On Jul 31, 10:07?am, "Jim" wrote:
"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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm surprised that you believe a "designer label" is the primary
difference between SOLAS and USCG Approved pyrotechnics.

A few years ago I interviewed a local boatyard owner who spent a night
on an overturned catamaran sailboat west of Vancouver Island. He
vividly described the pathetic ineffectiveness of USCG Approved
flares.. They had a large inventory of flares, a few SOLAS and many
more USCG Approved. He commented that the USCG Approved items were
like "toys" compared to SOLAS. (During the night they could plainly
see a gill netter working a set, but he was too far away to hear them
holler and their attempts to attract attention with flares failed as
well. They were finally spotted by a rescue aircraft, just after
daylight the following morning).

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 31, 10:07?am, "Jim" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

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.- Hide quoted text -

A few years ago I interviewed a local boatyard owner who spent a night
on an overturned catamaran sailboat west of Vancouver Island. He
vividly described the pathetic ineffectiveness of USCG Approved
flares.. They had a large inventory of flares, a few SOLAS and many
more USCG Approved. He commented that the USCG Approved items were
like "toys" compared to SOLAS. (During the night they could plainly
see a gill netter working a set, but he was too far away to hear them
holler and their attempts to attract attention with flares failed as
well. They were finally spotted by a rescue aircraft, just after
daylight the following morning).



Not good testimony in support of spending a lot of money on flares. Might
emergency preparedness money be better spent elsewhere?

Chuck Gould wrote:
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.



Actually, probably not. I'm not a hunter, but I do own and shoot
shotguns. You can drop a deer with slugs but a large bear will require a
manly rifle.

"HK" wrote in message
...
Chuck Gould wrote:
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.



Actually, probably not. I'm not a hunter, but I do own and shoot shotguns.
You can drop a deer with slugs but a large bear will require a manly
rifle.

How about a manly bow and arrow?

http://www.bowhunts.net/grizzly.html

D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Chuck Gould wrote:
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.


Actually, probably not. I'm not a hunter, but I do own and shoot shotguns.
You can drop a deer with slugs but a large bear will require a manly
rifle.

How about a manly bow and arrow?

http://www.bowhunts.net/grizzly.html



Too bad the bears can't shoot back; they're a higher life form than the
a**holes who hunt them for "sport."

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:33:37 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

More stringent standards for distress signaling devices were
introduced by the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) convention of 1983.
SOLAS flares are commercial grade devices, and some local pleasure
boaters might wonder whether SOLAS flares are over spec'd for inland
use. Use of less than the best available signaling device is
tantamount to whispering, rather than hollering for help.

There is no question that SOLAS flares are vastly superior to ordinary
"USCG approved". I've been to several different Safety at Sea
seminars where demonstrations have been conducted. The huge
difference in height and visibility of the SOLAS flares always gets a
collective gasp from the crowd. It is unfortunate that they come with
a big price premium as well as being more bulky.