Forgive me if the first attempt appears here as well, but it's been
several hours and there's no sign of it....

************************************************** ***********************************

Will it Fizzle, or Flare?


Joe Boater decided to experiment with bungee jumping. Joe knew little
or nothing about the sport, so he dropped by Bungee City to check out
the available gear. A helpful salesperson explained his choices.

"Here's our best selling model. This bungee cord is $69.99, and it
meets all of the current
government requirements."

"Really?" asked Joe, "And just what are those government
requirements?"

"No big deal, really. Simply that you must be hooked to some sort of a
bungee cord before you jump," said the salesperson.

"That's all?" replied Joe, skeptically. "I don't know, that doesn't
look like the strongest apparatus as far as I'm concerned. I mean,
what if I leap over the edge of the bridge and the darn thing breaks?"

"Well, I wouldn't know about that," answered the salesperson. "But I
can tell you that we sell these with a money back guarantee, and we've
never had anybody bring one back to complain that it broke when they
hit full extension."

"I'll bet you haven't! Let's look at something a little more
substantial, even if it's more expensive. After all, my life could
easily depend on a difference in quality."

While most people would be likely to applaud Joe Boater's prudence in
choosing a more functional bungee cord, more boaters continue to opt
for the cheapest available emergency signaling devices. The term "USCG
Approved" sounds far more reassuring than it should actually be, (see
our fictitious government standards for bungee cords, above).
Published performance variables for USCG Approved hand held and aerial
flares clearly indicate that in nearly every category except initial
purchase cost "USCG Approved" units are definitely second rate. Just
like Joe's bungee cord, lives can depend on the difference in quality.

The shameful reality is that so many boaters approach the entire
concept of safety equipment in general and flares even more
specifically as a regulatory nuisance. It's common to overhear
comments such as, "You better make sure your flares are up to date.
Coast Guard requirement, you know." There seems to be a lot of
interest in carrying flares simply to squeak past the minimum
requirements during a boarding, but considerably less attention given
to how effectively a flare might work in an emergency.

Minimum Requirements for Distress Signals:

The Coast Guard differentiates between "day signals" and "night
signals". All vessels operating between sunset and sunrise are
required to carry three visual distress signals suitable for nighttime
use. In most cases, the night signal devices chosen will be
pyrotechnic flares, and the USCG requires a minimum of three.
Pyrotechnic signals are considered "expired" 3 ½ years from the date
of manufacture, and prudent seamanship as well as USCG regulations
will not consider expired flares when evaluating a vessel's
compliance.

Most boats must also carry three day signals. Boats under 16-feet in
length, open sailboats under 26-feet with no auxiliary power, boats
that are rowed or paddled, and boats participating in organized events
such as races or parades a not strictly required to carry day signals,
but many of the more knowledgeable mariners will voluntarily carry
signaling devices even on these daytime-exempt vessels.

All nighttime signals are also acceptable for daytime use, but there
are also some daytime-only devices available (such as canisters to
generate orange smoke). A boater can meet the legal requirements by
carrying only three flares, and with some of the most popularly chosen
choices three flares will provide a total of only about 18-seconds
illumination.


Two Standards:

Most boaters shop for flares by price alone, or shop for renewal
flares that duplicate those originally included in the "Coast Guard
Kit" provided by some boat dealers with the purchase of a new boat.
(One step toward improving the public perception of flares and other
critical safety gear would be renaming those gift packs. "Coast Guard
Kit" seems to imply that the primary purpose for having the gear
aboard at all is to placate the Coast Guard in the event of an
inspection). The cheapest flares money can buy are labeled "USCG
Approved."

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. Whether a
vessel is sinking three miles off of Edmonds or thirty-three miles off
LaPush, the threat to life can be the same. Better a flare that is
much brighter than absolutely needed, than a flare that is not quite
bright or visible enough.

One advantage of SOLAS flares is that they are packed in water
resistant packaging. SOLAS flares expire 42 months after manufacture,
just like USCG Approved models, but the chances can be extremely good
that an expired SOLAS flare may be fully functional for many years
past official expiration. While it remains important to keep an
inventory of even SOLAS flares officially current, the older devices
can be kept aboard to supplement the fresh stock and increase the
number of usable signals on hand.

All SOLAS distress signals will exceed the USCG specifications, so
carrying SOLAS flares meets the legal requirement and provides
superior signaling capability.


Comparing handheld flares:

During a recent visit to a leading marine retailer, we found both USCG
approved and SOLAS flares on display. Just for grins, we asked a
salesperson whether we should step up to the SOLAS flares and we were
told, "I don't know why anybody would spend that much money for a
flare. You get four of the USCG Approved flares for the price of one
SOLAS flare, and USCG Approved is all you need to have to be
legal." (Another example of "placate the Coast Guard" thinking).

Maybe our salesperson will read this issue of this publication, or
take the time to do some independent product research. We have looked
into the characteristics of both types of flares, and discovered some
very good reasons to invest in superior SOLAS technology.

At first glance, it appears that the USCG Approved handheld flares
have two advantages; price and length of burn. We found handheld USCG
Approved flares priced at $6.25 apiece, whereas a SOLAS handheld flare
was offered at $21.99. Our salesperson was right about one thing, it
would be possible to buy four USCG Approved flares for just over the
price of a single SOLAS device. Cost advantage; USCG Approved.

The second advantage of the USCG Approved flare might be the much
longer burn time, unless one compares the different natures of the two
types of flares. The USCG Approved flare will burn for a full three
minutes, but during those three minutes molten slag will be spitting
and dripping from the burning end of the flare. The flare must be held
overboard, and preferably on the leeward side of the boat. The
dripping slag can set a boat or clothing afire, and the potential
dangers of using such a slag-slinging device in an inflatable dinghy
or life raft are all too obvious. The flare cannot be easily
extinguished and will even continue to burn if tossed into the water.
Attending to a lighted USCG Approved handheld flare is a full three-
minute commitment, and a portion of those three minutes may be needed
for some other task during an emergency at sea.

A SOLAS handheld flare will burn for only a minute, but during that
minute will not spray molten slag. Just as with the USCG Approved
flare, the SOLAS handheld will need to be actively tended while lit,
but at the end of a minute the flare will go out. Another SOLAS flare
could be ignited if additional burn time is needed.

We're inclined to give the burn time nod to SOLAS, for although the
burn time per flare is shorter the one-minute SOLAS interval frees up
a crew person for other duties and allows greater flexibility when
dealing with an emergency. However, there is certainly some latitude
for opinion and preference on the burn time issue.

There is virtually no room for debate regarding the relative
brilliance of the USCG Approved and SOLAS flares. The USCG Approved
flare we compared provided illumination rated at 700 candlepower.
There's a good chance that an approaching rescue boat might even see
the rosy glow of the burning slag and thereby acquire visual
confirmation of the distressed vessel's location. Based simply on
brilliance alone, rescuers are almost 23 times more likely to see the
16,000 candlepower SOLAS handheld flare than the 700 candlepower USCG
Approved. Visibility advantage: SOLAS- in fact, no contest.

We calculated candlepower per dollar, and realized that the SOLAS
flare provided 682 candlepower per dollar, while the USCG Approved
flare produced only 112 candlepower per dollar. Boaters considering
the three-minute burn time of the USCG Approved flare an advantage can
triple the 112 candlepower to 336 candlepower minutes per dollar for
the USCG Approved, vs. 682 candlepower minutes with the SOLAS flare.


Rockets' red glare, or weak sputter in air?


In addition to handheld flares, it's good practice to carry some
aerial units as well. Traditional rescue advice suggests using the
aerial flares to originally attract rescuers to your general vicinity,
and then converting to handheld units to help an approaching vessel
pinpoint your specific location.

The marine supply store offered two different approaches to getting a
distress signal aloft. The most common and cheapest technique involves
firing cartridges from a flare gun. The cartridges are available in 12-
guage and 25mm sizes. The guns literally shoot a burning wad through
the air, and can be generally characterized as "meteor flares".
A more expensive alternative shoots a signal into the sky that
continues to burn while it descends via parachute.

We didn't notice any SOLAS meteor flares at this particular retailer,
so we will briefly summarize all aerial flares as a single category.

The 12-guage USCG Approved meteor flares sell for $7.33 each, while
the 25mm meteor flares retail for $16.66. Parachute flares are notably
more expensive, with the USCG Approved 25MM parachute flare priced at
$49.99 and a SOLAS parachute flare tagged at $54.99. Rather obviously
the cheapest approach involves gearing up with 12-guage meteor flares,
but as we delve into the relative amount of bang realized for
comparative bucks the cost advantage may not be as dramatic as it
initially appears.

Without question, the longer a flare is airborne the greater the
possibility that it will be seen by rescuers. The 12-guage USCG
Approved meteor flare has a burn time of seven seconds- about
comparable to an overachieving Fourth of July bottle rocket. The
slightly more expensive 25 mm meteor flare burns out even more
quickly, lasting a mere six seconds from the moment the trigger is
pulled. The USCG Approved 25MM Parachute flare has a burn time of 29
seconds, and the SOLAS Parachute flare will remain lit for 40 seconds.
The parachute flares dramatically outperform meteor flares when
considering burn time. Aerial flares are self-tending once launched,
so there is less room for difference of opinion about advantages of
shorter burn times than with handheld flares. Users of 12-guage meteor
flares would need to fire off six in rapid succession to equal the
burn time of a SOLAS parachute unit.

We calculated the cost to achieve 30 seconds of aerial flare
illumination, and three of the four aerial options were remarkably
close. Firing enough of the 12-guage meteor flares to achieve 30-
seconds of signal time would cost $31.41. The SOLAS Parachute flare,
(that burns for 40 seconds), prorates to $41.24 for a 30 second
illumination and the USCG Approved 25mm parachute flare (with a 29
second burn) would prorate to $51.71. Well out of the running in the
cost per 30 seconds category were the 6-second USCG Approved 25mm
meteor flares, racking up a total cost of $83.30

A flare that burns brightly is more likely to be noticed. When the
brilliance factor is isolated from hang time, the lower cost USCG
Approved flares measure up rather well.
The 12-guage meteor flare is rated at 16,000 candlepower, while the
USCG Approved 25mm meteor flare was the brightest of the four options
at 35,000 candlepower. The one-second difference in burn time aside,
the 25mm Coast Guard Approved meteor flare is a superior choice when a
sort but very bright burst of light is desired. The 25mm USCG Approved
parachute flare provided 17,000 candlepower illumination, while the
SOLAS parachute offered 30,000 candlepower.

Parachute flares definitely win the high-flyer awards, providing extra
altitude that can enhance the range at which the flare is visible and
may be an important factor in clearing any background "clutter" in
near shore situations. Both the USCG Approved 25mm parachute flare and
the SOLAS parachute flare are rated to climb as high as 1,000 feet.
The 12-guage USCG Approved meteor flare claims a 450 foot ceiling,
while the 25mm USCG Approved meteor flare can potentially ascend to
375 feet.


Now what would you pay?

Everyone has suffered through those cheesy TV infomercials where the
barker throws in one cheap item after another in an attempt to create
an illusion of value. A recurring pitch line after each additional
potholder, napkin ring, screw driver, or mop handle is added to the
order is "Now, what would you pay?" The promoters hope the audience
will be pleasantly surprised when the low-ball price is finally
revealed.

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?"

Chuck, did you write that, or is it a repost from a publication. If
the latter, which one? Good article!

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.

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.




I suppose a ground to air shoulder launched missile would get the plane
pilot's attention.

"HK" wrote in message
...
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.




I suppose a ground to air shoulder launched missile would get the plane
pilot's attention.
There you go.
My news reader screwed up(actually it was my fault). I have unintentionally
been credited for Chuck's material. Oh well!

Jim wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
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.




I suppose a ground to air shoulder launched missile would get the
plane pilot's attention.
There you go.
My news reader screwed up(actually it was my fault). I have
unintentionally been credited for Chuck's material. Oh well!


Be thankful it was just me. We have a couple of a**holes in this
newsgroup who would leap on such and make it the highlight of their day,
since they have nothing else in their day.

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.

On Jul 31, 2:42?am, Keith wrote:
Chuck, did you write that, or is it a repost from a publication. If
the latter, which one? Good article!

That's something I wrote. Thanks for the complimentary remark- glad
you enjoyed it. I'm always looking for an opportunity to get something
related to boating introduced to the NG.

That article will appear in one of our regional magazines for the Boat
Show issue September 12, but it will run without a byline. Out of 20+
articles and features in a typical issue I normally write 4-6 myself,
but I don't claim more than two as it would be annoying to see my name
appear that often in an issue. (Heck, it's annoying enough to see the
work itself- even without my name on it). When published it will
include 12 charts, which I obviously can't reproduce in this format.
The charts improve the mental flow by introducing some visual rest
stops.
Without the charts, (that compare things like candlpower/minues per
dollar), the text alone is long enough to become tedious.

"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.

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).