Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 19 August 2014, 09:13   #21
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Length: 3m +
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,251
So where I work we score from 1 to 5 (non marine industry). 1 "will probably never happen but might" to 5 "will almost certainly happen". Consequence 1 "no harm, minimal harm" through to 5 "catastrophic" (catastrophic is what we call death but it sounds nicer!). So to put consequence into RIB / watersports terms:

1. Near Miss, Minor damage not affecting the passage. Very minor injuries (bruises, grazes etc).
2. Passage cut short, no outside assistance required. Possibly cut short more as a precaution. Minor injuries not requiring emergency service assistance.
3. Outside assistance needed but no lives in danger. Tow home? Possibly a Pan Pan. Injuries not life threatening but requiring hospital care (probably not admitted to hospital > 24hrs)
4. Outside assistance needed. Mayday justified. Injuries which could be life threatening. (May include injuries that have a protracted hospital stay)
5. Loss of boat or crew, or life changing injuries.

1. Improbable - not very likely to happen but can't be 100% excluded. e.g. May require 2 things with low failure rates to fail at the same time.
2. Remote - there have been a small number of cases but they are relatively rare compared to the number of times it "could" happen.
3. Occassional - it does happen - but its not something that happens a lot.
4. Probable - there are past examples of it happening and you would expect recurrence.
5. Certain. There are numerous past examples of it happening.

We multiply the two numbers together so you get score from 1 to 25.

Determining what the risk is is often the tricky part... Not the score - the underlying risk event. So if the risk was described as "Tube failure" you would score it as Possible or Likely - something like 3 on the score for a 40 year old boat.

The consequence of tube failure (with NO CONTROL MEASURES [no life jackets etc]) would be a 5. So overall score is 15. You already have life jackets etc so you would probably argue the consequence is a 4 rather than 5. So you have mitigated the risk already to 12.

The point that most people are trying to make is that if you go for a 3 chamber boat (no further modifications) and 1 chamber fails you will reduce the likelihood score because its newer material (lets say to 2). But because you have 3 chambers not 2 the consequence before even wearing a lifejacket becomes probably 2 (end your trip out but limp home) or at worst a 3 (pan pan). So your baseline score before mitigation is probably 6. Wearing a lifejacket probably doesn't mitigate this risk at all. I know its theoretically possible for 2 tubes to fail but that has to be a likelihood of 1, consequence 5 - mitigate to 4 with lifejacket. Overall risk score lower than 1 tube failing.

Now... lets assume you foam fill the tube on your existing boat. You can possibly reduce the likelihood of failure. BUT will you reduce it to any less than a 2? The foam is still held in place by 40 year old fabric and 40 year old glue. 1 mile out you notice the fabric is loose and you can see foam. How sure are you the fabric doesn't come off completely and while you may have a lump of foam to hang onto the consequence has got to be a MayDay which I'd suggest is a 4. Overall Score 8. Now 8 out of 25 is not appalling. So you need to decide do you want 6/25 or 8/25 or 12/25. Is the extra investment required to get to 6 justifiable. Not sure how much foam would cost.
Are you sure it reduces the risk of failure? I'm not. There are a whole matrix of variables here: if probability remains a 3 then I'd be making a Pan Pan for fear that it would worsen. So thats a 9 overall? If probability actually increased (see below) it scores as 4 x 3 = 12.

Lets score your balls... ;-)
Does it reduce the likelihood of the tube seem failing no. So score remains 3*. Does it reduce the consequence? Only if the failure is < 20mm diameter. If its bigger than that - common with seam failures - you'll know you have a failure as a nice stream of balls shoots out the tube!! But they will have no impact on your consequence score. For a failure < 20mm diameter they would impact your consequence score. - You aren't in the water. But for fear of enlarging the hole and loosing the balls I'd be making a PanPan which i think is score 3 for consequence. Effectively you split a 12 score for Tube failure into two scores. Tube failure hole > 20mm and Tube failure hole < 20mm. If you had modern fabric and glue I'd say hole > 20mm would be 1 or 2 likelihood and <20mm would be 2 or 3 (with no mitigation like avoiding sharps). You have old fabric and we think the seams are your biggest risk which I think means >20mm is likelihood 3 and <20mm is a 2 or 3. You mitigate your <20mm by banning knives and being sensible where you take the boat to say a 2. You add the balls and you reduce the <20mm score to 2x3 = 6. But you continue to have a 3x4 risk from the > 20mm issue.

Does adding balls or foam add any other risks / problems?
Yes!
1. Extra weight - increases load on the seems. So you may actually increase the likelihood. Rescore all likelihoods 1 score higher and see what happens! Foam becomes 4 x 4 (if the foam parts company) : 16! Higher risk. Balls, hole > 20mm 4 x 4: 16! Balls, Hole < 20mm (e.g. small seem leak) 3 x 3 = 9!
2. Resale value - pretty much NIL. So a boat you might be able to sell for 60 (??) now but costs you 40 to fill with balls or foam has a value of nil. So 100 becomes nothing overnight. Would it have been better to sell it for 60, add the 40 to it and buy something with the 100. Seago 260 260s inflatable SIB Boat tender dinghy | eBay
(I have no idea what your boat is worth)
3. Tube firmness: pretty much essential for performance and to reduce wear on the tubes. So with balls their are probably filled to be at atmospheric pressure or just above. You then put the air around them to a lot more than that and the balls will shrink. But it will take time to equilibrate all that which will make filling the tubes and getting pressures right difficult. Saggy tubes will increase strain on seams and I refer you back to point 1 above.
With foam you may have the same issue - foam selection is key! If its soft foam the foam will squash down and have same issues as balls. If its a rigid foam there may be too little flex. Its not something you can trial and error with once its in its in! While its obvious that SIB manufacturer doesn't use foam because it stops the boat being 'pack awayable' why are the only RIB manufacturers using foam the guys where the collar is intended as a big fender rather than for stability?
Don't know how much you've had to do with this stuff but its evil. It sticks like sh*t to everything, Put too much in your tube it'll be very dense. Put too little in how do you fill the extra space with air as I bet it will seal your valve off! Very rapid cure times on the stuff I've used. Not sure I could pour enough to fill a tube before it cured.
4. Heavier overall weight. Hard to imagine but you have 3.8m of boat there with a tube diameter of 10-12inches. by my crude calculations that is PI x ( 15 x15 ) x 380 x 2 of tube volume. Thats about 540litres of tube volume. Google tells me the weight of foam varies from 2Lb to 16Lb per cubic foot. Assuming you have 4lb per cubic foot, thats 4lb per 27l, - so 80lb extra weight. Thats probably more than your engine weighs,,, that will slow your boat down as well as increasing load on the toobs. A quick google for a 20mm ball gave me a weight of 1.3g per ball. My calculus isn't good enough to work out what the number of balls filling 540litres would actually be so I'm going to assume they are 20mm cubes (8ml volume) - so 6750 balls. So 9 kg of extra weight...? (20lb)

My conclusion is you can't reduce your likelihood of a seem failing on this boat only increase it.

You may be able to reduce the consequence. But not by much because you are already at 4 and I doubt you'd do anything less than a Pan Pan if a tube fails even with foam... The only risk you seem to be able to reduce might be the small holes and I think you'd be better preventing that happening than dealing with it when it does...

So to move onto your buoyancy aid vs lifejacket dilema...

You are mentally doing a risk assessment to determine:
- the likelihood you'll enter the water
- the consequence of doing so

If you are a dinghy racer you wouldn't wear a LJ because the high probability of being in the water means you'll end up terminating your sail... If you are cross channel sailing you'd probably not be swimming after the boat anyway so ease of swimming is negated by being held face up.

Your concern is that the life jacket is air filled...

So the risks would be:
Auto doesn't auto inflate (Likelihood - 2 to 3)
Manual mode doesn't inflate coz cylinder fails (Likelihood - 2)
Manual (breath) doesn't work coz lifejacket leaks (Likelihood - 1)

For each the consequence reverts to the item below it so the only risk is the lifejacket leaks air faster than you can top it up. The consequence is a 5. But the overall score is a 5 because the Likelihood is so rare (provided you mitigate the risk through jacket servicing/care etc).

Your bouyancy aid however will not turn an unconscious wearer over. So the risk is the likelihood of being unconscious before rescued... Influenced by sea temperature, location of rescue, activity (sailors like to bang heads). If you are in the sea without assistance nearby you stand a high risk of hypothermia causing unconsciousness ranging somewhere from 3 to 5, with a consequence of 5. 15 - 25 overall score. So the risk (15) is far greater than the likelihood of the lifejacket not working(5). You'd need to reduce the risk of unconsciousness to almost impossible levels...

The reason buoyancy aids have a role is if you look at the risk for say a laser dinghy sailor of capsizing its almost certain! It would score 5. So they need the consequence to be a 1 - carry on sailing. Put an auto lifejacket on and once its popped they are going home for the day - score 2, overall score 10. Compared to a risk of being unconscious, face down in the water for more than 3 minutes before a rescue boat arrives (Likelihood 1, Consequence 5); or wear a 50+N lifejacket that can inflate to 150N. Likelihood of a different risk - getting caught in rigging - goes from 2 to 4 (they are all bulky), consequence of getting caught in rigging remains a 5.. Score moves from 10 to 20 overall...

Put me in a sailing dinghy away from immediate hope of rescue - I want to keep my risk at 5 so I need the likelihood to reduce (sail in better conditions, put a reef in, sail with experienced crew, change my hull design for stability) because the consequence may well increase... Wayfarer Day Sailors would say they reduce their likelihood to 2, and Drascombe sailors to 1. The consequence is probably a 2 or 3 for both... but there was a Drascombe skipper who died at the weekend...

Thats all a rather long winded way of saying - nothing you do to a 40 year old boat will make it safer than a modern one.
__________________

__________________
ShinyShoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 August 2014, 10:00   #22
Member
 
The Gurnard's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Town: Stirling
Boat name: The Gurnard
Make: Quicksilver
Length: 4m +
Engine: mariner 25hp 2s
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 986
Gosh Shinyshoe must have been bored


Highlander..going by your feedback.. you are not the weak link in the set up...here is the weak link

Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlandR View Post
but on the sib- my Father will be with me most of the time and I'd hate for him to have to end up in the water and have the stress of hanging onto 1 tube while waiting for help to arrive.
!

Perhaps before you spend any money on the old boat... ask your dad if he will be happy going to sea in the boat filled with foam because you fear the tubes may burst..Im sure you will survive the drooking if it happens.. but how will he take it if it happens ? is it worth the risk.. a reasonable second hand inflatable boat without an engine is only a few hundred quid ?
__________________

__________________
The Gurnard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 August 2014, 11:05   #23
Member
 
chipko's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Make: XS500
Length: 5m +
Engine: Mariner60 Honda2.3
MMSI: 239711398
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 392
What Tube Material ?

Judging by your concerns perhaps the most sensible option would be to get a newer 3 chamber boat. The inflatable keel under the alumin/ply floor adds another smaller chamber, or a high pressure inflatable floor adds two chambers.
For peace of mind and provide emergency buoyancy to your boat you could add a couple of inflatable thwarts (not cheap) or get a couple of inflatable boat rollers strapped to the floor adjacent tubes - might take up too much floor width but could be sat on! Or could just be kept onboard and inflated in an emergency.
http://www.force4.co.uk/1847/Force-4...-160x25cm.html
Personally I am generally more concerned of engine trouble than the boat imploding!😮
__________________
chipko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 August 2014, 11:36   #24
Member
 
grahame42's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Falmouth
Boat name: Egress
Make: Ribcraft
Length: 5m +
Engine: 150HP outboard
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlandR View Post
Hi guys, just trying to figure out what material my sib is.

Will it be Hypalon or PVC ?
The articles here

Ribstore Information advice for RIB inflatable boat repair

will help you answer that question and also contain lots of other invaluable advice I reckon


Grahame
__________________
grahame42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 August 2014, 11:37   #25
Member
 
Country: Canada
Town: British Columbia
Make: Gemini
Length: 4m +
Engine: 40hp 2 str
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,151
If the boat it is currently holding air, and is functioning as the designers had intended, then throwing out a bunch ridiculous suggestions about how to fix what is not broke is inane.

HighlandR, if you do have reservations about the design of the boat, then restrict it's usage to areas where you could readily get assistance if needed, and/or keep close enough to shore that you could paddle it there on one tube. A single tube still provides a tremendous amount of floatation, it would just be very slow and awkward to paddle any distance.

If the concern about only having 2 tubes instead of 3 is referring to an inflatable keel as the 3rd tube, then I wouldn't be concerned about it. The volume of air contained in an inflatable keel is a small fraction of what is in the main tubes. If I were expecting to lose air in both of the main sponsons, I would not venture out thinking "yeah, but I still have my inflatable keel!"
__________________
prairie tuber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 August 2014, 09:36   #26
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Boat name: ....
Length: no boat
Engine: Mercury 15hp
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 96
Holy sh** Shiny ! that's the longest reply I've ever seen lol ! Your calculations on probability almost made my head spin trying to keep up.

Thanks alot guys for this input it really has helped.
Spoke to my Father about the risk of a tube getting deflated and us ending up in the water bobbing around waiting for help etc, he replied " ahh that's fine !! " and he is still willing to go out, and as much as I'd like to agree with him and just fill this with foam and go out to our fishing spots.....

I'd happily go out in it myself and with missus etc but with my Father I feel the need to be more cautious than usual, he also isn't as physically fit as he use to be, and I really don't want him to have to go into the water, so for that reason I have decided to take the advice given to me here and will sell this current boat and buy another second hand " younger " boat with more than 2 tubes to reduce the risk, and allow us to go fish a mile or so offshore.

Thanks again guys, really appreciate the help and guidance, what a great forum this is

I'm on the major hunt now for another boat ASAP while the weather is still nice !

Just 1 last question, you guys with 3+ chamber boats - do you carry extra buoyancy such as they inflatable boat rollers etc or is it negligible ?
__________________
HighlandR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 August 2014, 10:05   #27
Member
 
Country: Canada
Town: British Columbia
Make: Gemini
Length: 4m +
Engine: 40hp 2 str
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlandR View Post
Holy sh** Shiny ! that's the longest reply I've ever seen lol ! Your calculations on probability almost made my head spin trying to keep up.

Thanks alot guys for this input it really has helped.
Spoke to my Father about the risk of a tube getting deflated and us ending up in the water bobbing around waiting for help etc, he replied " ahh that's fine !! " and he is still willing to go out, and as much as I'd like to agree with him and just fill this with foam and go out to our fishing spots.....

I'd happily go out in it myself and with missus etc but with my Father I feel the need to be more cautious than usual, he also isn't as physically fit as he use to be, and I really don't want him to have to go into the water, so for that reason I have decided to take the advice given to me here and will sell this current boat and buy another second hand " younger " boat with more than 2 tubes to reduce the risk, and allow us to go fish a mile or so offshore.

Thanks again guys, really appreciate the help and guidance, what a great forum this is

I'm on the major hunt now for another boat ASAP while the weather is still nice !

Just 1 last question, you guys with 3+ chamber boats - do you carry extra buoyancy such as they inflatable boat rollers etc or is it negligible ?
Selling it and getting something that you feel better about is a much more sensible option than destroying it by filling it with foam.

Assuming it hasn't been abused, I'd take a 25 year old hypalon boat over a 10 year old PVC boat any day, all other things being equal.
__________________
prairie tuber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20 August 2014, 10:09   #28
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Boat name: ....
Length: no boat
Engine: Mercury 15hp
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 96
Hi Prairie, I would be happy to take it myself, it is just the fact of my Father being onboard... The boat is around 40 years old, but it has not been abused or damaged at all... the seams are all still fully bonded....
__________________

__________________
HighlandR is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.