"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 31, 5:30?am, "Jim" wrote:
Let's apply that same phrase to an emergency offshore. Let's say that
Joe Boater abandons his plans to go bungee jumping, and sets off on a
cruise to Alaska instead.
Somewhere north of Johnstone Strait, on a dark and stormy night, Joe
strikes a deadhead and opens a two square foot breach in his hull. His
boat founders and sinks in a matter of minutes, and Joe is adrift in
his wildly rocking and pitching dinghy. Fortunately for Joe, he's got
some flares in his ditch bag, and above the clatter of the freezing
rainstorm he can hear the engines of an approaching aircraft.

"Thank goodness I took that Coast Guard requirement seriously," thinks
Joe. He fires off three flares in succession. Each rises to 375 feet,
and burns for six seconds. The aircraft continues on. Somehow the
couple of hundred bucks Joe saved by opting for the cheapie flares
seems incredibly insignificant, particularly if it would have made the
difference between being rescued or being lost.

We should each of us ask ourselves, "If we were in Joe's position,
'now what would we pay' for a decent flare?"

That's a pretty lame last line to your novelette.

A flare has a mission. If the mission fails, It doesn't matter if the
flare
carries a designer label.

Hopefully Joe has a $2 bailing bucket.

A flare has a mission, but flares adhering to different standards have
different capabilities and will be more or less able to perform as
required. You can go bear hunting with a pellet gun, or with shotgun
loaded with slugs. In either case the mission is the same, "kill the
bear". One approach is more likely to work than the other.

One would hope that you have the bear in your sights before you let off a
shot. Harry got the point. I'm surprised you didn't.