SOS light versus flares

[Marco Flamingo]

I have one of the little lights for compliance and also flares for an actual (night time) emergency. I have both metal and plastic guns, but the picture of the melted breech on the plastic gun would probably look about the same if it had jammed in my aluminum gun.

Holding anything that is ignited should be done from a position where it can instantly be tossed overboard if there is a problem. Better yet is something designed to be tossed overboard.

Although obviously not CG compliant, I carry these smoke bombs in addition to the CG gear and I would likely go with them first, as I don't travel at night anymore. Even in windy conditions, smoke on the water, especially weird colors like orange and purple, make a cloud that draws attention. To most people, a blinking light is just a blinking light.

 

[rgano]

The USCG SOS lights I have seen and the one I carry uses three 1.5-volt C-cell batteries. Too bad there seems to be no such thing as a 1.5-volt LITHIUM C-cell of the non-rechargeable type.

 

[firehoser75]

If you own one of the approved "lights", could you not just remove the batteries when storing the boat for a while (like winter layup)? Put a note near the helm as a reminder to reinstall (new) batteries before going out. As stated before, change the batteries every year and use a respected brand. That should eliminate any battery related issues, at least that would be my expectation.
By the way, I don't own one (yet) as the Canadian Coast Guard and/or Transport Canada has not approved them (they are still studying them after about 5 years of study so far ). I think soon I will get one and just carry the minimum flares required.
I change all of my alkaline batteries every spring and have not had an issue with any battery operated equipment due to battery leakage.

 

[stubones99]

steer clear of durcell batteries

I have found that batteries have gone to crap over the past several years. I have had countless devices ruined due to leaking batteries. Duracell's used to be very good, had a no-leak guarantee, and actually didn't leak. Eveready not so much. But recently I have had both brands leak out.


If Duracell still has a guarantee, I think it's time to start holding them to it. They used to say they would replace any equipment damaged by a leaking battery.

The only thing you can guarantee about a Duracell battery is It Will Leak, sooner or later. Sure, they offer a guarantee program, but you have to take the damaged device, and their bad batteries, file a complaint, send off the device and batteries with their paperwork and the will decide what the "settlement" will be.

If you have to use "dry cell batteries" use lithium batteries. They will never explode, corrode, or leak. Sure, they cost more but won't kill your gear.

Duracell advertisements with a 10 year warranty are simply marketing lies, hoping you'll burn them up before they kill your gear, and if they do harm your gear, you'll simply toss it rather than going through the pain of their warranty claim process.

 

[stubones99]

The USCG SOS lights I have seen and the one I carry uses three 1.5-volt C-cell batteries. Too bad there seems to be no such thing as a 1.5-volt LITHIUM C-cell of the non-rechargeable type.

Rechargeable lithium ion batteries are the only lithium batteries you can recharge. Lithium batteries are long life batteries but not rechargeable.

Amazon has C sized LI batteries.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07YF3L1KF

The best known brand is eneloop and they make C battery adaptors to upsize AA batteries for C and D sized devices.

https://www.amazon.com/stores/eneloop/page/A6BD1D95-90BA-40CE-B57F-8AC5D38AEDEF

Make sure to use a LI rated charger and don't overcharge them.

 

[jeffnick]

My solution is a home-made battery dispenser with the electronic flare nearby.

 

[gilbertpark]

Can I remind everyone that flares are explosive devices and they injure people (the medical literature has numerous case reports) . Is it really worth that risk - it may be a crew member who is trying to summon help because the skipper is incapacitated, will they be safe using an explosive device for the first time in a crisis situation?. Flares are unreliable and up to 20% of them don't work . Out of date flares are even more unreliable.

Can I suggest you google the USCG report on EVDSs, they are meant for night time use and have been carefully designed for the last mile. To get rescuers to the last mile much more effective to use an EPIRB, DSC radio, PLB etc etc. Do you really want to rely on a dog walker recognising a flare going off and taking action. For the last mile you can also use a torch.

Electronic devices are also cheaper than flares and more environmentally friendly.

You will of gathered I've done a careful risk assessment and don't want any flares on my boat (ps they also go off in life rafts and I have a lot of inflammable material on board - diesel and or petrol)

 

[Nitro23]

SOS Light

As a member of the USCG Auxiliary, I inspect lots of boats and their flares. I recommend the W&P light, but recommend that in a saltwater environment that they take a simple precaution to insure that the light will work when required. Store the batteries separate from the light, all in a gallon zip-lock bag. The batteries will not corrode, and the light metal working parts remains like new.

 

[CarlF]

Actually flares have a long history of not being recognized as a distress situation. If they are more than 2 miles away they are usually mistaken as boat navigation, airplane or tower lights. Accident investigations by rescue forces have often found that people ashore noticed a light but didn’t feel they should call SAR.

Even the USS California bridge officers saw and discussed the Titanic's clearly visible multiple distress rockets but didn’t feel it warranted waking the captain.

Flares are a 19th century technology (as is the CG approved distress signal of burning barrel of tar and firing a gun at 1 minute intervals)

I carry one of the flashing lights to pass inspections but I would never use the silly thing if I was really in distress. I’d resort to 20th and 21st century technology aboard including the InReach, EPIRB, VHF radio (fixed and handheld), AIS MOB, LED rescueflare, and my incredibly bright focused LED flashlight from Marinebeam.

 

[psneeld]

I sure hope l this talk on flares and their use is based on all those years you guys spent in the rescue organizations.

My experience ...... a flare is MUCH better at directing SRUs to you than electronics and flares are often reported even when they are not even flares...(false alarms).

Granted a decent light at night will also direct SRUs to you so a flare is only better if there are lots of lights around.

 

[gilbertpark]

I spent my life treating people who were injured in many ways, including explosive devices, why risk using 19th century technology that is less reliable, more dangerous, more expensive than modern day technology - do you still have a man with a red flag in front of your car, or take arsenic as a medicine!

 

[Rich wilmer]

I have found, when in doubt carry both also put some in the dingy keep lights and flairs together and dont use alkali batteries

 

[sledge]

I thought about the Weems & P unit, but alkali batteries in the year 2020 ?!?!? To me this is absolutely ridiculous. Generally we try to procure battery powered items for the boat that use a common size only so we only really carry some AAA and AA in storage. C size and above are bulky and primitive, especially for a fairly costly device.

Anyway it probably doesn't matter as this thread seems to be heading in a sort of "what's the best anchor" type discussion... Ha!

 

[psneeld]

I spent my life treating people who were injured in many ways, including explosive devices, why risk using 19th century technology that is less reliable, more dangerous, more expensive than modern day technology - do you still have a man with a red flag in front of your car, or take arsenic as a medicine!

Because it works better in some ways...and is no where as dangerous as you make it out to be.

There are alternatives...but realize what each is and its limitations.

 

[AUXOPdwp]

Electronic versus Pyrotechnic flares

1 - Note that USCG Helicopter crews remind us Auxiliarists that the E-Flares don't show up in their night vision equipment because they don't emit a thermal signature. Having an E-Flare aboard keeps you legal if your pyros expire. But it's best to carry both.


2 - Expired flares are much appreciated by the Coast Guard Auxiliary unit that conducts the annual Boat Crew Academy in your vicinity. Crew Candidates are required to observe and operate various kinds of flares as part of their training. Upon completion of classroom sessions, a full Saturday is scheduled, at one of the USCG Small Boat Stations, to cover various types of Flares, De-Watering via a P6 Pump, Visual Signaling via a PPE Mirror and First Aid ORALS. One of your local Auxiliarists should be able to put you in touch with the person coordinating the Academy. Typically there is one per "Sector", e.g. Sector Miami, Sector Jacksonville, Sector Charleston, Sector North Carolina, Sector Virginia, Sector Maryland, Sector Delaware Bay, etc.

 

[koliver]

In Canada, the requirement for flares is for 6 of type A, B, C or D and 6 of A, B, or C on boats typical of TF members. That requirement can be halved, if there are electronic means of communicating your position, DSC radio or cellphone, typically.
The A is a parachute, B is a rocket, C is a hand held, D is smoke.
Out of date flares are not prohibited, but should be inspected carefully on an annual basis.
In my instruction for doing safety inspections, in the 90s, the instructor demonstrated using a rocket (not a gun, but a star from a plastic hand holder) and burned his hand. That particular flare was already off the market and over the next few years we inspectors managed to rid our club of all that we found. More recent flares are much better, and it has now been many years since inspection has revealed obviously dangerous old flares on any member boats.
The popular shotgun type flares and plastic gun should not be the only kind on your boat. I always recommend folks alternate their purchase of new flares, between type B and C, so as to have some of both types aboard, B to tell SAR which bay you are in, C to tell them which boat in the bay.
If you have an Electronic SOS device, you may use it to supplement your safety equipment. I have one and would use it in an emergency, to supplement my approved type C flares. These are not "illegal" in Canada, simply "not an approved Device", so cannot replace the approved devices you are required to have aboard.

 

[psneeld]

1 - Note that USCG Helicopter crews remind us Auxiliarists that the E-Flares don't show up in their night vision equipment because they don't emit a thermal signature. Having an E-Flare aboard keeps you legal if your pyros expire. But it's best to carry both.


2 - Expired flares are much appreciated by the Coast Guard Auxiliary unit that conducts the annual Boat Crew Academy in your vicinity. Crew Candidates are required to observe and operate various kinds of flares as part of their training. Upon completion of classroom sessions, a full Saturday is scheduled, at one of the USCG Small Boat Stations, to cover various types of Flares, De-Watering via a P6 Pump, Visual Signaling via a PPE Mirror and First Aid ORALS. One of your local Auxiliarists should be able to put you in touch with the person coordinating the Academy. Typically there is one per "Sector", e.g. Sector Miami, Sector Jacksonville, Sector Charleston, Sector North Carolina, Sector Virginia, Sector Maryland, Sector Delaware Bay, etc.

I can understand why SOS lights are not well observed by FLIR systems...but I had not heard that a flashing light was not highly visible with night vision goggles.

 

[rgano]

We are seeing people here telling us USCG helos can see SOS lights MANY miles away with the night vision gear they use and that information being corrected by somebody else telling us the USCG uses thermal imaging in their helos which does not see a SOS light. Either these people have no idea what they are talking about or maybe they only got part of the info and the USCG uses BOTH types of NV gear. It's getting so I don't believe anybody anymore.

 

[psneeld]

The answer is the USCG does use both types of gear.....at least last I heard.

If you want up to date info, call a local USCG Airstation.....my experience is to take little for fact from the USCG AUX. They can be great and invaluable...but sometimes not so much. Much like asking any Coastie who is not in aviation. They may or may not have the big picture. Much like asking any Navy guy about other sectors of the Navy they never served in.

When I was in, the infrared gear was bolted on more for PIW than anything. I used it long before the pilots were issued NVGs.

 

[gilbertpark]

Please go and read the USCG documents on EVDSs.

The first is a 60 page research document that is well worth selective read (miss out the bits on light measurement) entitled:

CG-D-04-15_AltsToPyroDistressSigs_RDC_MAR_2015_Final.pdf

Its exec summary ends with:

The project recommends that the signal characteristic, a 4 Hertz flashing, group alternating, cyan and red- orange signal, be incorporated into the specification of an LED device as an alternative to a red, hand-held flare, acceptable for U. S. domestic vessel equipment carriage requirements. However, since U. S. Coast Guard rescue aircraft normally conduct nighttime searches using night vision imaging systems (NVIS) with “minus-blue” filtering,” the project recommends additional research and testing leading to the inclusion, if necessary, of an additional flashing signal closer to the NVIS central response range, approximately 750- 800 nanometers.

and the acceptance document

CG_ENG_03-18_eVDSD Policy Acceptance Letter 12-21-18.pdf

Please on this important subject (your life might depend on it) can we deal in fact.

If you want to see the injuries they cause look atpubmed.gov and put in your own keywords. There are lots of case reports. Facts not fiction please

Gilbert

 

[gilbertpark]

One further thought

psneeld says "..and is no where as dangerous as you make it out to be." what does he base this statement on? I have spent ages looking for this data and can find no registry of injuries to give any idea of frequency. If he does know of ne please share it?

I do know Duncan Wells who was making a video of how to use flares (as he is a RYA instructor). A white anti collision flare went off backwards during the making of this instructional video and entered his abdomen. He spent 9 months in hospital and needed many operations and has suffered permanent life changing injuries.

Despite these injuries he does not appear in a medical literature database, because no clinician wrote his case up. However, if you search for flare injuries in medical publication database you will find case reports of individuals and even a series of injuries in soldiers (who are trained to use flares). Or the man sunbathing on a beach when he was shot with a flare. In the UK media there are even reports of people being killed by a flare let off at football match. What is interesting, is that the injuries exceed what you would expect from a low velocity missile entering the body combined with the thermal injury from the flare during at 3000C. This is probably from the magnesium coming into contact with water in body tissues. Indeed, one operating note comments on the "chemical" injury to the tissues.

There are many other anecdotal stories of injuries I have uncovered, but the ones above are recorded fact not fiction.

Yes injuries are rare, but so is the firing of flares in the US. (only 1% of all rescues were initiated by flares). Many of these injuries may not be recorded anywhere. What is certain is that when they occur they are serious. Do you really won't to risk a member of your family or crew being injured when there are much safer alternatives?

Please let me know if you have any details of injuries from flares and even better if you know of a database of them. I prefer fact to fiction.

Gilbert

 

[psneeld]

My "opinions" come from mainly operational careers in the USCG and teaching boating safety/licensing and assistance towing.

I am guessing there is probably not a lot of documentation, I have not come across much published on pyrotechnic injuries.....but I have read thousands upon thousands of SAR case reports. If injuries occurred from a flare, it would most likely be recorded there.

A lot of boating is dangerous....and without data or facts hard to put things in real perspective.....

My opinion is that while accidents happen with many things, flares used carefully aren't demonic

.https://www.soundingsonline.com/voices/flares

https://siriussignal.com/sos-distress-light-saves-fishermans-lives-gulf-mexico/

The USCG, after searching for cell and satellite phone activity and sending local police to confirm the truck/trailer were still at the marina, dispatched a SAR airplane. They started at the farthest waypoint on his float plan (96 miles offshore) and worked back towards shore. The cloud ceiling was low; they were flying at 800-1000 feet. At about 10 miles out, USCG spotted a light blinking SOS and contacted Michael via VHF handheld. The SOS Distress Light was turned on and the USCG aircrew spotted it using their Night Vision Goggles.

 

[gilbertpark]

Try telling that to the people who suffered life changing injuries that are factual records

 

[ranger58sb]

...my opinion is that while accidents happen with many things, flares used carefully aren't demonic

Try telling that to the people who suffered life changing injuries that are factual records

As is not uncommon, I suspect there's room for both of these to be legit opinions...

-Chris

 

[gilbertpark]

You are correct that it is uncommon, but the effects of a flare injury can be life changing (or even lethal). Perhaps psneel could do us all a great service and review again the thousands of reports he has seen with a view to finding out how many injuries are recorded? It is a well known principal in medical research that you need to prospectively look for these injuries (perhaps the USCG could establish a database), but a good starting point is to look at all the reports retrospectively for this detail, which may or may not have been recorded.

Bear in mind also that the use of flares these days is optional as there are electronic measures that will guide a lifeboat / helicopter / other rescuer to within a few meters of where you are. These pose no risk to you and are more reliable than flares. The US standards (happy to post a copy) may allow up to 10% of flares not to work. In the UK the Royal National Lifeboat Institution have confirmed that on their lifeboats there is a failure rate, but they carry enough flares to compensate for the failures.

 

[psneeld]

I have always thought all but huge parachute flares were kinda useless....... because of their low success rate and the false alarms because every bright red light out on the water is reported as a flare.

I am glad there are alternatives popping up and if they dont become inoperable from corrosion as the OP was concerned with.....maybe one day will eliminate flares.

As tech eliminates risk of all kinds of things in our life....great....and I am looking towards these new lights too....but not because I feel flares are a huge safety threat...because they are barely useful but met a basic requirement.

PS....cant guarantee it, but I am pretty sure if someone was injured from a flare it would have shown up in the operational message traffic. Heck, just in my 3 years as Operations Officer in Cape May, NJ....we prosecuted over 10,000 SAR cases and I dont recall one flare injury....then there were the other 20 years with my ear to the ground being an interested boater. The link provided above in Soundings, written by a rescue swimmer mentioned 5 things to know about flares...didn't see his huge warning on safety.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

The above is good conversation, however:

Your boat is taking on water and you have to abandon ship. You can only have one device.

Question: What device would you choose to save your life and/or your family's lives?

 

[gilbertpark]

Glad you thought the conversation was good, we all learn from these discussions and I learnt from this one.

Depends where I am:

If I am within VHF range of the coast I would take my DSC handheld radio. I always believe its better to speak with your rescuers directly and it has a range of 25 miles or so (especially the DSC bit).

Offshore away from VHF coverage I would take an EPIRB, especially one of the new ones that has a little blue light that tells you the message has been received (ie a handshake). Alternatively, I might take my SPOT X then I could send and receive text messages from GEOS so I know rescue is at hand.

In my kayak (I use it most days) I take a small waterproof VHF so I can speak to the Coastguard if I, or importantly, someone else gets into trouble. It will also alert nearby boats. Alternatively, I could just buy a waterproof cellphone.

Gilbert

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Hey Gilbert, go stuff however

If your boat is sinking and you only have a SOS light of red flare, which one would you choose?

 

[psneeld]

I would take the SOS light if it was working....

But is the choice really between one red flare and the light?

Realistically, you have more than one flare in your abandon ship bag.

Plus, what kind?..... handheld, aerial, parachute??????

Where are you? What's the vessel traffic like? Did you get a confirmed reply on your distress call and your position?

If you are asking between a single red flare and an SOS light and either/or is your only means of a distress signal, I strongly suggest some survival training.

And I agree with the basic question though...the discussion was never about electronic distress devices...just visual signals and the fact the USCG requires something....which one better fits the bill is certainly debatable.