Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by engelbrecht-wiggans richar » Fri, 22 Mar 2002 04:59:51


Quote:

> To save anyone else saying this, if you read the whole topic the whole
> point of the incident where Leo Blockley died was that when they went
> out it was CALM, a storm blew up and they got swamped - are you trying
> to tell us that storms NEVER just appear in the US?

To provide a serious answer:  I live far from mountains, oceans and
other things that create weather systems.  Most of the time things
are very stable and we get whatever weather the folks a bit to the
west of us had a bit earlier; very little chance of a storm just
popping up. Occasionally things gets unstable.  The weather watchers
seem to be able to identify such occasions...and issue warnings when
such conditions do arise. Indeed, in 22 years of living here, I don't
remember there ever being a storm (or similar severe weather) without
warning. I don't know if that qualifies as "never" for you, but I can
certainly see how that might lead someone here to perceive the risk
of getting caught in bad weather different from you...and to ask if
indeed the risks are different.

Richard E+17.

Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans, U of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois

 
 
 

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by Richard Packe » Fri, 22 Mar 2002 04:43:19


Quote:
>  - Their safety advice is - in the event of swamping, hang onto the boat
and
> either swim it to shore or await rescue

>  - Their buoyancy testing is presumably designed to ascertain whether
boats
> are capable of supporting that advice.

>  - So, if a boat will float enough when swamped to allow rowers to hang
onto
> it, they will consider it to be acceptable, and not
>     see the need for changes

Fair enough, but why then does the ARA in the Water Safety Code specify that
coxes need to wear lifejackets meeting BS3595 (btw I think this should now
be EN 395) - i.e. 100 Newtons of buoyancy - if the assumption is that the
boat on its own (enclosed or otherwise) provides sufficient additional
buoyancy to keep the rest of the crew (all 4 or 8 of them) afloat?  Seems
somewhat inconsistent.  Now you *could* make all the crew wear
lifejackets/buoyancy aids (not something I want to see happen), or you could
enclose 40 litres of otherwise unused space and provide 400 N per crew
member.  You do the math, as they say.

In any case, for whatever reason, the eight that got swamped in Spain
clearly *wasn't* good enough for the crew to hang on to.

Richard

 
 
 

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by Richard Packe » Fri, 22 Mar 2002 05:45:50


Quote:
> Indeed, in 22 years of living here, I don't
> remember there ever being a storm (or similar severe weather) without
> warning. I don't know if that qualifies as "never" for you, but I can
> certainly see how that might lead someone here to perceive the risk
> of getting caught in bad weather different from you...and to ask if
> indeed the risks are different.

OK the risk of getting caught in a storm may be a lot less where you are,
but there's next to nothing any of us can do to change local weather-related
risks [except maybe sign up to the Kyoto Agreement ;-) ].  The risk of
drowning *if* the boat gets swamped remains much the same wherever you are.
By increasing built-in buoyancy, that risk can be very greatly reduced.

Richard

 
 
 

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by Jeremy Faga » Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:49:17

Quote:

> To provide a serious answer:  I live far from mountains, oceans and
> other things that create weather systems.  Most of the time things
> are very stable and we get whatever weather the folks a bit to the
> west of us had a bit earlier; very little chance of a storm just
> popping up. Occasionally things gets unstable.  The weather watchers
> seem to be able to identify such occasions...and issue warnings when
> such conditions do arise. Indeed, in 22 years of living here, I don't
> remember there ever being a storm (or similar severe weather) without
> warning. I don't know if that qualifies as "never" for you, but I can
> certainly see how that might lead someone here to perceive the risk
> of getting caught in bad weather different from you...and to ask if
> indeed the risks are different.

Again, we were told by the President of the Amposta rowing club, that they
had never had storms like that in 30 years of him rowing. It was a freak. A
one off. Something that you can't really predict.

Jeremy

 
 
 

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by David Biddulp » Fri, 22 Mar 2002 07:56:23


Quote:



> Snipped (excellent synopsis Carl)

> >> our National Governing Body (the ARA) to recommend introducing
those
> >> alterations.  Sometimes governing bodies have entrenched
> positions.........

> Can anyone explain to me why the English NGB (the ARA), have this
> "entrenched" position?

> Why can they not make such a simple recommendation?

> Here are my *** theories....

> EITHER................

> 1. ARA believe such a recommendation will put our national teams at a
> disadvantage. (This would perhaps be the case for a regulation, but
not a
> recommendation).

> 2. ARA are under pressure from manufacturers of 4s and 8s without such
> buoyancy to do nothing.

> 3. they are waiting for FISA to act...

> 4. they simply do not understand the issue.

> 5. there is money in brown envelopes involved.....

> can anyone add to this or point out any errors in my thinking?

I don't see such sinister explanations.  The ARA's decision-making
processes work painfully slowly, because the decisions are in the hands
of volunteers from the divisions all round the country, & they don't
meet very often.  The folk at Lower Mall don't have the authority to
impose decisions without grass-roots involvement.  [Attempts in the past
to decide things centrally without getting approval from the membership
have resulted in ferocious objections, & overturned decisions.]  The ARA
Council have been conducting a constitutional review for some time, but
that too is moving slowly.

As others have suggested, if you want something doing, let your div rep
know your feelings.  The more people express their views to their div
reps, the more chance there is of something happening without further
delay.

Contact details are on the ARA website, and for those in the Thames
Region their details are also available through
http://SportToday.org/

TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at:
http://SportToday.org/
http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by Carl Dougla » Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:26:02


Quote:


>>  - Their safety advice is - in the event of swamping, hang onto the boat
>and
>> either swim it to shore or await rescue

>>  - Their buoyancy testing is presumably designed to ascertain whether
>boats
>> are capable of supporting that advice.

>>  - So, if a boat will float enough when swamped to allow rowers to hang
>onto
>> it, they will consider it to be acceptable, and not
>>     see the need for changes

>Fair enough, but why then does the ARA in the Water Safety Code specify that
>coxes need to wear lifejackets meeting BS3595 (btw I think this should now
>be EN 395) - i.e. 100 Newtons of buoyancy - if the assumption is that the
>boat on its own (enclosed or otherwise) provides sufficient additional
>buoyancy to keep the rest of the crew (all 4 or 8 of them) afloat?  Seems
>somewhat inconsistent.  Now you *could* make all the crew wear
>lifejackets/buoyancy aids (not something I want to see happen), or you could
>enclose 40 litres of otherwise unused space and provide 400 N per crew
>member.  You do the math, as they say.

>In any case, for whatever reason, the eight that got swamped in Spain
>clearly *wasn't* good enough for the crew to hang on to.

I entirely concur with Richard's comments & am pleased that he drew
attention to the interesting logical inconsistency that gives cox
mandatory buoyancy of stated capacity & leaves crew to try to cling to
whatever floats nearby, for which, incidentally, there are no buoyancy
rules AFAIK but many unfounded & inexpert assumptions.

A few further observations:
1.  Isn't it appreciated that swimmers may, in panic, cling to &
collectively drown the only one with the buoyancy aid?
2.  Under-seat buoyancy can make all this swimming largely unnecessary.
But for the ARA's clutching at implausible reasons for inaction for over
a year, we'd already be moving towards the wider future use of more-
buoyant boats.
3.  Inbuilt under-seat buoyancy, being distributed along the length of
the boat, renders it more survivable should a major event break it in
two - as happened just a few weeks ago to an eight on the Tideway.
4.  Similarly, under-seat buoyancy compartments halve the chance that a
hole below the waterline in the crew portion hull will cause the boat to
fill up & swamp, since any hole into a buoyancy compartment can only
fill that compartment.

Cheers -
Carl

Carl Douglas Racing Shells        -
    Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JZ, UK

URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

 
 
 

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by engelbrecht-wiggans richar » Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:33:38

Quote:



> > Indeed, in 22 years of living here, I don't
> > remember there ever being a storm (or similar severe weather) without
> > warning. I don't know if that qualifies as "never" for you, but I can
> > certainly see how that might lead someone here to perceive the risk
> > of getting caught in bad weather different from you...and to ask if
> > indeed the risks are different.

> OK the risk of getting caught in a storm may be a lot less where you are,
> but there's next to nothing any of us can do to change local weather-related
> risks [except maybe sign up to the Kyoto Agreement ;-) ].  The risk of
> drowning *if* the boat gets swamped remains much the same wherever you are.
> By increasing built-in buoyancy, that risk can be very greatly reduced.

Agreed. But, please note that next to last sentence is irrelevant
to the question of whether and/or how boats should be required to
be made more bouyant, while the first part of the first sentence--
the point of my post--is relevant.

By analogy, my chance of dying *if* my chest is in the path of a
duck hunter's bullet remains pretty much the same wherever I am.
By wearing a bullet proof vest, that risk can be very greatly
reduced. But, whereas I would strongly urge someone intent on
rowing at night on our local lake during duck hunting season to
wear a bullet proof vest, I'm not about to suggest (but you are
free to do so if you think it appropropiate) that bullet proof
vests should be required whenever rowing in England (or even Spain.)

Please also note that I have not now, or ever, commented directly
to the question of whether and/or how boats should be made more
bouyant. I got into this discussion to suggest that the person who
started this thread was asking a reasonable question and deserved
reasoned responses rather than ridicule...and then continued to
counter any implication (unintentional for all I know) that the
differences in risk that was being asked about was irrelevant to
the question of bouyancy requirements.

Richard E+17.

Richard Engelbrecht-Wiggans, U of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois

 
 
 

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by John Hil » Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:53:15

Quote:

> It's in Latin America, right?  That's where they speak Spanish, isn't it?

or, as a recent US Vice President stated, where they speak Latin.
John Hill
"Coaching to the stars - and beyond"
 
 
 

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by Richard Packe » Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:39:03


Quote:
> > > Indeed, in 22 years of living here, I don't
> > > remember there ever being a storm (or similar severe weather) without
> > > warning. I don't know if that qualifies as "never" for you, but I can
> > > certainly see how that might lead someone here to perceive the risk
> > > of getting caught in bad weather different from you...and to ask if
> > > indeed the risks are different.

> > OK the risk of getting caught in a storm may be a lot less where you
are,
> > but there's next to nothing any of us can do to change local
weather-related
> > risks [except maybe sign up to the Kyoto Agreement ;-) ].  The risk of
> > drowning *if* the boat gets swamped remains much the same wherever you
are.
> > By increasing built-in buoyancy, that risk can be very greatly reduced.

> Agreed. But, please note that next to last sentence is irrelevant
> to the question of whether and/or how boats should be required to
> be made more bouyant, while the first part of the first sentence--
> the point of my post--is relevant.

So to paraphrase, if I may - "it'll never happen to me".  As Jeremy Fagan's
already pointed out, the freak storm that started this was unforecast and
was the worst storm seen for over 30 years.  I have to admit, that until Leo
Blockley's death, I had hardly ever seriously considered boat buoyancy
issues.  I mean, rowing's not dangerous is it?  Let's ignore the risks,
perhaps they'll go away.

[snip daft duck hunting analogy - although I know there are clubs in the UK
where rowers *have* been shot at!]
A more apposite analogy might be car seat belts.  They cost virtually
nothing to install.  Occupy hardly any space.  Do not restrict your ability
to drive a car.  Most responsible manufacturers fitted them as standard even
before they were compulsory (or think about airbags - every manufacturer
fits them now, because they perceive them as a commercial essential).  Most
(sensible) drivers and passengers wore them before it became compulsory.
And in an accident, they could just save your life.  I wear mine not because
the Law requires me to, or because I expect to have an accident (who does?),
but because I want to minimise my chance of serious injury or worse *if* an
accident happens.  And I would unhesitatingly recommend that every other
driver always wears a seat belt.  If there's a simple, cheap and effective
means to reduce the severity of a risk (e.g. serious injuries in a car crash
/ drowning in a swamped boat), then you need a very good reason *not* to
implement it.  "It won't happen to me" just isn't good enough - IMVHO of
course.

Quote:
> Please also note that I have not now, or ever, commented directly
> to the question of whether and/or how boats should be made more
> bouyant. I got into this discussion to suggest that the person who
> started this thread was asking a reasonable question and deserved
> reasoned responses rather than ridicule...and then continued to
> counter any implication (unintentional for all I know) that the
> differences in risk that was being asked about was irrelevant to
> the question of bouyancy requirements.

I fail to see what in my reply to your original post could possibly be
considered as "ridicule" (but I offer you my grovelling apologies for
whatever it is I said that has upset you - was it the Kyoto reference?  Did
you miss the smiley? ;-) ).  You make a reasonable point, and if you are
happy to live with your perception that the risk of swamping (and its
consequences) is tolerably small where you are, despite the evidence that
these freak events do happen and that people do die as a result, then fair
enough, it's your call.  But I think you're wrong.

I trust this is a sufficiently reasoned response.

Richard

 
 
 

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by Carl Dougla » Sat, 23 Mar 2002 05:58:43


Quote:

>> > > remember there ever being a storm (or similar severe weather) without
>> > > warning. I don't know if that qualifies as "never" for you, but I can
>> > > certainly see how that might lead someone here to perceive the risk
>> > > of getting caught in bad weather different from you...and to ask if
>> > > indeed the risks are different.

>> > OK the risk of getting caught in a storm may be a lot less where you
>are,
>> > but there's next to nothing any of us can do to change local
>weather-related
>> > risks [except maybe sign up to the Kyoto Agreement ;-) ].  The risk of
>> > drowning *if* the boat gets swamped remains much the same wherever you
>are.
>> > By increasing built-in buoyancy, that risk can be very greatly reduced.

>> Agreed. But, please note that next to last sentence is irrelevant
>> to the question of whether and/or how boats should be required to
>> be made more bouyant, while the first part of the first sentence--
>> the point of my post--is relevant.

>So to paraphrase, if I may - "it'll never happen to me".  As Jeremy Fagan's
>already pointed out, the freak storm that started this was unforecast and
>was the worst storm seen for over 30 years.  I have to admit, that until Leo
>Blockley's death, I had hardly ever seriously considered boat buoyancy
>issues.  I mean, rowing's not dangerous is it?  Let's ignore the risks,
>perhaps they'll go away.

>[snip daft duck hunting analogy - although I know there are clubs in the UK
>where rowers *have* been shot at!]

Hey there, Steady the Buffs, old chap!

Far be it from me to pour incombustible oils onto troubled water to
extinguish the flames of others & damp the waves of their ardour (make
what you will of all that!), but I rather think Richard (Packer) has
misinterpreted what Richard (Englebrecht-Wiggans) was saying.

I think that Richard E-W was artfully explaining how another US rower
(not himself) might be bemused by all this Euro argy-bargy over
swamping.  He was noting that there are many US locations where the
weather is highly predictable & well (nay, obsessively) reported.  So
only a complete twerp need ever find him/herself out in conditions
likely to swamp conventional, low-buoyancy shells.

Am I right, Richard E-W?

In which case, Richard P, Richard E-W is with us, not against us.  In
which case please do stop trying to bite lumps out of his leg, put him
down & say sorry nicely & we can get on with the important business in
the calm & measured way some folk try to tell me to behave ;^P

Now who'd have thought to hear me say anything like that?  It'll wreck
me street cred.  Next thing, I'll have Nick savaging me for going all
soft & liberal.  But blessed are the piss-takers, say I.

Which brings us to another useful point in the campaign:
Non-UK rowers who have enjoyed the show so far, & feel as strongly about
the buoyancy issue as we Brits do, would be most welcome to sign up &
add their comments for Leo's Campaign on Caroline's website at:
    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~some1004/Leo

To help us will quickly help you, since it will get the ball rolling.
And with that said, may I declare the duck-shooting season closed?

Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas

 
 
 

Is this bouyancy thing most just and England thing?

Post by Stuart Jone » Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:22:52


Quote:
> [snip daft duck hunting analogy - although I know there are clubs in the
UK
> where rowers *have* been shot at!]

I've had bricks thrown at me.  Nice.  Maybe I'll wear riot-gear next time I
go out in a 2x on a balmy summer night, when some arsey fishermen are about
;o)