Sailing without safety cover

That's quite a sweeping statement especially after the recent topics about Cherub sailors complaining about rescue cover when their boats fail.... (although its not limited to cherub sailors making the complaint).  I'm not jumping on any bandwagons but it has been mainly Cherub sailors making the complaint.

It's simple if you want to compare SMODs against Development boats, both sides list the ammount of gear failures they have and we see which is the most reliable......

I sail an SMOD that comes from the same boat-shed as some of the fastest 14s so reckon the build quality can't be that much different. There are poorly built SMODs and development class designs but its ignorant to say a boat is bad because its a SMOD or Development class.

Think most people consider home-built boats to be less quality than boats built by manufacturers due to the fact that home building is associated with an amatuer pursuit but if someone has the relative experience and means, it doesn't really make a difference if the boat is built in a garage or profesional boat shed.

My point is that if I build a boat myself and it fails then I have no one to blame but myself. By building the boat I understand it's strengths and weaknesses, and if I put the boat under stresses, which it is not built strong enough for, then that would be my stupidity. However, I will know what those limits are.

If on the other hand I had paid over the odds for a SMOD, I would not know how well it was built, and would not know the limits. Then when it broke I would well peeved.

The comment about boats being intentionally badly built originates from a post I read on Sailing Anarchy. The post was from the North American 49er builder, who said that he had to intentionally build the boats below quality, so they would be the same as all the other 9ers. I can't find the post atm, but if i get any spare time i'll have a look.

Rescue?  Safety?

One is there for your rescue and one is there for your safety. 

Same thing??

Ask a no win no fee Lawyer (bloody nanny state skumbags)

It is correct, Rick. That is the reason, for example, Melges/24s can be sold with the lifeline arrangement they use, which is very comfy for the helm but does not conform to RCD.

One implies a duty of care the other implies you will do something.

You fail to pick someone out of the water for whatever reason having put on 'rescue' cover then you are leaving yourself open to a whole heap of nastyness.

You fail to pick someone out of the water for whatever reason having put on 'safety' cover then you are in a grey area and protected from the law to a greater degree.  You only provided safety cover, you never said you would rescue them.

Nanny - sue me as soon as you look at me - state at its finest