for the summer

If it is the right model they are not difficult to re-right...providing you have read the instructions before being in the water

If they are an offshore type, they will have marked clearly the spot you should go to re-right it. On mine, you just have to put your foot on a strap (up, with a bending knee) and then pull yourself up putting all your weight on that leg, while you are pulling a line that is just in front of you, fixed to the orher side of the liferaft. It is an easy one man operation.

But these features are usually only installed on the more expensive offshore liferafts. So, no matter the boat you have, if you do offshore, make sure you have one of those and that everybody knows how to operate it, including the re-right stuff. If possible have also one with double insulation (double floor and double independent buoyancy tubes) specially if you sail on cold waters. If not you will freeze to death in a short time.

And of course, as Brian has said, don't leave your boat unless it is really sinking. I have heard of sailors casualities (going overboard) while atempting to deploy a liferaft...and in the end the boat survived. Don't forget to bring the Epirb to the liferaft (you can tow it) and have always ready a bag full with the essential stuff to carry with you in a emergency.

Probably you are never going to use your liferaft, but what's the point in having one if it is not a suitable one and if you don't know how to use it?

Regards

Paulo

Edited: Waunhunglo is right about the importance of the inflatable lader. Some of the best brands have them on the offshore models. Here you can see an Avon with one:

Avon - Liferafts - Ocean liferaft


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

wunhunglo said:


> Having an inflated PFD only makes that more difficult because it pushes your chest away from the raft when trying to get in solo


Yes; it's interesting how a device that is designed to keep your head above water and face out can actually be something that causes you to not be able to get aboard a raft! It's a design conflict to have a giant bag of air tilting you onto your back when you might need to swim or climb. One way to help get a person aboard a raft is to turn their back to the raft then push them down on the shoulders quickly. The bobbing motion will pop them into the raft; but this of course assumes that someone could get aboard. With all of this in mind; it's best to board the raft without going in the water, so if you know that sinking is imminent it is best to exit the boat before you need to swim for the raft (but be sure you are going to be "stepping up") and not leaving behind a boat that would remain floating.

In addition; if you have a fall over the side and the hydrostatic or auto inflate activates you could be drown by the water spray that comes into your face when you are dragged while wearing an inflated PFD (think bow wake). So to save your own life you might need to cut free of the teather; which would leave you SOL if you are solo or not seen.

Another issue is a PFD that inflates while the boat is sinking (say you are trying to stem the flow); and you are below deck. Easy to get trapped by the buoyant force against the cabin roof or get tangled in rigging and unable to pull free due to your buoyancy.

Can you understand why I don't like the idea of an auto-inflate PFD? When I was asking a West Marine salesman why they had no manual inflate with harness units at the boat show he replied "I don't think those are sold anymore; and why would you ever want a manual inflate?" So I explained...


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

KeelHaulin said:


> Can you understand why I don't like the idea of an auto-inflate PFD? When I was asking a West Marine salesman why they had no manual inflate with harness units at the boat show he replied "I don't think those are sold anymore; and why would you ever want a manual inflate?" So I explained...


What was his response?


----------



## johnnyandjebus (Sep 15, 2009)

To the OP

Thanks for posting your experience with this, threads like this is the reason I keep coming back here.
As to some of the critical comments on this thread, the man was posting his thoughts, based on his exerience. Perhaps you dis-agree, fair enough, do you have any real life experience, relative to the topic, that you would like to share? If so I am all ears.
If not then, as it has all ready been stated, _enough said_


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

blackjenner said:


> What was his response?


First I was asked why you would not want an auto-inflate since if you were hit in the head by the boom and went over the side you would want the auto-inflate feature. While that may be true; my boat has a high boom that won't hit my head unless I am standing on the cockpit seats near the doghouse or on the deck forward of the cockpit. I am well aware of the danger zone and it's easy to stay clear of.

So after I explained my concern about getting caught in rigging or being able to swim to safety he went and got out the catalog and checked for a manual inflate model with harness. He did not question my concerns or try to sell me on the auto inflate model.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Paul_L said:


> Trust me, I know how to value web forum posts, *especially* Sailnet posts.:hammer
> 
> Paul L


As opposed to what other kinds of posts?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

wunhunglo said:


> What's your problem?


No worries WHL. It's just a polite way of saying F'Off Newb. Heh-heh.


----------



## JimHawkins (Aug 25, 2006)

Brian,
First I'd like to thank you for posting this story, as well as for the countless hours you spend making Sailnet a valuable and informative forum. I know I speak for many when I say how much we appreciate your work.

Regarding setting off the epirb, are you still in touch with the CG? It would be interesting to hear whether they would have preferred you to set it off and wait or to do what you did. They must have invested a lot of resources looking for the raft, and it would have been a lot easier if they knew where to find it. In this particular case, it sounds like you had a concern for the safety of your vessel and family, and so abandoning the raft and the infinitesimally small chance of someone being aboard was clearly the best decision.

Oh yeah - you could use your administrator Super Powers to ban people that insult you and then just delete their posts. We wouldn't mind a bit. Really.


----------



## MMR (Oct 5, 2007)

Any follow up information about the search? Missing vessel? Vessel missing life raft? I'm not seeing anything about it on the Coast Guard or news sites...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

It might not be a missing vessel. Life rafts go missing all the time....


MMR said:


> Any follow up information about the search? Missing vessel? Vessel missing life raft? I'm not seeing anything about it on the Coast Guard or news sites...


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

CD,

Good for you for keeping a sharp lookout and noticing the raft. A lot of boats would have sailed past without even seeing it.

Considering all the info at hand now, I tend to agree with the theory that the raft was lost overboard rather than deployed in an emergency. 

But there's no way you could have known that at the time. You made a reasonable effort to investigate, found no signs of life or other indications that a vessel had gone down, weighed the options including safety of your own vessel and crew, and came up with a good plan. I hope I could do as well under similar circumstances. I'm sure the adrenaline was pumping, too.

Absent any indication of survivors in critical need of assistance, I would not have set off the EPIRB. Doing so would set in motion a whole host of procedures, including notifying your family and worrying them unduly, and would not necessarily save any assets/costs. 

Even if the CG knew exactly where the raft was located via your EPIRB, they likely would have conducted a due diligence aerial search for signs of a vessel/crew in distress. And from the moment they got the EPIRB signal, there would be considerable doubt as to the nature of the emergency, so they'd be scrambling multiple assets to investigate. You had already noted an absence of life at the raft, so delaying your notice to the CG by a few hours didn't make much if any difference. It may even have saved time, as they weren't expending it investigating a complete unknown.

Finally, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about CD reporting on an incident he encountered, using it to help educate others, and expressing what he clearly stated was his opinion about some attributes of some life rafts. No need for the Spanish Inquisition, and fortunately most readers seem to have understood that.

Thanks for this report, CD. You gave us all some things to think about.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JohnRPollard said:


> Thanks for this report, CD. You gave us all some things to think about.


And also gave origin to a thread that is a very good source of information about liferafts and the way they should be used. It is one of those threads that I am sure, have helped (and his going to help) and informed many sailors.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

CD, one thing I was wondering in terms of the CG not being able to find it - what color was the bottom? You mentioned seeing orange on the horizon, but was that the bottom, or was it part of the top canopy?

I'm just curious as to why the CG couldn't spot it from the air. If the bottom was a dark color, that might explain it. If it was orange - then that make the whole thing even creepier that the CG couldn't spot an orange 8-man LR from the air.


----------



## Barquito (Dec 5, 2007)

There seem to be some downsides, but, what is wrong with using a dinghy as a life raft? Seems if it has most of the attributes that the Portland-plastic-boat-thing has that would make for a very safe life raft... er, boat.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Barquito said:


> There seem to be some downsides, but, what is wrong with using a dinghy as a life raft? Seems if it has most of the attributes that the Portland-plastic-boat-thing has that would make for a very safe life raft... er, boat.


What kind of a dinghy?

The PP is filled with foam and covered with a hard plastic shell -- nearly unsinkable. An inflatable is easily punctured. A typical hard dinghy gets most of it's buoyancy from displacement -- but would sink or swamp if filled with water.

Also, most dinghies would not do well in extreme sea-states. What keeps a typical, well-designed liferaft right-side-up in extreme conditions is the ballast bags -- which dinghies don't have. Even with ballast bags, its dicey.

Even the PP, while laudable in many respects, leaves much doubt in my mind as to how it would handle breaking seas and remain upright. But even if you assume that the least likely reason to deploy the liferaft is heavy weather, I do wonder how the PP would protect its occupants from exposure to the elements? Not to mention, where do you store the thing and could you launch it quickly enough in an emergency like a serious fire?


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

The Pudgy seems like it would be okay life raft, but I don't know if I would trust it far from shore. I would think that it would have a much higher chance of rolling over than a standard life raft. 

Do they offer ballast bags for it?

Can you lie down in this thing?


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Cruisingdad said:


> 1) If your raft flips over, you are dead.
> 
> 3) I would like to genuinely propose that everyone considering a liferaft also consider the more modern thought (or old sailor's thought, before you could even wish for a rescue) of a sailing tender that can double as a raft. I am becoming more and more convinced that you should take your rescue into your own hands and hope for a rescue along the way.
> Brian


Amen. Thanks for the report Brian. I couldn't agree more. I also want to echo what was already mentioned about a raft's rating using people for ballast. This system is a BIG problem. Let's say you're a couple, but sometimes have visitors. Get a 2 person raft or 4? A person rating for a raft is ONE SQUARE YARD of floor space. These rafts are all either too small or too crowded if properly loaded.

In an attempt to keep them from flipping almost all inflatable rafts use "water ballast". Sounds like a good idea, except these water bags are weightless when _underwater_. They only begin to work once they've already begun to flip and have been pulled out of the water. By then, especially in breaking seas, it's likely too late.

Here's what I'll use. A rigid, unsinkable, self-righting, sailing dingy. Since it's also your tender you should be well practiced with launching it too. Since it's rigid, you don't have to worry about a sea full of "sharp and curious things." I personally would never trust my life to some unknown device that I HOPE would inflate. If it does inflate, I drift helplessly. No WAY. I'm going to sail to rescue or at least die trying to!

I have no affiliation with this company, but I do have one of their beauties floating in my slip right now though. And in a couple weeks I'm going to take it out "camping" and sail it around and sleep in it under the canopy and see what it would really be like to spend a couple days in "the raft". 
New Page 3 <<website here


























MedSailor


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Jeez - EVERYONE is sportin' a Pudgy around here!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Brian, if you aren't familiar with them, check out the life raft reviews (pool testing) that Practical Sailor did some years ago, and the comments on Doug Ritter's site, Equipped to Survive, EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE - Outdoors Gear, Survival Equipment Review & Survival Information .

Life rafts are still very much a work in (terribly slow) progress. The water ballast pockets were rare until some tests and reviews should just how effective they can be. And, that too much raft is no good, since the people are the primary ballast. And, that sailing dinks of various types are a nice idea, except, lacking any ballast they're likely to tumble you like a clothes drier in bad weather. Ooopsie. Then there's the ongoing costs, purchase plus repacks and at ten years, almost certainly replacement.

With all the publicity in recent years (including the failure of one major name to supply a raft for more than a year after payment, according to one internet post, and USCG actions against bogus repackers) none of this should be news to "the prudent navigator", that mythological fellow.

It just seems like the whole concept needs a reboot. "Balloons" just aren't good enough.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Then there was the company that was stealing liferafts that came in for re-packing and leaving the canisters filled with rocks and other such things instead of a packed liferaft.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Hmmm. I have now read and re-read this thread front to back, cause it is well sobering.

Thanks CD for this post, ignoring the usual moronic critiques on here , I really appreciate you sharing this experience with us and I think I get where your coming from and the gut wrenching feeling you must of felt as you motored up to the liferaft not knowing what you would find. In a real world situation, with your faimly aboard I can only imagine how honestly one would start to think about liferaft scenarios and the 'what ifs' that go along with it all.

Umm I just don't know, I am trying to gather all the information I can, digest it, and figure out my own philosophy here, knowing one day that it may be what saves or condemns my loved ones and I.....


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> ....It just seems like the whole concept needs a reboot. "Balloons" just aren't good enough.


You know, maybe "balloons" ARE good enough. The real kind.

I can see it now: PFDs (Personal Flight Device). Everyone wears one, and when the boat goes down, you pull your rip cord and a personal lighter-than-air balloon pops out of your backpack -- up you go. Heck, if we're going to haul all that compressed gas around, why not helium?

Who needs water ballast?


----------



## Barquito (Dec 5, 2007)

> The Pudgy seems like it would be okay life raft, but I don't know if I would trust it far from shore. I would think that it would have a much higher chance of rolling over than a standard life raft.
> 
> Do they offer ballast bags for it?


I think they offer a sea anchor of some kind. That might keep the nose into the sea.

I'm not totally sold on this concept, but, if you will be shipping a dinghy on deck anyway, seems parsimonious to have it serve two purposes.

Maybe a hard unsinkable dink that has an inflatable skirt?
(Thats what she said...)


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

JohnRPollard said:


> You know, maybe "balloons" ARE good enough. The real kind.
> 
> I can see it now: PFDs (Personal Flight Device). Everyone wears one, and when the boat goes down, you pull your rip cord and a personal lighter-than-air balloon pops out of your backpack -- up you go. Heck, if we're going to haul all that compressed gas around, why not helium?
> 
> Who needs water ballast?


Hmmm... so if this happens, say, off St Lucia, there you are, drifting off to Panama on the trades.

You'd have to have a multi-pack of balloons and a pellet gun in the kit. As you neared land (or perhaps an aircraft carrier) you shoot out balloons until you gently sink to a solid surface!   :laugher

Seriously, though, CD's experience must have been a gut wrenching one and it's too bad that conditions did not permit more thorough investigation (although that perhaps would have been even more gut-wrenching)

Certainly, posting this has generated a good discussion and that's to everyone's benefit.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Wow! I step away for a little while and come back to 9 pages! 

I am sure I will not answer everyone's questions here, but will do my best. If I miss something that is worth responding to, let me know.

Smack,
THe bottom of the raft was white in the middle, had black ballast bags going around the edge, and orange around teh sides and I assume the top (which was the bottom). 

Sdog, 
The USCG has 4-6 liferaft reports/year. THey told me so. I would not say that it is a very common thing at all. THey said that the currents of the gulf pull the rafts up from the SW gulf (yucatan). That was why they repeatedly asked me if it had marine growth on it or sae life living under it. This one appeared to have neither.

MMR,
TO the best of my knowedge, it has not been recovered. The USCG left it as "they would call me".


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

By the way, to be clear, I am not against life rafts at all. I owned a Switlik 6 person offshore. 

My point in all of this is that I wanted to share with everyone what my REAL LIFE, REAL WORLD experiences have been. For those that I have offended expresing my opinions, which I clearly stated were my opininos, please excuse me. My only interest in this was to draw attention to what I found and what I deducted out of it. My interst in the title was so that it could be found using common search functions once this thread dies down. The exclamation point was used because I wanted to get the attention of anyone glancing through threads as I felt it was that important. As far as using my moderator title - I really have no choice about that matter as that is my title and has been for a long time now as I am in fact a moderator here.

Perhaps a differently worded first opinion should have read, "I feel that if your raft flips over, your odds of survival have dropped drastically. This would be complicated by the water temp because I feel you would begin to lose your abiolities to do even simple tasks, the fact that the seas have a VERY serious impact on being able to realistically perform what would be a very arduous task, the sheer stregth required to do it. You will also not be thinking very straight in those situations. I also believe, after considering what we saw with that raft, that if your raft does not fully inflate, it will not be rigid. The lack of rigidity on that raft would very possibly prevent being able to flip it should iut have even been realistically designed to do so.

And for the record, the raft we saw (even if it had been fully inflated) would not have been able to be flipped by any crew unless you were able to rig something to do it somehow, which multiple lines. Remember, everything is now underwater and the canopy itself would act against you. It would require considerable stregth beyond what I feel is the typical stregth of a cruiser. Most of the cruisers I know are easily in tehir 60+ years. Many have trouble getting on/off their boats, not to mention teh incredible stregth which would be required to flip a raft. We have not even discussed whether or not the crew might be injured, as would be very likely, or the impediment of trying this with a life jacket on. Of course, I have read reports of people flipping over cars to save loved ones - so the improbable cannot be ruled out. However, I believe that realistically, in real world conditions, the reality of righting a overturned raft is slim at best and would require not only a raft specifically designed to be flipped over, but teh right crew conditions, the right sea conditions, the right sea temperatures, the right time of day or ability to see, and a fully functional and fully inflated raft. Those are a lot of perfect conditions considering your yacht (which I have to believe is tougher than a life raft) just sank. 

That is where I am coming from. No doubt there may be examples of people that have flipped their life rafts back over. I wonder how many of the conditions above were met? Like the adage of being able to paddle a canoe across the Atlantic, it may not be a question of whether it is possible, but how much luck is required and whether it is probable in the real world?

My point in all this was to keep this in mind as you move forward with whatever 'life saving vessel' purchase you feel appropriate for your crew. Everything is a trade off. But I for one would really emphasize a rafts ability to not flip over in the first place. How much of this is based upon deployment, ballast, design, and weather conditions I do not know. I am not sure who would, except possibly the engineer who designed it. Even so, I believe a lot of it is based upon theory as real life and real world successes and failures are minimal (especailly considering you probably will not find out about the failures). I also want to point out that not all rafts are created equal and a purchasing decision should be based as such. 

The decision for a raft versus a sailing dinghy is a hard one I believe. They both have tradeoffs. The failure of the sailing dinghy is that I feel that it is more likely to flip over in a large sea. In those instances, a raft would probably be more desirable. Large seasa are pretty unlikely for those of us that do limited offshore work. But if you are crossing an ocean, that becomes more likely. In those instances, I wonder if a life raft would not be more desirable? Also, what about teh very cold climates where you have little time to get warm? A sailing singhy might not be preferred there either as you would not have much of a chance to right it before your body temps reaches a level that you can no longer funtion. Not to mention, I suspect that a insulated floor that some rafts have would improve your longer term chances of survival.

On the other hand, in going with the traditional raft, you put your well being into the hands of someone else. What if they couldn't find you - as in the raft that I saw? What if your EPIRB did not go off? What if you forgot or were unable to grab a ditch bag? How long, realistically, can most people survive afloat bobbing around in the seas? At least with a properly designed sailing dinghy, you take some part into whether you live or die.

I am also of the opinion that a sailing dinghy would porovide an X factor, so to speak. It would probably be your tender, or at least one of them. You would know the boat well as you would be using it all the time. In a catastrophic event, you at least are farmiliar with the boat and it handling charchteristics, how to right it (good lords knows we all grew up doing that), and might even be able to do so by feel. It would be a known when chaos was happening around you. Should you be able to survive the catastrophic event, I believe your odds of survival would have increased compared to a raft which is only passive. Also, its ability to float is not based upon being inflated. I have already said this many times, and will say again, but the raft we saw was NOT fully inflated and there are any nunber of things in those events that might prevent a raft from fully inflating (or subsequently deflating).

I am not sure there is a right decision here, but I hope that by providing real life experiences (and not marketing propaganda), it will help others to make an informed decision on what is best for them, their family, and their vessel. It is food for thought. It is my opinions. It should be taken as such.

Brian


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> ...
> Perhaps a differently worded first opinion should have read, "I feel that if your raft flips over, your odds of survival have dropped drastically....
> Brian


Brian
And I would have agreed with this statement and probably not bothered to comment.

Let's hope neither one of us ever gets to test the life raft theories in practice.

Paul L


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Brian-
Did Switlik send you a postcard? BoatUS. com Consumer Protection Bureau
Apparently the same guy who engineered the o-rings on Challenger was working for them. [sic]
Which is not to say their product isn't one of the best.

Maybe a polyethylene-origami-foldboat-lifeball would work?

John, helium is problematic. Helium (or even hydrogen, the Hindenberg burned because it was coated with thermite paint, not because it was floated by hydrogen) is wickedly hard to contain, it can even leak THROUGH solid stainless steel. There's no good way to keep it in a bottle.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> John, helium is problematic. Helium (or even hydrogen, the Hindenberg burned because it was coated with thermite paint, not because it was floated by hydrogen) is wickedly hard to contain, it can even leak THROUGH solid stainless steel. There's no good way to keep it in a bottle.


So, are you saying my Personal Flight Device is not realistic?!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I totally disagree. You should give it a shot JRP. Just take a lot of pics so your next of kin can upload them here. Heh-heh.

Is that a merlot?


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> I totally disagree. You should give it a shot JRP. Just take a lot of pics so your next of kin can upload them here. Heh-heh.
> 
> Is that a merlot?


Not sure if it's a merlot, but that sure looks like Samsonite. This guy clearly got creative during the recent volcano-flight delays.


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

JohnRPollard said:


> You know, maybe "balloons" ARE good enough. The real kind.


Maybe but you are not going to carry anything other than propane.

A hot air ballon can be packed quite small, not be any heavier than another person, and can be powered by propane. They can also be launched via smaller ballons to keep the fabric out of the water. Cost can be less than a liferaft.

I would think I would want one that could lift the whole dinghy or PP type raft so that would be much larger but would enable one to cover considerable distance before running out of propane and then sail on from there. It would also give you the option of not using it until the wind was favorable.

The recent incident in Alaska shows us that liferafts only work sometimes so maybe that isn't much of a concern as I would think it is but I'm guessing the chances of a ballon working when you needed it would be about the same or less than a liferaft. And thats after the life raft worked for you.

Of course for the same price one can get a decent gumby suit, flares and a sat phone so why bother about self rescue anyway...well maybe for those outside the USA it might be an idea.

Think I'll pass...then again a personal unit would be very cheap and fun to play with on weekends.....


----------



## riptide1 (Oct 21, 2009)

*seeing things from air*

A few years ago I had a similar experience to Cruising Dads.I was comming back from Mantanilla Shoals [Bahammas] to Lake Worth inlet and found very recent debris.It consisted of several large fenders and what looked like cusions for the v-berth for a large boat .There was also various other debris in the water.The cusions and fenders were white in color.I was approx.20 mi.off Jupiter inlet and was able to contact CG Lake Worth who asked me to remain on station while they dispatched units.They sent a Falcon jet and a helicopter,and later a cutter.I was right in the middle of the debris yet they could not see it from the air untill I picked up some of the articles.It was very clear and the sea was flat.It was a real eye opener to realize how hard it is to see things from the air.The CG's opinion was that somone scuttled the vessel.


----------



## tweitz (Apr 5, 2007)

CD - Great thread and food for thought. One point that no one has mentioned is that one should stencil the name of the vessel on the liferaft. That would make a big difference.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

You know (and I bet they have this) but there has to be some way that when a raft goes off, it can send out some type of radio signal to be identified? WHat about every offshore raft coming mandatory with an EPIRB? WOuld it even have to be a 406? Maybe the old 121 technology or something? A raft EPIRB with its numbers on it. WIth teh size of the raft, you could even put in a larger battery for longer transmit times. Maybe even a SPOT messenger???

Just a thought.

Brian


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

I'm a little late in this discussion but can't resist a comment or two . . . .


A liferaft on any sort is better than none. It will not guarantee your survival but it will enhance your chances. The size of the liferaft is important since a "one-size-fits-all" concept will not work. A suggestion was made in an earlier post that all liferafts should stay upright irrespective of the number of occupants. Well that's pretty naive and is not ever going to happen. An 8-man raft has the bouyancy for 8 adults. Which is excesssive bouyancy for three adults. There is no design clever enough for it be as stable as the 8 man design intended with just 3 occupants. And besides, the "mother ship" isn't guaranteed to stay upright, how the heck can one guarantee the raft will? Also the more bouyancy the raft has the more difficult it will be to turn the right way up. One could of course vent some pressure (reduce bouyancy) if the raft is bigger than the number of occupants require. That would improve the bouyancy balance.
Life rafts don't only turn over because the wind is blowing really hard. In fact the dominant cause of life rafts flipping is breaking seas. How does a designer overcome that? Unless the suggestion is a lead keel under the raft??
One aspect of life rafts that has always left me puzzled - why is there no vent in the floor that allows air into the raft when it is inverted? There are stories of people easily staying in the inverted liferaft sitting on the roof only to run out of air and having to get out. There are stories of people slitting the floor to get air and then the next breaking wave turns the raft right-way-up and the floor then splits all the way leaving it incapable of supporting the occupants thus rendering the liferaft useless. Surely a sealable reinforced zipped vent in the floor would not be hard to install?
The concept of sailable dingies as a liferaft has some negative issues. Firstly, in the Sleavin account they were accidentally left without a liferaft and resorted to an inflatable dingy which flipped and flipped and flipped and - you get the picture. The only survivor (Judith) was so exhausted from alternately clambering back into it or simply holding onto it when inverted that she has no recollection of how she actually managed to hang on long enough to reach land.
Secondly, sailing away for where you abandonded your yacht means that you probably shouldn't waste money on a EPIRB because no-one will ever find you anyway. *ALL* SAR bodies worldwide would prefer you to stay where you are.
Thirdly, if you're 500nm from land you will probably not survive long enough for the sailability of the dingy to be of any value, you'll never sail it far enough to reach land (assuming you know where land is)
In my future sailing career I will always have a four man raft because it will suit my purpose and I believe it to be the smallest available anyhow. I will never consider a dingy in it's place because I have no desire to be found dead, dry and crispy in my dingy. And when my EPIRB lights up a search, I want to be where the rescuers expect to find me and most (all?) life rafts are designed to limit drift. I might have some mods done to make the raft more user friendly but I will always have a liferaft.

But here is another sobering fact - a friend bought a brand new life raft and did one trip 3/4 of the way around the world (eight months). When the raft was just 2 years old, it was opened for servicing and was immediately condemned. Prolonged water ingress into the canister on deck had rendered the liferaft useless. Lucky he didn't need to use it.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

When you re-pack you can have a PLB (equivalent to an EPIRB) added, in addition to any required prescription medications; but adding items is space-limited.

I don't think any of the current rafts have a built-in EPIRB; if you add one you would need to board the raft to activate it.

All of this discussion about liferaft vs. lifeboat is interesting; but the lifeboat is of even lesser safety in terms of roll-over stability and ease of upright deployment than an auto-inflate raft. 

While I agree on the issue of being able to sail the lifeboat to save yourself; I also don't think that in heavy seas you would be able to deploy and board a boat nearly as easily as a raft. If the boat is on davits; deployment in rough water would be difficult if not impossible (seas from astern). A 6 man valise is about 80lbs; which also points to the need for a deck mount raft.

It seems to me what is needed is a liferaft design that could also be rigged with a way to pull up the ballast bags and deploy a small sail to improve the downwind drift speed (when the sea state settles). The newest rafts are designed to deploy right-side up; and with the inflated roof tube they should be easier to turn upright if it did deploy inverted. I'm not saying this would not be a huge problem in rough weather; but it's also my understanding that newer IASF and SOLAS raft designs have taken this issue into account.

The most important feature of a raft or dinghy should be to save your life in the emergency of exiting a sinking craft and remaining out of rough seas. The need of getting to shore is secondary and should not over-rule the need to stay upright and out of the water. Making swift progress to a shore would be ideal; and being lost at sea indefinitely is not a form of survival, but if your non-ballasted boat is over-turned many times you might not make it through the heavy seas to mount your own rescue.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Omatako said:


> And when my EPIRB lights up a search, I want to be where the rescuers expect to find me


This is why you should consider a PLB that has a GPS built in. An EPIRB can also serve this purpose; so long as you can remember to bring the unit with you. A PLB or EPIRB should either be located in the ditch bag or mounted in a place where you can get to it easily (cockpit hydrostatic mount).


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Guys, guys, guys - simple solution here: Just gimble the seats. Make the damn thing a big ball. You climb in, zip it shut and enjoy your beverage while watching mother nature's fury.










Next.


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

Omatako said:


> ...A liferaft on any sort is better than none. ....


The Fastnet of '79 taught us that is not true but it is part of the belief system that people have so they have to operate with that to feel comfortable.

Personally I have been off shore without a life raft, have no problem with life boats, and would sail with little more than a tender depending on the boat. Some boats can't sink, I like that idea but always envision a freighter crushing one on orders from God, you know, just to make a point.


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

smackdaddy said:


> Next.


Testing stage. Volunteers?


----------



## catamount (Sep 8, 2002)

Architeuthis said:


> Omatako said:
> 
> 
> > ...A liferaft of any sort is better than none. ....
> ...


No, Fastnet taught us that a yacht is better than a liferaft.

I took Omatako to mean that _when there is no yacht_ (i.e. due to it's having sunk or burned), a liferaft of any sort is better than being in water...


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

catamount said:


> No, Fastnet taught us that a yacht is better than a liferaft.
> 
> I took Omatako to mean that _when there is no yacht_ (i.e. due to it's having sunk or burned), a liferaft of any sort is better than being in water...


Very true a tender or life raft is better than a life jacket but there would be many people alive today if they did not have a liferaft. The lesson of Fastnet, one of the lessons, is that liferafts or rather peoples belief in them can kill.

A large part of the life raft industry depends on fears and beliefs. I suspect if people were to look objectively at the situation many would not spend limited money on a life raft, others would not believe in them, and many others would only have one after extensive practice with it.

That of course would reduce liferaft sales so you'll not find many videos on the options. Oh wait here's one, save the boat!






Nice idea but I practiced that with a tarp and think that would work and be cheaper, still I like the idea of saving the whole boat:
Underwater Lift Bags & Yacht Floatation - Turtlepac


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

You realize that one person could put their hand over the hole while a second person finds a plug; right? The method that "turtlepac" uses is pretty much the same as wrapping a sail around the hull which was the original way to stem a leak that could not be stopped from the inside.

Nobody here is talking about leaving a safe/sound vessel for a liferaft. In many instances in the Fastnet where people abandoned their non sinking boat was because items like batteries and stoves were flying around the inside of the boat while it was being rolled over and over. There is no safe place to be on a boat that is getting rolled and even light objects are flying about. An uncontrollable fire is another situation where you would need to abandon.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

Architeuthis said:


> The Fastnet of '79 taught us that is not true but it is part of the belief system that people have so they have to operate with that to feel comfortable.


Actually Fastnet taught us that there are people who are stupid enough to abandon vessels long before it is proven necessary. This in no way detracts from the value of a liferaft and a life raft is not a panacea for stupiduty.

Each sailor makes his own choices, What I do know for sure is that when the water starts lapping onto my deck, I don't want to have to explain to others on board that I don't believe in having a life raft on board.

In New Zealand, if your boat goes to the bottom and people die, you have to explain your inability to take care of them. If you can't you will go to jail for a reasonably long time.



Architeuthis said:


> A large part of the life raft industry depends on fears and beliefs. I suspect if people were to look objectively at the situation many would not spend limited money on a life raft, others would not believe in them, and many others would only have one after extensive practice with it.


As far as liferaft manufacturers trading on beliefs and fear goes, most sailors will never need flares, life jackets, EPIRBS or grab bags but all the intelligent ones have them. Does your philosophy extend to all those industries/products as well?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Omatako said:


> Actually Fastnet taught us that there are people who are stupid enough to abandon vessels long before it is proven necessary. This in no way detracts from the value of a liferaft and a life raft is not a panacea for stupiduty.
> ....
> As far as liferaft manufacturers trading on beliefs and fear goes, most sailors will never need flares, life jackets, EPIRBS or grab bags but all the intelligent ones have them. Does your philosophy extend to all those industries/products as well?


This thread went from useful to dangerous. I hope that good sense prevails and that more unexperienced sailors are not led to believe that a good life-raft can be substituted by a dinghy or other sort of personally devised craft or worst, that they are quite expensive and useless.

The opinion of the most experienced offshore sailors is expressed on the ISAF mandatory rules about safety on board. They demand that the boats that participate in their offshore events have a life-raft, not any, but one that meets some strict criteria. Have one of those (they say ISAF approved) and be on the safe side, with the ones that know better.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

Omatako said:


> As far as liferaft manufacturers trading on beliefs and fear goes, most sailors will never need flares, life jackets, EPIRBS or grab bags but all the intelligent ones have them. Does your philosophy extend to all those industries/products as well?


Yes.

Sorry guys you can strawman all you want I've spent my time in the Safety biz and met the same attitudes. Actually reminds me of trying to get people to stop using safety belts and start using harnesses. Even today there are those, I'm sure they are here, that do not believe that harnesess are better than belts or that helmets are the best safety gear a motorcyclist could have.

Your safety philosophy, or that philosophy, fails to take ownership over your own well being, thats Ok with me after all it is your choice and should be your choice.

But this failure of ownership is most clearly shown in the comment about people being stupid.

People are stupid but the suggestion or rather implication is that you would not be stupid in such a situation. Since you do not want to take full ownership of your safety I suggest you actually increase your chances of doing that very thing you say you would not but there is no way to know without looking at it objectively.

Those people whose liferaft failed, for many reasons, were above average sailors. They had seen it rough before and would likely be full of bravado on the net. Yet, as the many reports make clear, they counted on a piece of equipment in which they had put much faith, had a belief that a piece of safe gear would save them. Like a lucky rabbits foot the belief was often reinforced.

Yet it failed them when they needed it most.

Look you guys keep your faith, do not worry that I will convert someone from your flock. Only those wavering already would be swayed to look objectively at their safety program. Only a person already fallen from grace would see in the recent rescue in Alaska that liferaft was not the one piece of safety equipment they needed most, or maybe even at all.

Most will have faith, will keep their faith, there are those that will see to it and really, faith, simple answers, is what people want most.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Architeuthis said:


> ....
> 
> Those people whose liferaft failed, for many reasons, were above average sailors. They had seen it rough before and would likely be full of bravado on the net. Yet, as the many reports make clear, they counted on a piece of equipment in which they had put much faith, had a belief that a piece of safe gear would save them. Like a lucky rabbits foot the belief was often reinforced.
> 
> ...


I don't know of any problem with liferafts in Europe. If that would happen here, it would be a scandal. Here, in most countries liferafts are mandatory and for oceangoing boats you need an ocean liferaft, the kind that is approved by ISAFF. All liferafts are verified on a certificated center each year (in some cases, each three years) and that includes opening the liferaft, substitution of the gas canisters, general verification and substitution of flares (if needed) and other material.

Can you post and specify about those liferafts failures?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

*Maybe I've missed something . . .*



Architeuthis said:


> Yes.


Excuse me but I need to get a better understanding of your stance on this.

Are you saying that all safety equipment on vessels is there because the manufacturers have traded on people's beliefs and fear and that sensible people shouldn't be that concerned about whether they have them or not?

Because if you are then PCP is more correct now than he was before your post - this thread has definitely moved from useful to dangerous.

Do you go sailing sans safety equipment on your own boat? Because if you do then I would recommend that you never sail to New Zealand - the authorities will not let you leave on your safety-free vessel.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

I have made a search about "life raft failure".

I have got two hits, one from the Fastnet Race of 1979 other from the 1998 Sydney to Hobart race.

I got also this interesting information from the Irish Sailing association:

"The ISAF liferaft is the most commonly carried raft on board recreational craft. Formally the ORC raft, the ISAF liferaft specification underwent a major overhaul subsequent to the 1998 Sydney Hobart race in which three lives were lost as a result of liferaft failure. The new specification known as the "Appendix A, Part 2 liferaft" came into effect at the beginning of 2003. Rafts built to this specification are arguably the most suitable to be carried by any boat going offshore (but not trans-oceanic) for relatively short periods
of time. If you intend buying a new raft for this type of use then make sure it is to the new ISAF Appendix A, Part 2 specification, not the earlier (ORC or RORC) design.

ISO or International Standards Organisation, issued 2 liferaft standards during 2005 one of which has since been accepted by the ISAF as an equivalent, subject to some caveats, in particular the need for the raft to have a "boarding ramp". "

I have also made a short search on "rescued from a life raft". It was a short search (I have stopped) because I have got a lot of hits, all from the last 5 years, several from 2010:

Fisherman in life raft rescued after boat sinks off the Isle of Wight - Portsmouth UK | Maritime Safety News

Article: 7 Rescued From Life Raft Off Del. Coast. | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy

Rescue under way for two people adrift in life raft - Maritime New Zealand

Four rescued from a life raft by the USCG off the Jamaican coast | Maritime Safety News

Fisherman rescued on life raft off Cork coast | BreakingNews.ie

Cowes Online - Fishermen rescued from liferaft

Maine fishermen abandon boat, rescued from life raft | Coast Guard News

Sailors rescued from life raft after engine fire off Guernsey | Maritime Safety News

Family rescued from life raft in Caribbean. - Free Online Library

12 Men in a Life Raft Rescued

Wife's call saves sailor after nights on liferaft | UK news | The Guardian

North Carolina man rescued after two days on life raft | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

Omatako said:


> Are you saying that all safety equipment on vessels is there because the manufacturers have traded on people's beliefs and fear....


No. Most Safety equipment is there because people objectively determined that the old system, be it praying to the gods or tossing over a slave or whatever could be improved upon. Many people believed that the old systems were the best (after all they were the latest and greatest) and argued against changes, often on a safety platform. For example they would argue something like "You would be crazy to leave shore without a slave to toss overboard, if you don't take a slave you could die!"

Almost all sellers of this equipment trade on peoples fears and beliefs to sell the product be it slaves to toss overboard or Level 4 containment systems. The end user, the buyer should look beyond that pitich but many, even at the engineered level do not. Of course if the company can get the government to force people to buy it's product there is much less need for the fear mongering so common in todays pitches. That is what many smart manufacturers works towards!



Omatako said:


> ...and that sensible people shouldn't be that concerned about whether they have them or not?.


Are these the same sensible people who are stupid? Just jokes, Sensible people, at least those concerned about safety, should look objectively at their safety systems from start (planning) to the end (death) to ensure it is going to meet their expectations. (might never leave shore but that is better than running a risk they would not accept)

For just one aspect of boat safety that would, I expect, eventually result in them considering what happens if (fire, breakup, grounding, or whatever) the boat is no longer usable and must be left. In the middle of the ocean there is no beach to swim to (which might be a perfectly reasonable solution for some sailors) so they will find themselves considering liferafts.

When they do that they will or should look at what is on the market, costs and other issues as well as what the success rate is.

At that point they will discover that liferafts, liferaft systems for small boats, fail at being a liferaft more often than they succeed when called upon. Studies vary but I think Fastnet or studies that followed put the success rate at 30%. I would expect improvements so lets say it was 50%. A person has to ask themselves if that is acceptable. (look at the recent Alaska case, the boat sank and more people had to be picked from the water than from the liferaft, that's a liferaft failure!)

In the case of fall arrest or prevention equipment I would not accept a solution that worked only half the time but have yet to find a solution that works 100% of the time. The last fatal at a site I worked at the fall was arrested but the person died a slow death awaiting rescue. They, that crew, viewed fall arrest equipment like people view liferafts. They had the safety equipment, all shiny and new, and were wearing it, they had to be safe! They bet their life on that belief. A system that had more objective thought and less belief would have made a big difference there.



> Because if you are then PCP is more correct now than he was before your post - this thread has definitely moved from useful to dangerous.


Yeah the strawmen pop out pretty quick when someone challenges beliefs, part of that is a struggle to see how it could be so, often it is just more fun or just easier.



> Do you go sailing sans safety equipment on your own boat?


No it's loaded up pretty heavy but that's my choice, the legal minimums are just that to me, the minimum. I also know much of it would not likely be used. One of the first trips offshore had the bilge fill with water. I yelled the order, crew responded (all stop, pump hard), I closed thruhulls, and then paused while watching the level. If the level did not stop or drop we were leaving before continuing attempts to save the boat. Even though water was only at the bottom of the boards, it was the plan. The safety equipment is not what keeps us safe.

Of course some nanny states like yours do not believe that people can or should make their own choices. I can't help but notice that while they will require you to do something, like liferafts or seatbelts, they reject any responsibility for the failure of that equipment. IMO If they were really concerned they would accept full responsibility, as I do.

You feel protected by such laws and regulations and we do need them, heck we need more of them particularly in the financial markets but people should still think for themselves.

When they think about life rafts some will think life boats and then ask themselves how they might address that situation they foresaw that had them leaving a large comfy boat in the middle of an ocean.

Maybe someone would think about bubbles or ballons or a Pudgy Plastic Tender maybe even figure out something that has a better record than inflatable liferafts. Of course to do that they will have to challange the orthodoxy the public has of liferafts.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

OK... Let's apply some LOGIC to this:



Architeuthis said:


> No. Most Safety equipment is there because people objectively determined that the old system, be it praying to the gods or tossing over a slave or whatever could be improved upon....


So what is this NEW/BETTER system that you allude to? In the case of your sinking sailboat what was the exit plan you refer to?



> Almost all sellers of this equipment trade on peoples fears and beliefs to sell the product be it slaves to toss overboard or Level 4 containment systems. The end user, the buyer should look beyond that pitich but many, even at the engineered level do not. Of course if the company can get the government to force people to buy it's product there is much less need for the fear mongering so common in todays pitches. That is what many smart manufacturers works towards!


WHAT FEAR MONGERING?? Every boat show I have been to I have NOT ONCE been approached by a liferaft company rep and been given the "buy one or you are sure to die" pitch. They offer their product for anyone who feels the need to own it. Would you call the sinking of the Titanic and subsequent loss of thousands of lives a form of fear mongering for requirements that all ships carry adequate lifeboats for ALL HANDS "fear mongering"?



> Are these the same sensible people who are stupid? Just jokes, Sensible people, at least those concerned about safety, should look objectively at their safety systems from start (planning) to the end (death) to ensure it is going to meet their expectations. (might never leave shore but that is better than running a risk they would not accept)


Yes; it's about acceptable risk. And you don't plan on "certain death" in the event that your boat is going to sink. You plan to have contingencies and survive the event of sinking in the RARE OCCASION that your boat is holed so badly you can't stem the flow or there is a problem that renders the boat non-inhabitable (like a fire, or heavy flying objects).



> Studies vary but I think Fastnet or studies that followed put the success rate at 30%. I would expect improvements so lets say it was 50%. A person has to ask themselves if that is acceptable.


You are taking one case study and applying it universally. That fails LOGIC. A fleet of boats were in the same horrible conditions; and many chose or needed to abandon in those particular conditions. You fail to consider failures of crews to properly deploy the raft, conditions that were not in any way favorable for deployment of ANY TYPE of lifeboat, and the ability to board a raft or boat in breaking seas and high winds without being swept away from the raft.

What was the real cause for boat abandonment and loss of life? It was an incorrect interpretation of the weather forecast; not the failures of the crews who went out into conditions that were way beyond their skills and equipment capabilities. We're talking conditions that boats tend to disappear in; and in that situation you are SOL regardless of if you have a raft, boat, gumby suit, etc. It's stay aboard the mother craft (and take your chances getting killed by a flying battery) or die. The 30% that abandoned their boat and survived were damn lucky; not that the 60% that died were unlucky or died because of the failure of a raft.


> They, that crew, viewed fall arrest equipment like people view liferafts. They had the safety equipment, all shiny and new, and were wearing it, they had to be safe! They bet their life on that belief.


No no... That is what people who have no sense of their own mortality believe. These are the people who think they can sue the safety equipment MFR because they crashed their race car into a wall at 200MPH and the safety equipment in some way failed. YOU NEED TO OWN YOUR DECISIONS AND MISTAKES. Life saving equipment is there to HELP prevent your death; not guarantee your survival.


> One of the first trips offshore had the bilge fill with water. I yelled the order, crew responded (all stop, pump hard), I closed thruhulls, and then paused while watching the level. If the level did not stop or drop we were leaving before continuing attempts to save the boat. Even though water was only at the bottom of the boards, it was the plan. The safety equipment is not what keeps us safe.


I see TONS of problems with this "plan". First; what failed, and why did it fail (now that you know)? Was it something that should have been tended to before you went out? I'm guessing yes; because unless you struck something very large or something damaged the boat from inside like a heavy piece of gear that broke loose and struck a raw water line or seacock, it could only be something that was overlooked while dockside.

When your boat is flooding; you don't pause to watch the level. You either join the bucket brigade and bail like mad with the rest of your crew or you go searching as quickly as possible to try and find/stem the leak (even if your crew is not keeping up with the ingress). You need to determine where the flow is and IF you can get it stopped from inside or by wrapping a sail around the hull before you just throw your hands up and decide that we are not keeping up with the flow and it's time to "lay down and die"; as you described earlier (is that REALLY your "end" plan?).


> IMO If they were really concerned they would accept full responsibility, as I do.


Again; safety equipment is not a guarantee that you will survive whatever risks you choose to take in life. Driving a car, riding a bicycle, going skiing, going out on a boat, crossing a crosswalk; all have a mortality rate despite the use and sometimes mandate of safety equipment.



> You feel protected by such laws and regulations and we do need them, heck we need more of them particularly in the financial markets but people should still think for themselves.


No; I don't. Laws don't protect me; I PROTECT ME. PUBLIC SAFETY should be given considerations like liferaft requirements, life jackets aboard/available, safety belts and air-bags required in cars, crosswalks (regardless of if you use it); etc. These laws don't protect me; they give me the right to -try- and prevent my death (with understanding that -I- took a risk) in the event that an incompetent person puts my life in unnecessary danger; or in the event of a freak accident. I don't believe in regulations of a financial market; too much of it and it is nolonger a FREE market; and investors will go elsewhere.



> Maybe someone would think about bubbles or ballons or a Pudgy Plastic Tender maybe even figure out something that has a better record than inflatable liferafts. Of course to do that they will have to challange the orthodoxy the public has of liferafts.


So what do you bring to the table? If you don't have a better option than liferafts and gumby suits or anything else that is currently available; than I suggest you stop calling foul at what arguably is the best form of life saving equipment for a person who would need to "step up" onto another craft in the middle of the ocean.


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 3, 2008)

Then Sorry I was wrong. 

I did not want to, I should not want to, take someone from their pew and point to people floating (or point out that one of those gumby suits has a rip). It is wrong to suggest that liferafts do not work for all. 

In only puts people in the position of having to try and argue with me when they actually, secretly I guess agree. It puts people in the position of saying: 

“It was not the liferaft that failed, they failed the liferaft.”

Yes they did and if more people would see that more people would have the confidence to claim that only a fool would sail without a liferaft. 

The liferaft with its long history and continuing development by people much smarter than us deserves better. It is the liferaft, the ultimate in offshore protection, that gives us the ability to sail off away from land with the belief, no, the knowledge, that regardless of what happens out there we are safer out there. 

A liferaft strapped to the deck or two, one for the deck and one in the cockpit, envelopes the whole boat with a glow of protection, giving confidence and comfort to crew and family alike. 

So do not listen to people like me, people who must live in a fear filled world of what if’s and a person can see failure in success (the guy with the torn gumby suit survived). 

Do not be swayed for what you have is of great value. I may not yet have that faith here but I do have it elsewhere and a life lived with such faith is a better life indeed.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Architeuthis said:


> The liferaft with its long history and continuing development by people much smarter than us deserves better. It is the liferaft, the ultimate in offshore protection, that gives us the ability to sail off away from land with the belief, no, the knowledge, that regardless of what happens out there we are safer out there.


Wrong again silly. You're thinking of the EPIRB.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

Active Safety = Well found ship + Trying to save the vessel, and being able to step up into the liferaft if everything else fails.
Passive safety = Sit and whine after having activated the EPIRB.

While an EPIRB is a great thing, it only alerts the MRCC's of the world, and is NOT a guarantee that you will get help instantly, so you need active safety.


----------



## wunhunglo (Apr 5, 2010)

*Surviving is a laminate of many integrated activities*

So... for a topic that was billed as as very important, it seems to have deteriorated into the following sequence of events:

- a boat owner with a dramatic tale of an empty life raft that would possibly make the core of an episode of CSI.
- a declaration that life rafts are non-righting death traps, with no realistic consideration of current raft design
- an objection by a minority of readers that have some accurate information and call him out on the overstatement
- a rally of the OP's disciples who praise his omnipotence while dismissing the valid criticism of the "death trap" claim,
- and speaking of drowning, all the valid contributions from a few posters on current liferaft specifications seem to have been drowned by the disciples songs of praise, and the noise of Architeuthis' incomprehensible sermons from his pulpit.

A Classic Internet Moment and a topic lost in partisan dogma !!!

How about some factual information and objective comparison of the Pudgy "lifeboat" versus a liferaft? (BTW: the Pudgy is certainly a neat little dinghy with some possible, supplementary safety uses)

- Current life rafts will significantly improve chances of survival offshore if your boat is sinking compared with not having one
- the liferaft is more useful if maintained, the skipper and crew have training, and the raft contains the right emergency supplies for the area being sailed
- current life rafts can be righted and a number are self righting
- the goals and concepts of "self rescue" with a lifeboat, are admirable, but none out there are SOLAS or ISAF approved for typical cruising or racing yachts. There must be a good reason for that - please rationally think about it before looking at the Pudgy as a viable alternative to a life raft.
- a "life boat" like the Pudgy has little chance of resisting capsize when rolled and tumbled by big breaking waves that are capable of pitch poling big cruising yachts, and often moving at moving at 15+ knots in storm conditions
- being a hard shell, the tumbling of the Pudgy could injure the occupants as they are thrown around during the tumbling
- the self-rescue equipment (mast, sails, rudder, dagger board) could be damaged or lost during violent tumbling - worse things have happened to much sturdier boats
- the 4sqft per person in the Pudgy may seem equivalent to some life raft specs, but it's a lot less functional than the same 4sqft with some space to stretch out in a liferaft
- life rafts are designed to provide drag and therefore resist being continually tumbled like a hard shell of a small, buoyant dinghy.
- No one in the industry of safety equipment or safety standards can guarantee living in survival conditions, but many of them put a lot of time and effort into trying to make the chances greater. It's up to the users to think clearly about their needs, train and maintain.
- Surviving is a lot more than buying a liferaft. It's a laminate of many layers of defining needs, equipment selection, preparation, maintenance, training, more training, use, and individual mental and physical stamina.

Moving right along >>>>>>>> nothing more to add here.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Architeuthis said:


> &#8230;.
> 
> The recent incident in Alaska shows us that liferafts only work sometimes &#8230; look at the recent Alaska case, the boat sank and more people had to be picked from the water than from the liferaft, that's a liferaft failure!
> 
> ...


This thread is about information, important information that can lead to choices that can save lives or choices that can result in loss of lives. For this reason all posters should have special care with the information they post and be sure about its veracity .

You have been posting misleading and inaccurate information all along this thread and that is not only dangerous but also irresponsible.

Let's start with the recent Alaska incident. You say: "The recent incident in Alaska shows us that liferafts only work sometimes&#8230; the boat sank and more people had to be picked from the water than from the liferaft, that's a liferaft failure!"

From a report from a survivor: "The crew put a life raft over the side but the angle of the boat kept them from getting it untied."

Fisherman recounts rescue as boat sinks off Alaska - StamfordAdvocate

This does not indicate a life-raft failure but an improper collocation of the liferaft. The boat had only a life-raft? Why was not the life-raft deployed in due time, before the boat listed too much? It seems to me a human error (life-raft collocation).

It looks they had not the luck of these guys : "Two fishermen owe their life to a recent inspection by an MCA surveyor from Brixham. Their fishing boat was recently inspected and the liferaft was found to be tied down so it could not float free. The skipper remedied the problem before the boat sailed."

Cowes Online - Fishermen rescued from liferaft

You say: &#8230;". there would be many people alive today if they did not have a liferaft&#8230;.Those people whose liferaft failed, for many reasons, were above average sailors.... At that point they will discover that liferafts, liferaft systems for small boats, fail at being a liferaft more often than they succeed when called upon&#8230;."

And that is an extraordinarily serious statement, a statement that ,to be true, would lead to question the validity of all the life-raft concept, as a very important safety item.

I have looked and searched the net (post 113) and I could not find, in the last 10 years, a single reference of a tragic life-raft failure, and I have found many reports about many lives saved due to the life-raft utilization. I have asked you to substantiate your claims and you have remained silent.

You have claimed some incredible things like : "A hot air ballon can be packed quite small, not be any heavier than another person, and can be powered by propane. They can also be launched via smaller ballons to keep the fabric out of the water. Cost can be less than a liferaft. &#8230; I'm guessing the chances of a ballon working when you needed it would be about the same or less than a liferaft. &#8230;.."

About this one I don't know what to say. I thought that members were kidding about this&#8230;but it seems that at least you were talking seriously about it.

You also claim:" Of course for the same price (of a life-raft) one can get a decent gumby suit, flares and a sat phone so why bother about self rescue anyway"&#8230;personal unit would be very cheap and fun to play with on weekends

About this, the same Alaska accident shows the wrongness of that option:
From the Alaska accident report : "Outside the wheelhouse, Jack ordered Esau and Knivila to don survival suits - clumsy, head-to-toe outfits of bright orange. They helped each other fasten zippers to make the suits watertight&#8230;. A Coast Guard C-130 airplane from Kodiak reached the scene a little more than an hour after the mayday call. The crew dropped rafts, and Knivila was able to climb in."
"The crew members were hoisted into a rescue basket from a helicopter that arrived 45 minutes later. The three survivors suffered hypothermia."

Fisherman recounts rescue as boat sinks off Alaska - StamfordAdvocate

They only remained a short time in the water, on their survival suits and they all suffered from hypothermia. If they had not been able to make it to the life-rafts that were dropped by the C-130 or if they have stayed longer in the water, all of them would be dead. If the life-raft was correctly mounted on the boat or if it was deployed in due time (before the boat listed too much), the survival chances would have been much better. Survival suits are important (and they should have been wearing them), but they don't substitute a life-raft.

I want to believe that you do not have done this purposely, but the truth is that you repeatedly posted incorrect information on a very important subject, information that can mislead inexperienced sailors in wrong choices, choices that can have dramatic consequences, and that is not right.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

Omatako said:


> But here is another sobering fact - a friend bought a brand new life raft and did one trip 3/4 of the way around the world (eight months). When the raft was just 2 years old, it was opened for servicing and was immediately condemned. Prolonged water ingress into the canister on deck had rendered the liferaft useless. Lucky he didn't need to use it.


Wow!!!!

Would that be considered a failure of the design? One would reasonably expect the canister to be water tight unless he damaged it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Arch - I gotta know...are you really advocating freakin' balloons? I thought you were kidding until I read back through this. Surely you have a modicum of...I don't know....smarts?

*WunHung *- here's what I see as the very interesting dichotomy in this thread and your post...

What you're saying is 100% right. No doubt.

BUT, it's from a racer's perspective. In other words, serious racers prepare for everything because they HAVE to (per the regs) and because they have the crew (number of "able" bodies) to deal with nuclear conditions. That's their jobs as racers. And, honestly, I would say that in many cases (true off-shore racing notwithstanding) it's easier - because it's a somewhat "controlled" environment.

What you're seeing here is the "cruiser view". From what I've seen hanging out here and SA, most cruisers go shorthanded. And most cruisers go beyond the bounds of the "controlled environment" for obvious reasons. We are either doing this all over the sea with a single playmate, or with a wife and a couple of kids. Or, worse, we are doing this singlehanded (if nobody likes us).

Add into this mix the lack of safety REQUIREMENTS on cruising - and you only have human nature left. Cheap. Willing to risk it to some degree. Etc.

Now - in light of these facts - think through the life raft scenario. Will a cruising family - or a singlehander - be able to right a 4 person raft (or whatever it is based on the occupancy of the boat)? That's what CD was thinking through I think (totally projecting here). Like me, he has a wife and 2 young kids aboard. If they go down in the piss and the LR turtles...they are all done. That 4-6 man LR is not coming back up - especially if it's up to mom and the kids.

Think about that. That's reality. It's saying nothing about LR design. But it's saying everything about how cruising is done. You really have to understand that perspective.

It all comes down to man-power. Equipment is secondary. If you think of designing a LR for my family...a dad, a mom, and two kids under 11...it becomes a very, very complicated affair...especially if dad is gone. That LR sure as hell better not EVER flip - or at least it better self right....period. Because THAT'S who's being saved.

Does that necessitate a change in the "cruising view"? Does that mean we shouldn't be going out at all? Or does it require a complete rethinking of safety?

THOSE are the most important questions in my mind.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Balloons:
Honest, just ask a licensed balloonist if there's gonna be any concern about launching a balloon during a gale.

Oh, and have a camera ready to take a picture of the look on their face, OK? I wanna see that.


----------



## wunhunglo (Apr 5, 2010)

*Liferafts and short-handed*

Smackdaddy.
I admit to spending most of my time on the water racing inshore and offshore. (Mea Culpa - hangs head in shame ). However, when I'm not, I'm probably doing a short-handed delivery (no different than cruising). A number of deliveries have been well offshore. I have also cruised with family (spouse, 2 kids) mainly coastal, but some in rough conditions.

I can't comment on your post where you said something to the affect that cruisers equip themselves cheaply and have no regs to follow (other than basic coastguard local rules).

I use the ISAF Offshore Special Regs for guidance even when cruising because they have been compiled by very credible sailors over years of refinement from tragic events like the Fastnet and Syd-Hobart. They make good sense so I wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel.

With respect to righting a raft, there is a technique that works even for people of smaller stature and weight. It may not be easy for some, but it is possible (probably not for a single kid younger than late teens). As I mentioned, I have righted a big commercial raft single handed (and I ain't no spring chicken either LOL). It was definitely not a cakewalk but it can be done. Most of the energy was consumed getting onto the upturned raft and not the actual righting of it. A raft with an integral boarding ramp would have made that easier, but this one only had the evil webbing ladder.

All the offshore and most coastal rafts are designed and equipped to be righted. A small 4 or 6 person raft for a shorthanded crew will be easier. In terms of choice of raft, starting with one that is self-righting and has an inflatable boarding ramp would be a bonus !!

Re: self-rescue... I was reflecting on days of windsurfing.... now there's a non-sinkable craft that can sail in heavy air and surf, and coupled with a drysuit and a back-pack grab bag of survival gear, self-rescue might even be fun !!!  Don't a lot of cruisers have sailboards??? :laugher

hmmmm (_thinks...4 person folding sailboard._...... _leaves heading for the drawing board)_....>>>>


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Okay - so maybe I sensationalized a bit. But it sounded good. BTW - did I say "cheap"? I meant "thrifty".

I like your approach however; mom, dad, chuck, and mookie rockin' it back to shore:


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

hellosailor said:


> Balloons:
> Honest, just ask a licensed balloonist if there's gonna be any concern about launching a balloon during a gale.
> 
> Oh, and have a camera ready to take a picture of the look on their face, OK? I wanna see that.


HS,

I'm beginning to wonder if you are taking those balloon comments seriously? 

Strictly for comic relief.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

davidpm said:


> Originally Posted by *Omatako*
> _But here is another sobering fact - a friend bought a brand new life raft and did one trip 3/4 of the way around the world (eight months). When the raft was just 2 years old, it was opened for servicing and was immediately condemned. Prolonged water ingress into the canister on deck had rendered the liferaft useless. Lucky he didn't need to use it._
> 
> Wow!!!!
> ...


I have missed that and I am glad that you have brought it to our atention.

I have an important advice for the ones that carry the canister on deck:

*Don't seat or let anyone sit on the canister*. If you read the life-raft instructions you will see that this prohibition will be there.

I say that it is important because I see lots of people sitting on canisters (not on my boat ), sometimes two people at the same time. I know that the canister seems pretty solid and they are just on the right place to sit, but this case shows the importance of the complete integrity of the canister and why manufacturers prohibit sitting there.

I am not saying that it was that (sitting) the reason that lead to the water ingress or if the canister was compromised in any other way or if it had a manufacturing defect. If it was a design failure we would have heard about it, because hundreds or thousands of life-rafts would have to be called for reparation and similar cases would have been known.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

wunhunglo said:


> So... for a topic that was billed as as very important, it seems to have deteriorated into the following sequence of events:
> 
> - a boat owner with a dramatic tale of an empty life raft that would possibly make the core of an episode of CSI.
> - a declaration that life rafts are non-righting death traps, with no realistic consideration of current raft design
> ...


That was uncalled for. Did I wrong you somewhere that I did not know about? SOme other thread maybe? Some other forum? is there some reason you felt compelled to say that?

I have tried to put together some first hand accounts of what I have seen and open a discussion on the matter, which you caustically picked apart with cynicism. You dissagree with it? Fine. Let's discuss it. But don't belittle me, SN, and the other posters with your sarcasm and tacky comments. Other posters will read your comments and decide to themselves that there is NO WAY they will post their experiences and opinions in fear of getting a good lashing from you or other posters that know it all already. It's not what you say, it is how you say it.

Moving right along in an effort to make this thread a reasonable source of information again-

Please discuss the type of 12 person raft that you flipped. Mfg and type would be appreciated. What was the sea state? What was the sea temperature? What safety gear were you wearing? How long had you been in the water? Night or day? Was it fully inflated? How do you flip a raft with people inside and how were they breathing?

I am not saying that a life raft cannot be flipped, I am saying that in reality, it will be difficult at best. For example, how in the world are you supposed to climb up on a raft in a 4 foot sea? 8 foot? 12+ foot? As much sailing as you have done, you certainly can apprecaite the reality of doing that. The sea spray on that would make it very slick. Getting the straps, getting on top of the raft, keeping from slipping and falling over while you try to stand up, in cold water your ability to function will be quickly deteriorating, the weight of the water in the canopy acting against you - is it realistic to assume this can be done by the typical yachty with a typical Yachties Life raft? I am not talking about a commercial Life Pod.

Please unsderstand that my Ford Pickup is designed to get 22 mpg. It never has. The reality of it doing that is not what can be achieved in the real world. I have no doubt that there are people that have flipped their life rafts. Perhaps the newer ones? Perhaps some of the older ones. But how many conditions were met in order for them to do it? Could the typical cruiser do it in those conditions? Shouldn't a buying decisino be based upon its ability to not flip over in the first place? Has the real-world difficulty of one man (or woman) flipping a life raft in real world survival conditions been fully explored and has the typical purcahser considered his/her ability to flip X-raft as one of the most important criteria before they buy?

This is what I was trying to get across. I was trying to make people think about real-world scenarios. If this thread does nothing else, I hope it makes people think. What I saw is what I saw. I am not stating what a raft 'can do', I am telling you what I saw one of them do in real life. No sugar coating. And I suspect that if you had been there, some of your opinions on this would be different. Some would not. No problem. But at least grant me the courtesy of a gentleman's response and appreciate the fact that I am taking a lot of time away from my family and the gazillions of things we have to do before our next leg to relay our experiences and opinions. It is all in the interest of helping others here and giving back to the community. Otherwise, why participate in a forum at all?

Brian


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

wunhunglo said:


> ...
> - and speaking of drowning, all the valid contributions from a few posters on current liferaft specifications seem to have been drowned by the disciples songs of praise, and the noise of Architeuthis' incomprehensible sermons from his pulpit.
> 
> A Classic Internet Moment and a topic lost in partisan dogma !!!
> ...


One hung,
Well put. Not sure what it is about Sailnet that there seems to be more importance put on we-are-in-the-club-and-all-in-agreement, than on getting the facts right. All boards suffer from this at times, but SN seems to lead when it comes to sailing boards I visit. Somehow you are called out as a cynic, while posting floating balloons is cheered as a liferaft alternative. Weird.

Your last comment about prep and training is certainly true. And in a small way, this thread probably added to a few peoples prep, training and understanding.

Paul L


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Paul_L said:


> One hung,
> Well put. Not sure what it is about Sailnet that there seems to be more importance put on we-are-in-the-club-and-all-in-agreement, than on getting the facts right. All boards suffer from this at times, but SN seems to lead when it comes to sailing boards I visit. Somehow you are called out as a cynic, while posting floating balloons is cheered as a liferaft alternative. Weird.
> 
> Your last comment about prep and training is certainly true. And in a small way, this thread probably added to a few peoples prep, training and understanding.
> ...


Paul - most of my history here on SN has been dealing with this "we-are-in-the-club-and-all-in-agreement" issue in one way or another (FightClub, BFS, LFS, AFOC, etc.). On the one hand, you're right, there has been a lot of this kind of stuff in the past from what I've seen. But I honestly don't see it here in this thread.

Personally, I like CD a lot - though I've never met him. He's been one of the most stand-up guys that this forum has ever had (even when banning me) and was willing call out the "club mentality", even on the club, when it got too whacky. That said I don't consider myself his "disciple" - just one who's willing to hear his side of things based on his history here.

I understand, appreciate and agree with the basic premise of what he's saying. That is when thinking about this whole thing as a cruising family with young kids, or as a singlehander, current LR design has some serious holes and poses some serious risks that should be thought about and discussed.

And to me, there are two sides to that discussion - 1) LR design and reality of use, and 2) cruiser mentality and approach and where that in itself becomes "dangerous".

CD already admitted that he generalized too much with his categorical statement about a flipped LR - but I understand why he made it based on the above.

So maybe your beef is still with the icon and title. Or maybe your beef is something else entirely. But you have to admit, it's been a great discussion thus far.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Paul_L said:


> One hung,
> Well put. Not sure what it is about Sailnet that there seems to be more importance put on we-are-in-the-club-and-all-in-agreement, than on getting the facts right. All boards suffer from this at times, but SN seems to lead when it comes to sailing boards I visit. Somehow you are called out as a cynic, while posting floating balloons is cheered as a liferaft alternative. Weird.
> 
> Your last comment about prep and training is certainly true. And in a small way, this thread probably added to a few peoples prep, training and understanding.
> ...


Paul,

If you do not like the tone of the board, or the material, then add to it. Start a thread of your own. Discuss some things that you have found while cruising. Provide information on places to go or see. Cruising with children. Racing. Gear and Maint. Start some stuff. Instead, you have been here since 2004 and have made a whopping 137 posts. How many of those have even been threads of your own?

I have no problem with people sitting on the sidelines. I just get irritated when others take some level of interst and initiative, then get picked apart by a couple of members who have not made any initative, and then have to listen to how bad a board is!?? My goodness, don't you realize that a board is made up of its members and is only as good as its contribiutors? When you complain about how bad a board is, you complain about yourself.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

And incidentally, the ballons thing was an attempt at humor by John. It was not to be taken seriously.

Brian


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Paul,
> 
> If you do not like the tone of the board, or the material, then add to it. Start a thread of your own. Discuss some things that you have found while cruising. Provide information on places to go or see. Cruising with children. Racing. Gear and Maint. Start some stuff. Instead, you have been here since 2004 and have made a whopping 137 posts. How many of those have even been threads of your own?
> 
> ...


Brian,
Of course it was obvious that the balloons were humor. The point was that a correction of a major false statement in the first post was treated more like an attack on the special ones as opposed to a correction of false and misleading information on an important topic. As far as other contributions are concerned, I post here from time to time. Quantity of postings is not generally a good measure of quality.

Paul L


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Brian (Cruisingdad) , before this thread turns sour (and trying to prevent it) I would like to say something:

I agree with you about Wunhunglo tone. It is not what is said, but the way it is said. I also think that, taking away the tone,much of what he has said is basically correct. Perhaps you should have intervened more (and sooner) in your own thread, relativising what the main disagreement was, I mean that statement :" *If your raft flips over, you are dead. You will not die immediately, but you are not flipping it back over."*

I know that you have done it now, but why take so much time? I share the opinion of Smackdady in what concerns your gentle nature. You are one of the nicest and politest members around and I understand that you have felt angered with Wunhunglo tone. He is a new member, but one that has already contributed with some very informed and interesting posts, some on this thread. I am sure that if he knew you better, he would be more careful with the choice of words.

Back to the liferaft topic and the re-right stuff, a last contribuition, quoting *Steve Callahan*:

(Steve Callahan is a widely respected writer and editor with hundreds of articles to his credit for publications in the U.S. and abroad. He is currently serving as Editor at Large for _Cruising World_ magazine. Callahan's already strong interest in safety at sea and survival was further focused after surviving for 76 days alone in a life raft in 1982, chronicled in his award winning bestseller, "Adrift, 76 Days Lost at Sea," one of the best survival tales ever written. A naval architect by training, he is president of S.P. Callahan & Associates, providing design, research and consulting services to the boat building and marine safety industries.)

*"Now don't freak out if this thing capsizes. We can right it, and with some practice we can reright it without getting out."*

I believe he is speaking of an Ocean liferaft type, like the ones that are ISAF approved.

The article was published on "Ocean Navigator" magazine, it is a good one and deserves to be read. I believe this guy really knows of what he is talking about .

The Life Raft: Don't Leave Your Ship Without It - EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm)

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

Paul_L said:


> Brian,
> Of course it was obvious that the balloons were humor. The point was that a correction of a major false statement in the first post was treated more like an attack on the special ones as opposed to a correction of false and misleading information on an important topic. As far as other contributions are concerned, I post here from time to time. Quantity of postings is not generally a good measure of quality.
> 
> Paul L


If you are referring to the original post of this thread, calling it a "major false statement" is not really keeping in mind both the content and the *context* of the post.

Granted the original post contained some absolutes but, taken in context, they made a lot of sense.


----------



## n0w0rries (May 17, 2009)

First post was interesting. Thanks.

I forget whether I read it online or in a book, but I remember a guy who tested his life raft and even though it was supposed to inflate right side up it didn't. 

As far as being dead if your raft flips... I just read Adrift: Seventy Six Days Lost at Sea by Steven Callahan, and after that I think anything is possible if you're smart enough and have a strong enough will to survive.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Paul_L said:


> Brian,
> Of course it was obvious that the balloons were humor. The point was that a correction of a major false statement in the first post was treated more like an attack on the special ones as opposed to a correction of false and misleading information on an important topic. As far as other contributions are concerned, I post here from time to time. Quantity of postings is not generally a good measure of quality.
> 
> Paul L


Paul,

Since your previous note suggests you misunderstood my intent:



> Somehow you are called out as a cynic, while posting floating balloons is cheered as a liferaft alternative.


.

Let me reiterate: All helium balloon comments were in jest, pure and simple.

On some forums the default mode of communication is to antagonize. Proclaim a challenge, point out the flaws, belittle, insult the other guy, shove it in his face. A lot of folks gravitate to that and some even seem to get off on it. If that's the atmosphere you're used to and you prefer, Sailnet won't appeal to you.

For those who are infrequent visitors or new to Sailnet, we have our own forum culture and its hallmark is civility. There is plenty of joking around, pranks, and ribbing, too, but it tends toward the good natured sort. (Incidentally, we also have a habit here of hijacking threads once they've run their useful course and exhausted the subject. Hence the balloons. )

This was a thread where someone related an encounter with an empty liferaft at sea and an ensuing SAR operation, and offered his impressions for discussion. We may or may not agree with all the observations, but the ensuing discussion yielded a fair bit of instructive information and certainly got some folks thinking more about various aspects of liferafts and survivability than they might otherwise have. On balance, a good thing.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hi Paulo,

Perhaps I should have changed the first post sooner to something more acceptable. At the time I did not think it was that big of a deal. Also, please understand that I often do not have internet depending on where we are (and that is a good thing!!!).

I hold no grudeges here against anyone.

Brian


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

> 3. We have taken what some consider an extreme position regarding life rafts (not to carry one), but it is in fact a supremely practical position and not a purist position. After a lot of study and evaluation, I honestly believe that carrying a life raft decreases the likelihood of saving a vessel and decreases crew safety.


This is from Evan S's site, Seamanship
So there is clearly a wide range of opinion on Liferafts even among those who have clearly studied the issue and have serious experience.

Paul L


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

blackjenner said:


> If you are referring to the original post of this thread, calling it a "major false statement" is not really keeping in mind both the content and the *context* of the post.
> 
> Granted the original post contained some absolutes but, taken in context, they made a lot of sense.


Go back and read the #1 statement under this 'must be read by all cruisers' topic and see if you still think it is correct? I just can't see how anyone could have read the many posts here that clearly counter what was stated and still want to go back and say 'oh you missed the context, it is really a true statement, when a life raft flips, you are dead'. Even the original poster changed his stance on this instead of just digging in his heals - possibly an Internet miracle. What is the need to defend a false and misleading statement?

Paul L


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Paul_L said:


> Go back and read the #1 statement under this 'must be read by all cruisers' topic and see if you still think it is correct? I just can't see how anyone could have read the many posts here that clearly counter what was stated and still want to go back and say 'oh you missed the context, it is really a true statement, when a life raft flips, you are dead'. Even the original poster changed his stance on this instead of just digging in his heals - possibly an Internet miracle. What is the need to defend a false and misleading statement?
> 
> Paul L


Paul, in the interest of beating dead bloated horses that are floating around the ocean after being ejected from their life rafts, let me give you my take on that comment, and why I agree with it in principle.

In the middle of a F9 storm, my Swan is holed by the stiff hoof of said dead horse 250 miles offshore. On board are myself, my 105 lb wife, and our 2 kids (both under 11). We are going down. We correctly deploy the LR after having done everything else flawlessly prior to abandoning our sinking ship (EPIRB, radio calls, ditch bags, etc.) We'll say our LR is a 6-man raft (based on the occupancy of a 40' boat). Into that raft go a total of maybe 320 pounds plus gear. So 400 lbs of ballast for a 6-man raft.

We are not wearing gumby suits - just foulies and pfds. We were cruising to Bermuda from Florida (whatever). And what cruisers on this forum actually have gumby suits for their crew? Seriously.

Anyway, once the Swan goes under we are inside the raft in 41-47 knots of wind 23'-32' waves when it flips. Now what? Do we try to keep the wife and kids inside the inverted raft while I go out and try to flip it? Do we all exit the raft into the rough seas where my wife tries to hold onto each kid as they get hit by these waves AND stay close to the quickly drifting raft while I struggle to flip it. Then when it does right, how much energy do we all have left to have the wife swim the kids to the raft which has drifted like crazy in the F9 conditions, or me go get them and drag them back? Then, when we all get back to the raft how much energy do we have left to get the kids, then ourselves back into that empty raft - which hopefully has not flipped again by the time we get to this point?

Now, let's say I was injured either before or during the flip. What then? The wife is doing all the above? Are you starting to see how much worse this scenario can get just by a flip?

Again, to me, this scenario illustrates very clearly that, in such a case, "if the raft flips we're dead".

And it definitely makes you think about A LOT of things. And raft design is only one of those.


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

Paul_L said:


> Go back and read the #1 statement under this 'must be read by all cruisers' topic and see if you still think it is correct? I just can't see how anyone could have read the many posts here that clearly counter what was stated and still want to go back and say 'oh you missed the context, it is really a true statement, when a life raft flips, you are dead'. Even the original poster changed his stance on this instead of just digging in his heals - possibly an Internet miracle. What is the need to defend a false and misleading statement?
> 
> Paul L


Absolutely, factually, 100%, literally correct, in the sense of people having to be "right" over the chance of understanding each other? You mean like that?

No, it's not that kind of correct.

Taken in context, it's correct enough for me.

YMMV


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> Paul, in the interest of beating dead bloated horses that are floating around the ocean after being ejected from their life rafts, let me give you my take on that comment, and why I agree with it in principle.
> 
> In the middle of a F9 storm, my Swan is holed by the stiff hoof of said dead horse 250 miles offshore. On board are myself, my 105 lb wife, and our 2 kids (both under 11). We are going down. We deploy the LR (after having done everything else flawlessly prior to abandoning our sinking ship) - which we'll say is a 6-man raft (based on the occupancy of a 40' boat). Into that raft go a total of maybe 320 pounds plus some gear. So 400 lbs of ballast for a 6-man raft.
> 
> ...


Yes, Smackdaddy you and your family would probably be dead. For all the other cases where people have actually taken to liferafts in serious weather and have been flipped multiple times and were able to right the craft, they would would probably be alive.

Paul L


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Cool. Then I'll take the one that doesn't flip please.


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

smackdaddy said:


> Cool. Then I'll take the one that doesn't flip please.


Except they don't exist. You are talking about a tiny rubber raft being launched into a giant sea. The mother ship has already succumbed to the extreme conditions. Breaking 30 ft waves will flip any raft. This is one of the main reasons you never want to leave the mothership until absolutely mandatory.

Either way, I think I'm done with the subject. The argument is just getting silly. Sure, if I could get a reasonably priced, reasonable weight, reasonable size, easy to launch NOT Flippable liferaft, I'd select it over another one. They don't exist for the conditions that they have to work in.

Paul L


----------



## Barquito (Dec 5, 2007)

Is it possible to flip a LR from the inside?


----------



## wunhunglo (Apr 5, 2010)

*"The bloated dead horse" gallops on... will it reach the shore?*

Brian,
My post had no intent to belittle. My apologies if you felt that.

Your original topic's title made this almost mandatory reading, so I entered the hallowed halls of SN, cap in hand as a newbie on this forum . I see an extravagant claim that essentially says don't use liferafts, they will kill you. I read on ... seeing many sing your praises and hardly a person had commented on your damning and inaccurate generalization.

You are right... it's a very sobering and serious issue and given that, I was more focused more on calling out the dangerous, and incorrect generalization than perhaps thinking too much about how it might be received.

When it comes to issues like this, perhaps I can be a little abrupt. My intent is to offer facts. However, my first post had no scathing criticism and simply focused on stating some other facts that rafts can be righted. I also posted a non-controversial post showing some real-world examples of rafts that do what you claim they can't.

Later posters rallied to your "defense" criticizing attempts by anyone to correct you on the death trap claim. I found it bizarre on a subject that's about saving lives, that posters were more concerned about taking a "thin blue line" stance than possibly seeing any merit in opposing views. Most of those responses were pretty pompous and dismissive (including one of yours) by implying that opponents clearly didn't have a clue, were wet behind the ears, and should post some real world experience i.e. any criticism can't possibly be real world !! My obviously useless input must have come from sitting on the couch reading sailing magazines or using Google.

That's why I posted an admittedly sarcastic summary of this entire topic. It was cynical because it does come across as a dramatic sea rescue of an empty raft, a non life threatening situation, yet received by the SN disciples as "sobering" and heroic. The serious point you raised of self righting, was virtually ignored. That revelation of the thin blue line was more sobering !!

Standing back from it, you must surely see this unhealthy pack behavior on this important topic? Even proponents of the Pudgy seemed blinded by product loyalty than seeing all the flaws with that solution as a viable alternative to a raft.

*It's too important to be glib with inaccuracies* and it's more important to get input from sources that have something to contribute. Sorry if you feel bruised, but in a way, you brought criticism on yourself. Contrary to your post, I don't get off on "lashing" as you put it, and frankly see your point on that as a bit of dramatic defensiveness. I am more motivated by reality and accuracy.

Going forward, I'll probably resort to more lurking and less posting if the thin blue line is more important in SN than more tolerance of opposing and experienced views.

Smack D:
You know my posts from other places... hopefully you can see through my sarcasm on mine in this topic.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Barquito said:


> Is it possible to flip a LR from the inside?


Yes. The article by Steven Callahan alludes to the ability to right a raft from the inside; which I would assume would require standing on the roof and then pulling one side of the tubes down and walking along the roof toward your hands until it flips upright again.

The scenario posted by Smack is a bit melodramatic. Who is gonna take their family out into the sea and put themselves into the position of survival sailing with their children aboard? YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!! NATURAL SELECTION AFTER THE FACT! (sadly for the children involved)

We have all seen and heard about families lost at sea and families who struggled to survive in a raft or on heavy seas in their sailboat. For those of you who have children please, please don't follow in their footsteps and subject your families to the horrors of survival at sea for the self gratification of being a world cruising sailor. There are acceptable and un-acceptable risks here; and coastal passagemaking or island hopping are one thing (with known weather windows that have a few days of extra good weather). Going across oceans with family aboard or sailing out into hazardous seas because you need to stay on schedule is quite another.

There is a reason why you need to be 18 to join the Navy; and there is a reason why there are laws that protect children from endangerment; but unfortunately there is no enforcement of this when it comes to taking kids far offshore. Remember, they have no choice in the matter; and you ARE taking a risk whether you go out for a daysail or for a trip across the ocean. It is your decision as the person responsible to make decisions on behalf of everyone onboard; even if they cant (a meek spouse) or don't know they should protest your choices regarding their personal safety.

This magical miniature craft that is impervious to wind and waves in the most powerful fury the ocean has to offer (50' seas, 100kt winds or more) simply does not exist. (well, it does but it's not designed to be more than a single person boat; or a tender). If it did exist; the patent holder would be a billionaire. But it doesn't; so forget about that little fantasy.


----------



## n0w0rries (May 17, 2009)

I don't understand why you guys get so worked up. It's not like somebody's going to go offshore without a life raft because they read this post. Anybody who would do that deserves whatever fate they get handed.

Having a life raft, a survivor suit, a dinghy, a EPIRB, all give you options in an emergency. Options are a good thing.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

wunhunglo said:


> *My obviously useless input must have come from sitting on the couch reading sailing magazines or using Google.*
> 
> Smack D:
> You know my posts from other places... hopefully you can see through my sarcasm on mine in this topic.


Hey - the above works just fine for me!

Seriously WHL, I totally understand the thin-blue-line thing. Trust me. I've dangled from its noose a few times. And it is WAY better than it used to be around here in that regard. Trust me there too.

CD is a great guy. He's the ultimate nice guy who's sacrificed a lot for SN and is now doing what we all dream of. And he's been a shining light around here when things were going to hell in a handbasket. That's why we'll jump to his defense at times. So, take all that with a grain of salt.

I know your posts from SA and I know sarcasm when I see it. Hopefully, people around here can see it too.

More importantly, as has been said by other guys here, including the mods, I for one really value your experience and input and would hate to see the thin-blue-line strangle that input. In my opinion, we definitely need more variety in experience. It helps guys like me, newbs that are crazy about this sport, learn. It was great to see you and Boom come over and keep us up to date on stuff.

So don't pipe down. Let's just all agree to Harden The Freak Up and talk sailing. Anyway I always prefer a good, gentlemanly beatdown to niceties.


----------



## catamount (Sep 8, 2002)

Paul_L said:


> > 3. We have taken what some consider an extreme position regarding life rafts (not to carry one), but it is in fact a supremely practical position and not a purist position. After a lot of study and evaluation, I honestly believe that carrying a life raft decreases the likelihood of saving a vessel and decreases crew safety.
> 
> 
> This is from Evan S's site, Seamanship
> So there is clearly a wide range of opinion on Liferafts even among those who have clearly studied the issue and have serious experience.


Evans' take on the life-raft issue is really much more nuanced than the limited quote above. There's a lot more, for example:
This is a distinctly personal choice, based on our own assessment of the likely true risks and how to most effectively minimize them. We rarely even mention this decision to others, as we do not want others to base such an important decision on our reasoning and logic.​
Those who are interested should really read the whole FAQ...


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

catamount said:


> Evans' take on the life-raft issue is really much more nuanced than the limited quote above. There's a lot more, for example:This is a distinctly personal choice, based on our own assessment of the likely true risks and how to most effectively minimize them. We rarely even mention this decision to others, as we do not want others to base such an important decision on our reasoning and logic.​Those who are interested should really read the whole FAQ...


Yep, that's why I included the link.

Paul L


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Oh come now people! Do you really want to take the advice of someone who has such disdain for a liferaft that he calls it a "magic black box"? What I call that is being paranoid about whether or not the unit he spent his money on (which would be soo much better spent elsewhere) is going to deploy. If money were that big of a concern for a cruising sailor to be penny pinching about liferaft cost OR maintenance/system upgrade cost; I got news for you: You can't afford to go cruising!

There are lots of good things that Evan says in his article about being self reliant and not getting in the situation of needing to go aboard the raft. I also agree with what he says about the intense need to find and stem a leak BEFORE the water has filled the hull to where it cant be found. You need to know exactly where all of your hull penetrations are and be able to access them quickly and systematically; because this is where water will likely be entering unless you hit an object.

What I don't agree with is the argument that a raft will negate the need to find or stop the leak. In addition I don't agree with the notion that if your boat sinks you should accept your fate. The only chance you have of being found alive in survival conditions would be in a liferaft or other craft that was specifically designed to weather heavy seas. To highlight my comment that Evan is not working with a full deck here is to point out that he also is skeptical about the value of an EPIRB in it's ability to effect a successful SAR. Well there are roughly 22,000 people who have been rescued thanks to the EPIRB's implementation in 1982. That's roughly 800 people per year who are alive that may not have been. I wonder how many of those people were aboard liferafts? Evan himself includes "boarding a raft" in his ditch procedures (LOL).

Again; statistical data that was compiled following the big offshore races like Fastnet are limited and flawed data sets. This was ~30 years ago! Many of the problems that are associated with liferaft design and survivability were developed AS A RESULT of races like Fastnet and continued research and development has been done to improve the performance and survivability of liferafts in heavy seas and wind.

As I have said before; should you RELY on the raft to save you? Absolutely not. Should you be prepared with a life saving raft or lifeboat to give yourself a chance of survival if you can't stop your boat from sinking or burning? Absolutely.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

KeelHaulin said:


> The scenario posted by Smack is a bit melodramatic. Who is gonna take their family out into the sea and put themselves into the position of survival sailing with their children aboard? YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!! NATURAL SELECTION AFTER THE FACT! (sadly for the children involved)


Once again, sorry if this represents a thread hijack, can't resist a response 

Anyone who is planning voyaging which will include an ocean crossing or two and thinks that Smack's scenario can't happen to them would do their family a great service by disposing of the boat ASAP. It can happen to anyone and you don't have to be stupid.

Once again I come back to the Sleavin event and their weather wasn't even that bad - they just happened to get in the way of a ship. Judith Sleavin gives a chilling account of how her family was sequentially drowned in a fashion not disimilar to Smack's hyperbole.

Seriously bad weather is in all voyagers' destinies, those who manage to consistently escape it are lucky.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

*Sleavin's book* is a very chilling tale. If you don't know about the story, it was detailed in a book called Ten Degrees of Reckoning by Hester Rumberg. The dust jacket intro says:



> In 1993, Judith and Michael Sleavin and their two children set out to live their dream: to sail around the world. But one night, a freighter off the coast of New Zealand altered its course by a mere ten degrees. And changed everything. After surviving forty-four hours in the water, with a back broken in several places and paralyzed below the waist, Judith miraculously survived. Doctors would later say she suffered one of the worst cases of post-traumatic stress syndrome ever documented. News of the collision made headlines around the world, but, distraught, Judith never talked to the press. Her body was broken, and so was her soul.


----------



## catamount (Sep 8, 2002)

KeelHaulin said:


> To highlight my comment that Evan is not working with a full deck here is to point out that he also is skeptical about the value of an EPIRB in it's ability to effect a successful SAR. Well there are roughly 22,000 people who have been rescued thanks to the EPIRB's implementation in 1982.


And where were these people when they were rescued? Probably near the coast of the "developed" world, where there are search and rescue resources available. There _are_ counter examples where people have set off their EPIRB and no help was forthcoming, at least not in a timely fashion -- these are in areas that might be considered "third world" or otherwise very remote regions. Evans' point is not that EPIRBs are useless, rather that they do not necessarily _guarantee_ rescue, and that one should take that into account in their thinking.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Omatako said:


> Once again, sorry if this represents a thread hijack, can't resist a response
> 
> Anyone who is planning voyaging which will include an ocean crossing or two and thinks that Smack's scenario can't happen to them would do their family a great service by disposing of the boat ASAP. It can happen to anyone and you don't have to be stupid.
> 
> ...


To live is to experience danger. If your goal is to minimize it, get a work that can be made at home and don't go out 

I doubt that, crossing the Atlantic, in the right season, with good weather information, on an oceangoing boat (assuming you are an experienced sailor) is not more dangerous than making the same number of miles on European Country roads. You can also be smashed to pieces, on a narrow road, by a truck out of control. That's what happened to a neighbor of mine.

Accidents happen everywhere, and I don't think that crossing the Atlantic (assuming the conditions I have mentioned) is particularly dangerous.

But I would say that doing that with kids with less than 6 years (sometimes with babies) would be inacceptable (for me). Not only young kids are more prone to physical accidents but mainly, they need more frequent medical attention and sometimes even an hospital. Denying young kids an eventual need of medical attention for 15 days or more, is not (for me) an acceptable risk.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

wunhunglo said:


> Brian,
> My post had no intent to belittle. My apologies if you felt that.
> 
> Your original topic's title made this almost mandatory reading, so I entered the hallowed halls of SN, cap in hand as a newbie on this forum . I see an extravagant claim that essentially says don't use liferafts, they will kill you. I read on ... seeing many sing your praises and hardly a person had commented on your damning and inaccurate generalization.
> ...


WHL,

That was a very nice post. Thank you for the clarification.

First, if I have in any way painted that Liferafts are dangerous or will kill you, then I have poorly presented my point of view. That was in no way my intention - at all. I wanted to make clear that not all rafts are created equal. A raft is not a raft. In the example we saw, that raft could not have been righted unless done so by a freak accident of mother nature. I suspect any raft of similar design would face the same challenge. It was obvious from what we saw that no one was crawling up on that raft. The fact that it was also partially deflated was another damning. Anyonje who might have trusted their lives in that product (or God forbid left their not yet sunk vessel for that raft) were in for a terrible realization. My other point that I wanted to make was that even a few hours later, with an exact fix and drift, only a few hours from the USCG station, the coast guard could not find that raft. More than anything, that was sobering.

Does it mean that anyone died in that raft? No. Most likely not. I never said that. Whether there was or was not someone in there I believe is not the point. The point was a more generalized discussion about rafts and what I saw in the real world, versus the really nice pictures you see when going through the internet or any marketing propaganda. This is not, once again, to say that all rafts have problems. However, I think there may be some inherent short comings worth discussing. In all things there are tradeoffs, but the point of all of this is a hard lined view at what might make a good raft, a bad raft, or even options outside of a raft and where it might be acceptable (or not). The 'Pudgy-type', as I discussed in a previous post, has many short comings too and is not the right thing for everyone. However, I do not think it should be dismissed out of hand.

With the exception of the raft I saw, please do not missunderstand my criticism of a product as me not liking the product. I criticize my C400 - but would not hesitiate to buy it again depending on some factors. I also criticize Valiants - a boat I love and know well. Would I buy one? You betcha, depending on the use and some factors. Tradoffs. Everything has them. Rafts are no different.

But this discussion is about safety. Safety has to take a higher ground in my opinion. You see something you dissagree with - TELL ME! This is serious stuff. I take it very serious. Everyone should. And what I saw, again in my opinion, was very important. It was the basis of a very good discussion and and some opposing views. And I hope that, nieve or not, someone might actually read this thread and consider it when deciding on what raft to purchase to potentially save their families/crew. How big are the balalsts? How is it deployed? It is theoretically 'rightable', but will that happen in teh real world? Can the 'self-rightable' really work in teh real world, and what has to happen for it to be righted? Maybe they make an informed decision to buy a raft-boat instead? Maybe they do neither. But it at least is a more informed decision.

Paul commented earlier about me (and excuse as I do not have the exact quote) refining my opinion more in line with the point you and he were talking about. He called it a Internet miracle. Well Paul & WHL, I have never had a problem doing that. I have had some darned good debates on here before which really did end up changing my point of view. I am not here to win any arguments. If I feeel strongly about something, I may stay my ground. But I have always tried to stand back and see alternative point of view. I have also managed to get through to a few people and change them.

I believe the failure of the internet is that you cannot inflect tone, that people will do and say things that they would not do in person (God forbid), and that some people pretend to know stuff but have only discovered it via the web which can have biased information, if accurate at all. There also seems to be this pride on the internet of winning the argument, through whatever means necessary, and geting in the last word. I don't buy that - though I am as guilty as anyone of letting some commetns get under my skin. I'm still human!

I hope you will not restrict yourself to browsing. Not here. That is not what this place is about. We try to have a more friendly and gentlemanly discussion, but that does not always work. I will say that the atmosphere here is different than SA which is why I participate here and not SA. The atmosphere here is generally very friendly. I have met many people here and call them on the phone from time to time to say hello. We joke around, but more family-friendly than other places.

Get to know us and me. Don;t let a very contentious debate shadow your view on the whole. And do not be afraid to tell me I am wrong if you feel I am! I am not perfect - just a guy cruising with his kids again and enjoying a little blessing and fortune that we have been given. You cruised with your family. I bet you know what I mean!

All the best to you and Paul and thank you for your participation and first hand input.

Brian


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

sailingdog said:


> *Sleavin's book* is a very chilling tale. If you don't know about the story, it was detailed in a book called Ten Degrees of Reckoning by Hester Rumberg. The dust jacket intro says:


The story sure is a sad one, although not that well written. Looking at this one in a simplistic way, the choice to mount the radar display below decks was the small item that started the whole chain of events that caused the disaster.

Paul L


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd point out the writing was mostly done by Hester Rumberg, not Judith Sleavin. I'd also agree that having radar aboard but not easily visible from the helm is a mistake at best. What is the point of having it, if it cannot be used while underway??



Paul_L said:


> The story sure is a sad one, although not that well written. Looking at this one in a simplistic way, the choice to mount the radar display below decks was the small item that started the whole chain of events that caused the disaster.
> 
> Paul L


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Omatako said:


> Anyone who is planning voyaging which will include an ocean crossing or two and thinks that Smack's scenario can't happen to them would do their family a great service by disposing of the boat ASAP. It can happen to anyone and you don't have to be stupid.
> 
> Once again I come back to the Sleavin event and their weather wasn't even that bad - they just happened to get in the way of a ship. Judith Sleavin gives a chilling account of how her family was sequentially drowned in a fashion not disimilar to Smack's hyperbole.


OK; did I ever say that Smack's scenario could not happen; or that it was not plausible? I said that if you ever found yourself in the situation he described YOU MUST BE WITHOUT BRAINS. I'm sorry; but taking your family on ocean crossing voyages in a small craft (smaller than something like a cruise ship) is just foolish. You have kids only to put them in a situation where their life depends on what the weather patterns decide to throw at you? You see; most SANE people who have children choose to live their life for their child so their child will grow up to be an adult.

That being said; I'm sure that there are hundreds if not thousands of families floating around out there in the deep blue sea. Of them a handful of those families will experience tragedy; maybe never heard from again, maybe loss of life with a parent or both surviving, leaving them to suffer in grief for the rest of their days for the mistake they made of taking their children offshore.

All of these people who go cruising with their children will defend their choices to the end. Their child is getting such a rich and diverse upbringing; an alternative lifestyle, enrichment of culture, escape from the modern world, blah blah blah... But what they never mention is the rough times, the fear, and then they write books about their tragic loss after they have lost everything including their kids; AND NEVER ACCEPT THEIR OWN PART IN IT, that they never should have put the family in that situation in the first place.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

KeelHaulin said:


> OK; did I ever say that Smack's scenario could not happen; or that it was not plausible? I said that if you ever found yourself in the situation he described YOU MUST BE WITHOUT BRAINS. I'm sorry; but taking your family on ocean crossing voyages in a small craft (smaller than something like a cruise ship) is just foolish. You have kids only to put them in a situation where their life depends on what the weather patterns decide to throw at you? You see; most SANE people who have children choose to live their life for their child so their child will grow up to be an adult.
> 
> That being said; I'm sure that there are hundreds if not thousands of families floating around out there in the deep blue sea. Of them a handful of those families will experience tragedy; maybe never heard from again, maybe loss of life with a parent or both surviving, leaving them to suffer in grief for the rest of their days for the mistake they made of taking their children offshore.
> 
> All of these people who go cruising with their children will defend their choices to the end. Their child is getting such a rich and diverse upbringing; an alternative lifestyle, enrichment of culture, escape from the modern world, blah blah blah... But what they never mention is the rough times, the fear, and then they write books about their tragic loss after they have lost everything including their kids; AND NEVER ACCEPT THEIR OWN PART IN IT, that they never should have put the family in that situation in the first place.


WOW! I meet all kinds of people who cruise with their kids and are quite happy and safe. I guess you don't own a car and drive down the street, because that is way more dangerous than taking your kids cruising.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

KeelHaulin said:


> OK; did I ever say that Smack's scenario could not happen; or that it was not plausible? I said that if you ever found yourself in the situation he described YOU MUST BE WITHOUT BRAINS. I'm sorry; but taking your family on ocean crossing voyages in a small craft (smaller than something like a cruise ship) is just foolish. You have kids only to put them in a situation where their life depends on what the weather patterns decide to throw at you? You see; most SANE people who have children choose to live their life for their child so their child will grow up to be an adult.
> 
> That being said; I'm sure that there are hundreds if not thousands of families floating around out there in the deep blue sea. Of them a handful of those families will experience tragedy; maybe never heard from again, maybe loss of life with a parent or both surviving, leaving them to suffer in grief for the rest of their days for the mistake they made of taking their children offshore.
> 
> All of these people who go cruising with their children will defend their choices to the end. Their child is getting such a rich and diverse upbringing; an alternative lifestyle, enrichment of culture, escape from the modern world, blah blah blah... But what they never mention is the rough times, the fear, and then they write books about their tragic loss after they have lost everything including their kids; AND NEVER ACCEPT THEIR OWN PART IN IT, that they never should have put the family in that situation in the first place.


More than once I have woken up sweaty thinking about that very thing. If, as a parent, it you have not been scared by the reality, then you have not been far offshore or you have some wires twisted. I think the life raft issue affected me as much as it did because of the kids.

I am not sure I would take my kids across the pond with me on a long run. I would really need to get my girl out in some more stroms offshore and see how she does. My issue is not just safety, but the kids being pinned up in a hole for a long time. Shorter runs of a few days, where the weather information can be deemed a little reliable and you can pick when to go... well, I am a little more comfortable with that.

But I respectfully dissagree with your assessment. And although I have nightmares about things happening, I also watch as my kids have consistently grown to love this life. More than once, they have said thank you to me and Kris about bringing them here, living on the boat, etc. I will not dissagree that in many cases, your presumptions may be correct. But I have also seen just the opposite. We met some great Candian friends just a month or two ago and we became fairly close and found that both our kids have very similar traits and both would not leave the boat for a home-side living. I am not talking about parents... I am talking about the kids.

But tehn again, I grew up deep woods backpacking. I am not talking about camping. Cmaping is fun - but I am talking about loading a pack and heading off for a week or two. There were no cell phones then (at least that we could afford). And though you might say that backpacking is a safer life, I will tell you that more than once we were put in some survival conditions. But I grew to have a love and appreciation for nature, the mountains, and became very independent. I think it made me the person I am today. Those experiences cannot be replaced by anything in the ordinary.

So basically I see your point KH. You make a good argument. But there is a line there that can be drawn and a balance. Where taht balance and line is? Well, that is up to th parents I guess. I certainly would not put it in anyone else hands.

Just my opinions.

Brian

PS I wonder if we should take this conversation to the childrens forum?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

KeelHaulin said:


> OK; did I ever say that Smack's scenario could not happen; or that it was not plausible? I said that if you ever found yourself in the situation he described YOU MUST BE WITHOUT BRAINS.


Keel, you're absolutely right. It was a pretty implausible scenario. I've never come across any yacht being holed by a horse hoof and going down. And if you do sink due to such an occurrence, you're definitely without brains. So you're right on that score.

The rest of it, however....


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

KeelHaulin said:


> OK; did I ever say that Smack's scenario could not happen; or that it was not plausible? I said that if you ever found yourself in the situation he described YOU MUST BE WITHOUT BRAINS. I'm sorry; but taking your family on ocean crossing voyages in a small craft (smaller than something like a cruise ship) is just foolish. You have kids only to put them in a situation where their life depends on what the weather patterns decide to throw at you? You see; most SANE people who have children choose to live their life for their child so their child will grow up to be an adult.
> 
> That being said; I'm sure that there are hundreds if not thousands of families floating around out there in the deep blue sea. Of them a handful of those families will experience tragedy; maybe never heard from again, maybe loss of life with a parent or both surviving, leaving them to suffer in grief for the rest of their days for the mistake they made of taking their children offshore.
> 
> All of these people who go cruising with their children will defend their choices to the end. Their child is getting such a rich and diverse upbringing; an alternative lifestyle, enrichment of culture, escape from the modern world, blah blah blah... But what they never mention is the rough times, the fear, and then they write books about their tragic loss after they have lost everything including their kids; AND NEVER ACCEPT THEIR OWN PART IN IT, that they never should have put the family in that situation in the first place.


That seems to me a vast overstatement, to say the least:

"I'm sorry; but *taking your family on ocean crossing voyages in a small craft (smaller than something like a cruise ship) is just foolish"*....a handful of those families will experience tragedy; ." 

My friend, accidents happen everywhere. Do you think that an occasional crossing, in a well prepared ocean going boat (not a ship ) made by a well prepared crew (Kids can be part of the crew) on the right season and with good weather information is more dangerous than crossing everyday a very busy traffic lane? or than to be driven to School and back every day, on crowded motorways, by a school bus or in Daddy's car? or making an annual long car family trip to enjoy holidays in a nice place?

Take into consideration that ocean crossings by a cruising family are rare, they spend most of the time doing coastal cruising, but all the above road examples are frequent, some happen everyday. Do you think that the overall risk is really so significantly bigger, to call foolish the ones that have chosen other lifestyle?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

smackdaddy said:


> Keel, you're absolutely right. It was a pretty implausible scenario. I've never come across any yacht being holed by a horse hoof and going down. And if you do sink due to such an occurrence, you're definitely without brains. So you're right on that score.
> 
> The rest of it, however....


I don't know... Quite possible in the horse lattitudes.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> So basically I see your point KH. You make a good argument. But there is a line there that can be drawn and a balance. Where taht balance and line is? Well, that is up to th parents I guess. I certainly would not put it in anyone else hands.


Yes; there is and that is up to you to decide what is an acceptable risk and what is not. From what I have read CD you are a person who takes these things seriously and would not knowingly put your family in the situation where your survival depended on everything going perfectly. Of course there is no guarantee that something will happen but you do your best to minimize the risk. If it were me, I would not go on long passages where you can't be at the next port before the 96 hour weather report is expired. If conditions change and you get some unexpected rough weather that's acceptable; but if you are knowingly sailing into the eye of a storm and must make port before it hits, or sail around it to get there well you are taking your chances.

I can't see going on ocean crossing voyages with all the eggs in the basket as being a responsible parent. This is where I lose sympathy for those who have lost their children; regardless of who was ultimately at-fault.


----------



## blackjenner (Feb 5, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Keel, you're absolutely right. It was a pretty implausible scenario. I've never come across any yacht being holed by a horse hoof and going down. And if you do sink due to such an occurrence, you're definitely without brains. So you're right on that score.
> 
> The rest of it, however....


Well, sometimes people are so busy picking nits and a fight they don't see the larger context of the conversation. Ya know the one, where people are treating each other decently and working for understanding instead of being 'right'.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

KeelHaulin said:


> Yes; there is and that is up to you to decide what is an acceptable risk and what is not. From what I have read CD you are a person who takes these things seriously and would not knowingly put your family in the situation where your survival depended on everything going perfectly. Of course there is no guarantee that something will happen but you do your best to minimize the risk. If it were me, I would not go on long passages where you can't be at the next port before the 96 hour weather report is expired. If conditions change and you get some unexpected rough weather that's acceptable; but if you are knowingly sailing into the eye of a storm and must make port before it hits, or sail around it to get there well you are taking your chances.
> 
> I can't see going on ocean crossing voyages with all the eggs in the basket as being a responsible parent. This is where I lose sympathy for those who have lost their children; regardless of who was ultimately at-fault.


Well (humorously), and to point out the real world aspects too, taking yoru family across the ocean, weeks at a time, starting at each other, well... tempers are going to flare! I would not consider that a stree-free environment, regardless of the weather.

I am not saying I would not do it, I am not saying I would. I am just telling you that I would have a few more greys before I raised Europe, assuming there was not a mutiny and I was testing out my own life raft!!!!

Thanks for the kind words by the way.

Brian


----------



## tweitz (Apr 5, 2007)

Although it is somewhat less likely, one does not need to cross the pond to find a dangerous or survival condition. The risks are lower, search and rescue is closer, but the great bulk of fatalities and injuries happen a lot closer to home (also the great bulk of sailing). All of these issues go to risk -- a lady doing her gardening in her front yard was hit by a car and killed the other day, Nothing is risk free. I love sailing, I introduced it to my kids when they were pretty young. They enjoy it, though they are not as consumed with it as I am. And three of my four grandchildren have already started sailing (the fourth one is only three weeks old, but she will surely sail this summer. But, though i try reasonably to mitigate the risk i don't delude myself that it is risk free. Lifeboats or liferafts are no guarantee of anything. Life comes with few guarantees. They are simply ways of adjusting the odds. If we strip away the polemics, this discussion was useful in pointing out the benefits and weaknesses. Thanks CD for starting the thread, and other for contributing. And I will still go sailing with the whole crowd, as I think that on balance their lives are far more enriched than risked.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

Well; I'm glad someone here can see where I am coming from! I'm not just trying to be 'right'. What is right is for each boat owner to decide. While many of you may disagree with my position; that does not mean that you are any more right than I or that a healthy debate about what is or is not the right thing to do is not a good thing.

I just saw this thread going in the direction of: Liferafts, and EPIRBS are useless; and taking everyone offshore including the dog and then sinking, while tragic, is OK if it was an 'accident', and that damn liferaft is to blame because it did not work correctly. Sorry; but I had to speak my mind and give this thread a reality check (please check your own reality).


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

tweitz said:


> but the great bulk of fatalities and injuries happen a lot closer to home (also the great bulk of sailing)....
> 
> And I will still go sailing with the whole crowd, as I think that on balance their lives are far more enriched than risked.


That's true; and unfortunately there is a at least WEEKLY SAR call here -inside- SF Bay for boats in distress. In many ways the cruisers that go offshore on passages are better equipped and more capable of keeping their boat afloat and their families safe than are the average daysailor. Regardless of where you are going; it is your responsibility to make sure that the boat remains just that.

I don't believe that kids should not be out on the water. Quite the opposite. I was a sea scout when I was a kid. The 50' wood hulled boat we had was a piece of junk; and looking back on the regard our skipper had for safety and boat repair (fix it when it breaks) brings a chill to my spine.

I just don't want to hear more stories about kids who have died because of their parent's dream to go world cruising; or coastal sailing in a boat that was not seaworthy. Being a responsible parent ALSO includes being a responsible boat owner with regards to repair and safety; and that was the point I was trying to make.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

I guess we're kind of off on the tangent anyway....

In theory, I don't have a problem with parents sailing across oceans with their kids -- subject to the risk mitigations Paulo mentioned above. I would REALLY like to do that with my family.

In practice, however, I have to admit deep reservations. In our case, we've got one kid with a serious, chronic illness that flares up infrequently. But there's no predicting when that will happen. The condition is generally treatable and has never required hospitalization -- but we've been very close more than once. 

I know there are plenty of risks in daily life - and frankly I agree that they are probably equal to or greater than those faced in a well found vessel on an ocean passage. But the "what if" factor nags me -- nothing about my own safety, or storms, etc -- just our kids health and especially the one with the illness. 

As we look at the (remote) possibility of taking a family sailing sabbatical, I find my eye tracing the east coast of N. America (Canada, U.S., Bahamas) or the Pacific Northwest Coastline, and thinking "Man, there is so much to see right here." We could have a real adventure, with plenty of challenges and no doubt some set-backs, and yet be within reasonable range of medical care if necessary. Maybe it doesn't have to be "all or nothing."

I'm sure that sounds lame/weak to the more adventurous among us. But there you have it.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

KeelHaulin said:


> ...I just don't want to hear more stories about kids who have died because of their parent's dream to go world cruising; or coastal sailing in a boat that was not seaworthy. Being a responsible parent ALSO includes being a responsible boat owner with regards to repair and safety; and that was the point I was trying to make.


 That seems a somewhat different point of view to me, but with this one I cannot agree more.

I have to say that I have seen people cruising in boats, doing offshore in boats that I would not sail even in the harbor. Some of those stories that you refer to are of people that go sailing and crossing oceans in old and poor boats. People that know very little of sailing and trust in God and luck. Those are a shameful minority.

Personally I have sold my 7 year old Bavaria 36 because I want a better boat to sail offshore and eventually to cross oceans with the family. I think I have the knowledge and I am sufficiently experienced (15 000 miles on all kind of conditions and an unlimited captain's license) to sail safely, providing I have the right equipment.

I would have no problem in sailing solo my old boat across the Atlantic (it was prepared for offshore work) and I believe I would not be taking any kind of significant risk. A countryman has circumnavigated twice with a Bavaria 36 and a friend of mine has crossed twice. Neither of them was in any really frighten, death threatening situation and both have said that the boat could take much more (safely) than what they had thought it would.

I would cross solo on that boat, but not with the family. Perhaps if I was a much more experienced sailor, I could have the confidence to do that, but as it is, I have been studying boats and naval architecture for the last 5 years (I plan ahead ) and I am almost ready to buy a suitable boat to sail anywhere with the family, one that put together with my experience can guarantee me a risk that I can accept and also provide the kind of sailing pleasure that I and my kids like.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Polypterus (Dec 16, 2009)

I'm a bit confused by the direction of this thread. I guess I fail to see the logic in not having a Life raft. I can understand a discussion on which life raft is best, or when you should or shouldn’t abandon ship for a life raft, or even how to use a life raft. However there seems to be at least some inclination that a life raft may be considered a negative. To me it just seems like another option and I always look at options as a positive. Let's say your life raft does capsize and you can't flip it back over. Are you really in any worse shape than not having one at all? Is there an actually argument here to not buy any life raft other than cost savings?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Poly - I agree with you. For the record, I'm for having every safety item/system I possibly can have. I'm also for doing everything I possibly can to never need them. But I think it's seriously goofy to become some "safety ascetic" because you think the presence of those items/systems somehow diminishes your "safety discipline".

(In practice, I must confess that I sailed on a Melges 24 in big air without a pfd this past weekend. I won't be doing that again. It's so easy to be smart in writing - and so easy to be dumb in reality, eh?)


----------



## Paul_L (Sep 16, 2004)

Polypterus said:


> I'm a bit confused by the direction of this thread. I guess I fail to see the logic in not having a Life raft. I can understand a discussion on which life raft is best, or when you should or shouldn't abandon ship for a life raft, or even how to use a life raft. However there seems to be at least some inclination that a life raft may be considered a negative. To me it just seems like another option and I always look at options as a positive. Let's say your life raft does capsize and you can't flip it back over. Are you really in any worse shape than not having one at all? Is there an actually argument here to not buy any life raft other than cost savings?


If you look at Evans FAQ, it is a pretty cogent argument against a lot of safety equipment, such as a Life Raft. It is of course a personal choice. I choose to go with a lower-cost life-raft, but to have one. There are plenty of cases where safety equipment has put the owners into more harm, not less. An example would be the Westsail evacuation in the Perfect Storm. The boat survived just fine and the occupants and the CG were put at great risk due to the evacuation. In hindsight, greater risk than just waiting it out. If the SSB had not been on board (safety equipment), the crews Mayday would not have been answered.

Paul L


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JohnRPollard said:


> I guess we're kind of off on the tangent anyway....
> 
> In theory, I don't have a problem with parents sailing across oceans with their kids -- subject to the risk mitigations Paulo mentioned above. I would REALLY like to do that with my family.
> 
> ...


I am sorry to hear that. It don't seem lame to me. I agree with you.

Perhaps when the kid is old enough to understand the situation, you can make that passage to Europe, and have him join the rest of the family there.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Polypterus (Dec 16, 2009)

Paul_L said:


> If you look at Evans FAQ, it is a pretty cogent argument against a lot of safety equipment, such as a Life Raft. It is of course a personal choice. I choose to go with a lower-cost life-raft, but to have one. There are plenty of cases where safety equipment has put the owners into more harm, not less. An example would be the Westsail evacuation in the Perfect Storm. The boat survived just fine and the occupants and the CG were put at great risk due to the evacuation. In hindsight, greater risk than just waiting it out. If the SSB had not been on board (safety equipment), the crews Mayday would not have been answered.
> 
> Paul L


I really don't find any of these arguments convincing. First off, a boat is a huge expense. I certainly wouldn't be eager to let my boat sink if I could do something to save her. Even with insurance a lot of people go through a painstaking search to find a boat they like (I did), and insurance if you have it often doesn't cover all the costs anyway. The idea that just because the life raft is there you won't try to save your boat just seems silly to me.

Having just bought a boat I am going though every seacock and making sure they all work and are in good shape, plugs are handy, hatches are in good shape, etc. Life raft or not, the idea of my boat sinking is just horrifying to me. I just don't buy into this psychology bit. It sounds like psycho babble.

Also I would imagine that most people who don't take the effort to research proper use of a life raft may not have acquired the skills or knowledge to save their boat anyway. In that case having the life raft may save them after all.

Let's go farther and say a crew just panics and inflates the life raft before they should. Why do you think that same panicked crew is thinking clearly enough to save their boat? Let's even say the boat would be savable by someone thinking clearly. That still doesn't help these guys. Again, at least the life raft still gives them some chance.

As for the crew of the Westsail they made a decision given their assessment of the situation. In hind sight you can claim their decision was poor but you really can't say for sure. What if they had stayed and a crew member had been washed overboard or struck by some flying object? In my view looking at single case doesn't tell you much anyway. I'm sure there have been situations where abandoning ship too early has cost lives. But what I want to see is the data that shows that boats with life rafts have more fatalities than boats without? I mean when all is said and done isn't that what it comes down to?

Finally let's just say you hit a cargo container, there is a huge gaping hole in your boat and there is nothing that you can do to save her. What then? At that point all the logic about not having a life raft goes out the window. You better have one.

I tend to consider redundancy good. In fact I used to work for the DoRD (Department of Redundancy Department) &#8230;. Ok bad joke  But still redundancy in and of itself is never a bad thing and a life raft provides you with some level of redundancy.


----------



## GaryHLucas (Mar 24, 2008)

Tell me again what this life raft thingy is? Sounds angerous, climbing out of a boat, into something that came out of a suitcase just a couple of minutes ago. What really scares me is a fire! Can't have enough fire extinguisher on board!

But then, I sail an Etap 26, and I don't even own a bilge pump. But I do have a large sponge and a bucket.

Gary H. Lucas


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I know what you mean... 



GaryHLucas said:


> Tell me again what this life raft thingy is? Sounds angerous, climbing out of a boat, into something that came out of a suitcase just a couple of minutes ago. What really scares me is a fire! Can't have enough fire extinguisher on board!
> 
> But then, I sail an Etap 26, and I don't even own a bilge pump. But I do have a large sponge and a bucket.
> 
> Gary H. Lucas


----------



## Polypterus (Dec 16, 2009)

GaryHLucas said:


> Tell me again what this life raft thingy is? Sounds angerous, climbing out of a boat, into something that came out of a suitcase just a couple of minutes ago. What really scares me is a fire! Can't have enough fire extinguisher on board!
> 
> But then, I sail an Etap 26, and I don't even own a bilge pump. But I do have a large sponge and a bucket.
> 
> Gary H. Lucas


I'm all for the Etap philosophy. I just wish the styling was more to my liking.

However you are right, the life raft thing is angerous


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Poly-
It has been proven--not just said but researched and proven--time and time again that in many cases, life rafts KILL.
Any public library should be able to get you a copy of "Fastnet, Force 10" by interlibrary exchange if they don't have it. By now that is an old classic, which investigated the disaster of the Fastnet Race including the significant number of boats lost and abandoned in favor of life rafts. Of the boats abandoned as "sinking", most didn't sink. Of the crews that abandoned boats in favor of life rafts--more would have survived if they had NOT HAD LIFE RAFTS AND STAYED IN THEIR BOATS.
Broken bones, maybe. Puked to the point f injury, maybe. But survived because their boats survived.
For the past 30(?) years the Safety At Sea seminars (and if you haven't been to one, make it your business to go) have taught sailors that you NEVER STEP INTO A LIFE RAFT, YOU ONLY STEP UP TO ONE. If your boat is not lower down in the water than the life raft is--you stay on the boat, because boats have a greater ability to survive, than life rafts.

Now add to that the great expense of life rafts, the great ongoing expense of repacks (and remember, you're not going sailing during the month the repack may take), and the short life of life rafts (expect it to be condemned at 10 years, ante up another five grand)...there's a very good question that the money spent on life rafts and raft maintenance would be better invested in more important safety equipment, like replacing the rigging every ten years, buying new sails and electronics (i.e. EPIRB and man overboard rdf systems), etcetera.

I don't say not to have a life raft--just that it isn't nirvana. It isn't even life insurance. It is only one option, that has to be carefully weighed and placed among the others. A big roll of contractor grade garbage bags and some duct tape might actually be safer in some instances. (At least you don't have to worry about the repack station stealing your garbage bags and giving you back an empty canister.)


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

I think the problem is with the name. "Life Raft" is too inviting.

Maybe we should call it the "Last Rites Inflatable".


----------



## Polypterus (Dec 16, 2009)

hellosailor said:


> Poly-
> It has been proven--not just said but researched and proven--time and time again that in many cases, life rafts KILL.


Everything kills. Guns kill, cars kill, golf carts kill. If you want to argue that staying on your boat is safer than sitting in a life raft, fair enough. However the statement "life rafts KILL", sounds more like fear mongering than what Life raft companies are being accused of.

Let's say we all agree you should never step DOWN to your life raft. (BTW: I've heard this many times before, even my first sailing instructor told me this) That still presents a problem if you are trying to step UP to one that doesn't exist. This is a straw man argument. With a little education the point becomes moot.



hellosailor said:


> I don't say not to have a life raft--just that it isn't nirvana. It isn't even life insurance. It is only one option, that has to be carefully weighed and placed among the others. A big roll of contractor grade garbage bags and some duct tape might actually be safer in some instances. (At least you don't have to worry about the repack station stealing your garbage bags and giving you back an empty canister.)


I don't believe anyone claimed it was nirvana or insurance, but it certainly isn't an option if you don't have one. I guess I should also grab some garbage bags next time I'm at Home Depot.


----------



## KeelHaulin (Mar 7, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> Any public library should be able to get you a copy of "Fastnet, Force 10" by interlibrary exchange if they don't have it. By now that is an old classic, which investigated the disaster of the Fastnet Race including the significant number of boats lost and abandoned in favor of life rafts. Of the boats abandoned as "sinking", most didn't sink. Of the crews that abandoned boats in favor of life rafts--more would have survived if they had NOT HAD LIFE RAFTS AND STAYED IN THEIR BOATS.


Again; 31 YEAR OLD STORY. EARLY ERA DESIGN LIFERAFTS. CREWS WHO WERE BEING PUMMELED BY FLYING BATTERIES AND STOVES. WEATHER AND SEA PREDICTIONS WERE NOT NEARLY AS SOPHISTICATED AS THEY ARE NOW. THERE WERE NO EPIRBS; SO IF YOU WERE LOST AT SEA, YOU REMAINED LOST. (bold text to be emphatic; not angry)

While it was an interesting case study; I make the argument that the analysis of the deployment success and survivability during Fastnet is now obsolete and should not be thrown up as the standard by which liferaft survival is still measured (31 years into the future). We all agree that "save the vessel, and stay aboard if you can" is the first priority. What if you can't save the vessel?? What is YOUR back-up plan?



> For the past 30(?) years the Safety At Sea seminars (and if you haven't been to one, make it your business to go) have taught sailors that you NEVER STEP INTO A LIFE RAFT, YOU ONLY STEP UP TO ONE. If your boat is not lower down in the water than the life raft is--you stay on the boat, because boats have a greater ability to survive, than life rafts.


If you are on a monohul and the cabin is knee deep in water; you better start planning to ditch. You won't be able to find the source of the incoming water quickly enough to stop the flow; your batteries are probably getting ready to short out if they have not already; you engine is flooded. If you are in rough seas one could only imagine the sloshing inside that would be going back and forth if there were anything more than a couple of inches on the floor. There is a point where one would know you won't be able to save the boat no matter what you do; and that is when you should make escape plans happen.

The J-120 that recently sank during the Baja Ha-Ha is a prime example. They determined that they would not be able to stem the flow with a torn rudder post so the crew activated their emergency plan which included boarding a liferaft in 15' seas. The only mistake they made was deployment of the raft on the deck; and then needed to haul it over the side. The raft kept them safe and alive (for ~12 hours IIRC) until they were spotted by the USCG; after hailing the USCG with a handheld VHF to come back to them as the helicopter flew right over the top of them without seeing the raft. Had they not had the raft; the crew would probably not have survived.



> Now add to that the great expense of life rafts, the great ongoing expense of repacks (and remember, you're not going sailing during the month the repack may take), and the short life of life rafts (expect it to be condemned at 10 years, ante up another five grand)...there's a very good question that the money spent on life rafts and raft maintenance would be better invested in more important safety equipment, like replacing the rigging every ten years, buying new sails and electronics (i.e. EPIRB and man overboard rdf systems), etcetera.


An expense that is a part of going offshore. One should not trade normal preventative maintenance and other safety gear for a proper survival craft. All that other stuff is worthless if the boat sinks (but no less required to get you to your destination). We all pay slip fees up the wazoo when the boat is used for weekend sailing; when you are cruising a lot of that expense goes away if you anchor out. You could justify your yearly slip fee for the cost of the raft if you are a cruiser.



> It isn't even life insurance.


Life insurance pays when you are dead. It really is more like death insurance to cover the cost of your untimely demise.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Poly-
" I guess I should also grab some garbage bags" Seriously, get the orange ones they use for highway pickups, or at Halloween. American Red Cross water safety training used to include howing you how to take off your pants, tie a knot in each leg, and whip them over you head to make a decent inflated float out of them. I don't think they bother teaching that any more--but it still works. However, a garbage bag can always be tucked into a back pocket and ignored, or eventually rotated out to clean garbie off the boat. (G)

But this is in no way a straw man argument. I'm saying that you need to put the entire concept of "life raft" into your equation, inlcuding the expenses, the other safety equipment that may be neglected because of the expenses, the failures in rafts and repacks...ALL THE NEGATIVES before simply saying that having a life raft at all beats not having one at all. The numbers may wok out very differently for different users.

KH says it is all in the past and FastNet is obsolete. Maybe, but that's also part of the larger perpective to look at. Read up on the QUITE RECENT USCG incidents about repacks that contained bricks. The Switlik recall (and others) indicating top-dollar rafts might be worthless.

And then there's Doug Ritter's interesting web site, EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE - Outdoors Gear, Survival Equipment Review & Survival Information which targets more of the aviation community. One light plane that sent down at sea did everything pretty right, including calling for a USCG response.

Except, the USCG budget was down, one Herc was being cannibalized for maintenance parts to maintain another, a second aircraft was down for routine overhaul...it doesn't matter if you do everything right, but our friends in DC have cut the SAR budget down so far that no assets can be sent to rescue you!

Life Rafts? I think we put too much faith in them, when what we really need is a DARPA project and award to bring out a totally new concept. One that won't rot in the bag, and won't require damaging repacks every year, either.


----------



## Omatako (Sep 14, 2003)

Just to explore another, perhaps, misnomer.

The widely bandied concept of "climbing *up* into your liferaft not *down*" should be read more as a figurative concept than an unavoidable fact of life.

I believe the "author" of the concept intended to say "Be *very sure* that your boat is sinking beyond redemption before getting into a liferaft". I don't believe it is meant to imply that physically one should stand on the deck, wait until the deck goes under then climb onto the lifelines and into a liferaft. Here's why I say that:

The chances of actually climbing up into a liferaft in a rough sea when it is being held alongside your boat would actually be very difficult and for all but the really athletic, virtually impossible.
The chances of a liferaft held alongside a heaving water-level deck getting holed by a stanchion or other piece of kit on the sinking vessel is incredibly likely.
The concept of getting in the water to climb into a liferaft would also require above-average physical ability which a lot of cruising folk don't have.
The concept of jumping from the deck ONTO the roof of the liferaft and scrambling into the opening is the *easiest way* even for physically challenged people to get into a liferaft.
My instructions to anyone when we're doing a safety drill and the discussion reaches liferafts is that if the decision is made to abandon ship, it will be done in time for everyone to jump onto/into the liferaft without having to be a world-class athlete.

Every sailor should be able to tell when his vessel is sinking - not when it is being thrown around but when you're knee deep in water in the salon. This is the skill that should be passed on by the ubiquitous all-knowing sailing instructor. At that point, unless you have found and stemmed the leak, the vessel is going down and as skipper you owe it to your crew to give them the best chance of actually getting into the liferaft.

I know that my wife will not be able to climb up into a liferaft. But I also believe I'll know when my boat is sinking beyond any doubt.


----------



## n0w0rries (May 17, 2009)

Life rafts don't kill... bad decisions kill.

You can monday morning quarterback it all day long... but you telling me life rafts kill is like you telling me guns kill people. 

There's always the chance that you get in a no win situation. You Monday morning quarterbacks can say "he should have stayed in the boat" or "he should have had a life raft", but that certainly doesn't make you right.


----------



## jaycallender (Mar 30, 2010)

Two things stand out to me-first-if you were out of VHF range, you should have had SSB for your own safety as well as reporting the liferaft find-someone mentioned aerlier int he thread the activation of your EPIRB at the point of find may well have been warranted.

As to life rafts-having had one save my life quite a few years ago, I have to be in favor of them. That said, every boatowner should have an emergency plan, well-stocked ditch kits, extra EPIRB and handheld VHF. Emergency plans should be practiced including getting into a lifeboat. We have had several boats do it together with a dealer providing a lifeboat for practice.
I have a 58' trawler and am famous among friends for going through the do's, don'ts and all emergency procedures every time before leaving the dock, even for a dinner cruise. It is a pain, and some friends think it unnecessary, but-sink once and it seems more reasonable.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yes, I'd imagine having a boat lost out from under you does tend to make you emphasize the safety rules...


jaycallender said:


> I have a 58' trawler and am famous among friends for going through the do's, don'ts and all emergency procedures every time before leaving the dock, even for a dinner cruise. It is a pain, and some friends think it unnecessary, *but-sink once and it seems more reasonable*.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

jaycallender said:


> ....
> I have a 58' trawler and am famous among friends for going through the do's, don'ts and all emergency procedures every time before leaving the dock, even for a dinner cruise. It is a pain, and some friends think it unnecessary, but-sink once and it seems more reasonable.


Jay,

Nothing wrong with that. I do the same whenever new crew is aboard -- and an occasional refresher with my family.

P.S. Welcome to Sailnet! Trawlers welcome too!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Omatako said:


> ....
> [*]The chances of actually climbing up into a liferaft in a rough sea when it is being held alongside your boat would actually be very difficult and for all but the really athletic, virtually impossible.
> [*]The chances of a liferaft held alongside a heaving water-level deck getting holed by a stanchion or other piece of kit on the sinking vessel is incredibly likely.
> [*]The concept of getting in the water to climb into a liferaft would also require above-average physical ability which a lot of cruising folk don't have.
> ...


A boat with a large transom and a big bathing platform will not only make easy to board a dinghy but also can be very useful to board a life-raft.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## utchuckd (Apr 4, 2010)

This looks like a pretty good idea for a life raft:

Inflatable spheroidal life raft with internal ballast tank


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Every sailor should be able to tell when his vessel is sinking ...when you're knee deep in water in the salon. "
Two problems: Most people, sailors included, are panic prone. The fish was ten feet long, the car was going 150-mph, the water was up to my neck.
And even if the water WAS that high, "it ain't over till the fat lady sings". Half-full and hull awash, the boat may continue to float, quite stably, for weeks. Heck, I was in a canoe that swamped. ARC water safety training said to shake out the water, bail it, and continue on. Well...the procedure doesn't always work. After ten minutes of that nonsense, we climbed back in and paddled the SUBMERGED BUT STILL FLOATING canoe back to the docks. Fully submerged, but still enough floatation to stay awash that way "forever".

No one rule will work for everything, as long as all the details aren't exactly the same. Still, I might rather be sure the boat was under the surface AND descending, and then wait to climb UP into the raft. (Jump on top, and hope you don't land on anything _hard _that was packed in it?)


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

utchuckd said:


> This looks like a pretty good idea for a life raft:
> 
> Inflatable spheroidal life raft with internal ballast tank


Good heavens...

I think I would rather drown.....Imagine being stuck on a hamster wheel/solar oven at the same time all the while on a angry sea.


----------



## ChrisK48 (Apr 29, 2010)

*Pick up the liferaft!*

Well it doesnt really matter what liferaft you are in if the person who comes across you can't pick you up because he is too afraid of what he will find!
Get in position to drift down on boat. Engine out of gear.. boat hook.... onto line round life raft.. shout to anyone inside... clear drogue and all ropes in case you need to motor.. pull life raft upright.. inspect inside.

Poor people.:hothead

And by the way. You can re-right the life raft from inside.. at a sea survival course they will teach you. WELL worth the money. After that you will do your utmost never to need a life raft! I call them death rafts. Mainly the biggest problem with taking to a liferaft is the people who don't see you or -in this case- don't pick you up.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

No offense, but people need to read a little better before throwing out their two cents for God's sakes.

Give me a break. 

B


----------



## varadero (Apr 28, 2010)

I do think that maybe you have all been very lucky or under exposed, as opposed to under read. I sank off Bermuda 120NM 1984, 3 minutes is all it took. If the vessel had not been fitted with a good set of liferafts, I would not be typing this now. I will not go to sea unless the vessel is fitted with recently serviced (in date) liferafts, hydrostatic release mechs, and preferably more than one. the failure rate is in the region of 20%, and like parachute packers you rarely hear of failures, or recieve complaints. You may personally take what ever risks you wish, but have no rights to endanger others, family, freinds, and never clients. I had my raft come UP to me, it was capsised and managed to right it, there were 8 of us in a 20 man raft, capsise nearly occurred and we had to deploy evenly to avoid it, 40-50kts 4-6m seas wave driven breakers on top.
Rafts fail for many reasons, it would be interesting to know if the Rip-painter was cut or snapped or if it had a cage hanging below.
The better the life raft the bigger the cannister, and greater the cost. Economics and aesthetics dictate the quality and quantity. Economics and absent mindedness dictate wheather that cheap/expensive raft might work when you need it.
Trust the service station, but insist on seing the raft inflated and left for 24 hrs to ensure no slow leaks, ask for all replaced items to be given to you to dispose of yourself.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Great post vara - thanks. And welcome to SN dude.

What happened to the boat you were on? Sounds like some rough conditions.


----------

