Do you sail without safety cover? If so, what precuations do you take - tools, mobile (in waterproof pouch), radio, flares etc.?

It's written into our club lease that we cannot sail alone.

Effectivly this means that we have either a safety boat on the water or a second boat for buddy sailing.  When buddy sailing however I do not go out in winds that would require me to feel uncomfortable, and by uncomfortable I mean having the knowleage that I would like the safety boat on the water!!

At our club you cannot sail without safety cover ever.

That said we have some form of cover at all times the water is open.

I ask since at most clubs the only time there is safety cover is for racing. On the south coast a lot of people seem to routinely sail with no safety cover and don't worry about it too much. There is no other way to put the time in on the water short of having a mate in a rib as a chase boat.

I often sail with no cover - I always take drink and a mobile phone in a BoxIt case. I also carry an EZ Out Gerber knife.

Rick

It's pretty much the same as mountain climbing, sailing alone...... common sense wise anyway. We make sure we inform someone of the times we expect to be back in so if we're not back in within a few hours of that time someone will be worried about that fact onshore. We generally look at the weather forecasts over the week anyway so that we know what's basically going on and if there is any doubt in our minds about the weather, it's a no-go. We generally don't go out if no other boats are on the water just in case something major happens to the boat. Kit on the boat we take is water, knife strapped to the transom and spare tape, clevis pins and shackles. Plymouth is quite well protected, breakwaters and land in 3/4 of the directions we point the boat. Sailing on the Forth we used to borrow VHF radios from work and any long distance stuff anywhere else, we took mobiles, in the dry-suit wrapped in cling film.

(Sorry Mike, didn't mean to repeat what you wrote)

..............we also check the tides when we go out sailing so that if the wind goes we can use the tide to get back home...

To Gary:

There's a touch of irony about the fact that it tends to be the pond clubs which (due to their lease conditions) don't allow sailing without safety cover, whilst on the sea you're free to do as you like since nobody owns it.  On a pond you'll drift to one side soon enough, on the sea - well the other side could be a long way away.

When I was a teenager my school allowed those of us who were keen sailors to go home on Wednesday afternoons and take ourselves out sailing instead of playing rugby/cricket etc!

Mike

I have no choice - if I waited for safety cover I would never get to sail (and that includes racing)...

The missus always knows what I'm up to though (even when I'm not sailing).

True. However the prevailing wind will, if the worst comes to the worst, waft you back to shore. I'd be much more careful in an offshore breeze. I once broke a UJ windsurfing around a mile offshore. An hour or so late I was back onshore, a little chilly but otherwise no worse for the experience. If the wind had been offshore, it would have been much more serious.

So it's all about judgement. The forecast wind and direction, the tides, the air and water temparature. I have had a young and skinny crew turn borderline hypothermic frighteningly quickly on one occassion (capsized without rescue boat cover) and I plan to never repeat that particular experience.

I'd take: some extra clothing. A few tools. Some money and maybe a mobile. Mini-flares are a good idea but I admit I've never taken them.

If I recall, in another thread, you've recently said that breakages "aren't your fault". Breakages are usually down to poor maintenance or poor crewwork. Better get both right if you plan to sail without safety cover. I hope I've learned from my own mistakes on that one.

At Kielder we are allowed to sail without a patrol boat, although if anyone has an accident we are sure this will be recinded. As a result we are careful.

We sail in a different way when there is no patrol, not pushing it, aware that there is no rescue service and that we are responsible for ourselves. Common sense dictates whether the conditions are suitable and we write on a board who is out in what, so that the emergency services would have an idea what to look for, should they need to if, say, a hurricane passes through!

We have had some interesting moments, such as rudder going in force 5-6 trapezing reach as dusk was falling, (really, we weren't pushing it!)  but although it was a long walk round the shore we got back to the club without accident or other damage. OK we should have sailed rudderless, but sailing water out of an Osprey when rudderless is not that simple - it seemed quicker to walk!

Ultimately we accept that we are on our own, prepare as best we can and take responsibility for it.

Very true. Dev classes are especially prone to this, especially a boat as complex as a 14

During Feb 05, we were 2-boat tuning 505's off Hayling Island with Norman Byrd and Andy Davies.  The wind was Northerly and up around 25 knots as we launched.

A few hours into the session, we decided to turn for home, and being about half way between Bembridge and the lifeboat station, we faced about 25-30 minutes of fast upwind sailing to get to the boat park.

Suddenly we became aware that Hayling Island was vanishing under .....snow.  Yup, we were going to have to sail through it to get home.  The wind increased above 30knots as we tracked upwind.

At no time were we concerned, and neither crew backed off as that would have made us really cold...Dougal commented to me that he really wouldn't have wanted to be out there without another boat.

This set me to thinking about the comment regards rescue cover.

Who actually knows what their kit's limit is - especially in a "home build style of class".

I'll bet that we all fail to genuinely take account of lack of safety cover as an additional risk - because we mostly race with the kit, and view our equipment accordingly.

Is it appropriate that we all risk assess on "best case" basis?

Whilst on this theme I wonder if people's jury rigging and general resourcefulness have been eroded by constant presence of rescue boat cover?

I remember sailing a Cherub a mile or two home with no rudder, upwind in a reasonable breeze one afternoon after school - it took a while, but we got there.  And jury rigging a I14 on 2 occasions after the mast came down, once to get back to Itchenor and once for a long sail back to Riva on Lake Garda (very hairy bobbing at low speed through windsurfer alley with the jib rigged sideways from the boom which was handily erected in the spaceframe where the mast should have been).   All good fun.

Obviously jury-rigging isn't going to work too well if the wind is forward of the beam.

I saw the antithesis of all this at a Cadet world qualifier a couple of years ago - something broke/malfunctioned in the rudder department on one of the boats, so the complete spare boat was brought out to the race course at high speed sitting across a support rib!  I'm not sure what that teaches you - to go and get a well-paid job I suppose, so probably quite an important lesson in fact...

Mike

i think that most people who sail the higher performance "home built" classes such as the 14 or cherub tend to be more experienced, better sailors, so the boats that are more likely to break tend to have a better prepared crew who will be able to deal with the problem better than some people in other classes (eg cadet). so realy sailing a "home built" boat without safety cover probably wont cause too many problems because these people know what they are doing.

perhaps people should be encouraged to try to sail their boats as if the top half of the mast has gone missing more often. maybe clubs/RYA could organise jury rigging classes or races perhaps. this would certainly be more entertaining than your normal weekend club race, but only in the correct conditions.

PS: ahhh what is happening to me?? im sticking up for cherub sailors

Good point, although I believe it's more to do with the fear of being found liable in our increasingly-litigious blame-cultured nanny state...

Mike

I think there is a world of difference between I14's & Cherubs.

They both may be dev classes but the build quality of I14's is typically far superior as the majority if not all are professionally built by the likes of Ovington Boats. When was the last I14 home built?

Rick

I would suggest that someone who has spent years designing and building his own boats would have a much better impression of the limits of the boat, than a SMOD sailor who's sailing a boat which is INTENTIONALLY BUILT BADLY to comply with a licence.

Don't talk rubbish, manufacturers cannot risk putting out badly built anything these days.  They cannot risk having court cases / bad publicity, their products may not be the highest of quality but you can bet they're safe to use.  I would have more confidence going out in a force 8 in anything laser/topper/rs have made than anything in the uk cherub fleet!

Quite - the CE mark and compiance with the RCD

http://www.ceproof.com/recreational_craft_directive_RCD.htm - http://www.ceproof.com/recreational_craft_directive_RCD.htm

Do actually stand for somthing ...

BTW ... many manufactures produce very high quality and specification products.

Rick

I believe "craft intended solely for racing" are excluded from the RCD.

True but there have been serious problems with the early RS600 masts breaking. Topper using the same rudder fittings on the Topaz race X as the topper which has been the cause of a large amount to breakages, Topper's use of dissimilar metal rivets in the topaz mast causing many to break in F1-2 conditions... to name a few.

I am not sure that is correct - there are examptions from the RCD I believe for home built boats. YOu should check with the RCD for the details as I am not an expert.

Rick

I agree Jim.

There is a difference between badly build and badly designed. You can build a poor design with all the skill and care in the world and it will still fail. 'Mass' produced boats though fairly quickly show up design faults and (if they're serious enough) are fixed, so unless you have a very early boat they tend to be very reliable.

May I suggest you check and fully understand your facts before relying on a directive in your argument, rather than tryin to shift the onus onto me to check it for you.

May I suggest you calm down a wee bit, dear Stuberry... You've been a member of this forum long enough to know that self-importance doesn't pay!  (Yeah, you never meant it like that... but that's the way it comes across).

So now, please... play nice

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.

Quite.

S'berry - statements like that just make you look stupid IMHO.

Rick

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.

How's a 49er a smod then?

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)

Yes, same thing. You apparently think otherwise but your post does not give a clue why.

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.

RCD also makes it more difficult for non-EU boats to be imported, whether new or second-hand, and to believe this effect and the one you describe were among the objectives of the legislation isn't "controversial"; much of the impetus for the legislation came from the French boatbuilding industry. Does anyone really believe RCD makes sailing safer? It's sailors who make sailing safe or dangerous, not boats.

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

Would it be inappropriate to point out that when a dinghy is sailing but not racing or training to race it could be said that the boat and crew are cruising (or daysailing which is cruising lite!).

The whole philosophy of cruising is based around self-help (or mutual aid when boats sail in groups). A basic principle would be - don't get into a situation which you can't get out of on your own.

I wouldn't dream of going out on my own without an adequate anchor and decent paddles (or preferably an oar but I can understand that not many dinghies are equipped for rowing - learn to scull and cut a notch in the stern!). An anchor to stop me drifting away, and a paddle to get home.

Both the Dinghy Cruising Association and the Wayfarer Association publish guidelines that are eminently sensible. I hope everyone appreciates that unless we are all sensible about taking risks then there is an enthusiastic legislator in Westminster or Brussels who is eager to impose unrealistic restrictions on our sport.

Gordon DAVIES

Thankyou, James, for reformulating my remarks so neatly - if you haven't got the appropriate gear on board then you shouldn't be sailing without rescue cover, or at the very least another boat to keep you company. Some boats are not designed to be sailed independently.

On Irish waters, once you get away from the main yachting centres other boats are few and far between. You can't rely on anybody else seeing you if you have a problem, and the lifeboat may take hours to arrive. Not quite the same situation as the Solent on a summer Sunday afternoon.

Gordon

Where did you read this? 

I doubt very much that there is a legal distinction between the two (I wait to be corrected) in which case it is semantics... from which you can draw comfort or feed your paranoia depending on your character.

I personally don't think the UK will ever get to the same point of litigation as the US because A, we're too cynical and B, we've seen it happen elsewhere and have mostly guarded against it.

 Well I'm confused... If a safety boat doesn't rescue you when you're in trouble it's not doing much to ensure your safety...   If a rescue boat rescues you when you're in trouble then it's ensuring your safety...

Mike

stir it up a bit mike

Time to come clean then......

Just the logical end to an extension of an arguement.

To be honest i cannot be bothered to go trawling for that sort of thing, but I would expect that somwhere and at some time etc.

Just to throw some petrol on the fire though

? Why does the RYA advise the use of the word safety instead of rescue ?

Only heresay, not seen the actual wording myself so perhaps I imagined that.

Safety .... Rescue ..... it's all people playing with English and probably wouldn't make a shred of difference if something actually ended up going to court.

In my mind, both terms "Safety" and "Rescue" imply that the club is taking on part of the responsibility for the sailors who are using its facilities. All sailing instructions have the "responsibility of helm for his boats safety etc." in them to cover this.

A much better term is "Patrol" boat, which is the one used by the two clubs I am a member of. The purpose of a "Patrol Boat" is:

1. To assist the race officer with setting the course and other race management duties

2. If required, carry a Jury to perform on the water judging.

3. Attend capsized boats, and if possible provide assistance with recovery of boats or crew in the event of damage or injury.

There should be no expectation on the part of the sailor to expect a Patrol boat to attend to mitigate risks where time is a major factor in saving lives - for example entrapments, man overboard etc. Here the primary responsibility lies with the crew of the boat to self-rescue by carrying the correct equipment eg knives, and knowing the correct techniques eg holding on to the mainsheet if you fall out of a singlehander, or both crew members capable of sailing the boat singlehanded in a doublehander.

Note that 1,2 and 3 are the purpose of the patrol boat from the sailor's viewpoint, those operating the boats should still attempt to attend every capsize as soon as possible, prioritizing highest risk boats first etc. etc.

I do think that people have become far too reliant on "rescue boats" and sail in conditions or boats which are outside their ability / fitness levels. For example, if you are sailing at something like a national championships and cannot right a capsized boat without assistance, there should be no expectation that the "rescue boat" will help you get the boat up, only prevent you dying of hypothermia.

Obviously, a sailing school or other training situation where the aim is to push the boundaries of peoples' ability, the "rescue boat" will be expected to do much more, and this is reflected in the much smaller ratios between "rescue boats" and sailing boats.

Actually they use both. See for example http://www.rya.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FA37FA51-8886-4143-8484-03FC33718F68/0/AnnexB.pdf#search=%22rya%20safety%20rescue%20boat%22 - http://www.rya.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FA37FA51-8886-4143-8484-0 3FC33718F68/0/AnnexB.pdf#search=%22rya%20safety%20rescue%20b oat%22