Anatomy of a capsize
Henry Law
that skilled. Had you seen us yesterday morning you would have had
your guess confirmed. Not only was it a rubbish outing (couldn't get
the thing sat up, no run on the boat, etc etc, and it was raining) but
we contrived to turn it over during the last leg back to the
boathouse. Ignominy, embarrassment and all that. It will pass.
It was the other things that happened that bothered me, and I'd like
some opinions on what to do in future, either personally or as a club
or both. (BTW I'm speaking purely in a personal capacity here; I have
no club status of any kind).
First some facts. We capsized in the dock basin, not the river.
It's several hundred metres wide at its widest. We were probably 100
metres from the dockside, in either direction. It wasn't particularly
cold, and we hadn't been working very hard so we weren't overheated
and I doubt there was much thermal stress, if any. Both of us have
certified that we can swim 100 yards in rowing togs. The pair
(Aylings) is, of course, fully buoyant with sealed fore and aft
compartments. My shoes were much too small for me: I guess size 9
with my feet being size 12, but they weren't laced up.
Now the talking points:
(1) Despite the fact that the heel restraints were in good order (i.e.
they would have passed regatta inspection) both of us got one foot
stuck. I had to hang on to the boat with one hand while
I used the other to free my heel. Not life threatening (as
two stuck feet would have been) but pretty damn
uncomfortable. Discussion: are heel restraints the whole
answer? Or only when the shoes fit?
(2) For some reason unknown we both ended up on the same side of the
boat once we'd got free. So when we hung onto it it rolled over
and over, rather alarmingly. Eventually we positioned ourselves
on opposite sides, and near the ends where the boat was narrow and
it was easy to get an arm over, and things stabilised. Deduction:
you can't just hang onto the boat: you need to be distributed
on both sides.
(3) The coaching launch happened also to be in the basin. OK, so
this had the downside that the senior VIII got to laugh at the
capsize, but the major upside was that help was at hand, to
get us on board and take the boat in tow.
But we row over a couple of miles of river; the launch could quite
easily have been at the other end of the course, and they might
have been doing pieces on the straight section and not have come
down into the basin until the end of the outing, maybe 40-60
minutes later. Discussion: what should we have done if no launch
had appeared? 100 yards to the dock side didn't *look* that far,
but the walls are vertical.
(4) Once we'd got back to the boathouse I found myself feeling quite
weak and it was all I could do to lift the boat. Was this just
the exertion of swimming around getting the blades out, and
swarming over the transom onto the launch? Or was it some
other factor?
In retrospect I find myself feeling slightly shaken; I'd be interested
to hear other people's comments and experiences.
Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Carl Douglas
>Well, you probably guessed that I and my new pair partner were not all
>that skilled. Had you seen us yesterday morning you would have had
>your guess confirmed. Not only was it a rubbish outing (couldn't get
>the thing sat up, no run on the boat, etc etc, and it was raining) but
>we contrived to turn it over during the last leg back to the
>boathouse. Ignominy, embarrassment and all that. It will pass.
On the basis that many scratch pairs capsize because of caught-up
finishes or delayed catches, a couple of suggestions which might improve
the next trip:
1. concentrate on ensuring comfort & relaxation at the finish, giving
time to finish the last stroke rather than hastening forward into the
next.
2. then "take the catch from the finish" - i.e. when you do leave
backstops, swing forward smoothly & straight into a solid catch without
hovering around frontstops. (Scratch pairs tend to add to their
instability by trying to anticipate each other's action, rather than
getting on with the stroke).
>
>It was the other things that happened that bothered me, and I'd like
>some opinions on what to do in future, either personally or as a club
>or both. (BTW I'm speaking purely in a personal capacity here; I have
>no club status of any kind).
>
>First some facts. We capsized in the dock basin, not the river.
>It's several hundred metres wide at its widest. We were probably 100
>metres from the dockside, in either direction. It wasn't particularly
>cold, and we hadn't been working very hard so we weren't overheated
>and I doubt there was much thermal stress, if any. Both of us have
>certified that we can swim 100 yards in rowing togs. The pair
>(Aylings) is, of course, fully buoyant with sealed fore and aft
>compartments. My shoes were much too small for me: I guess size 9
>with my feet being size 12, but they weren't laced up.
>
>Now the talking points:
>
>(1) Despite the fact that the heel restraints were in good order (i.e.
> they would have passed regatta inspection) both of us got one foot
> stuck. I had to hang on to the boat with one hand while
> I used the other to free my heel. Not life threatening (as
> two stuck feet would have been) but pretty damn
> uncomfortable. Discussion: are heel restraints the whole
> answer? Or only when the shoes fit?
Size 12 into 9 simply doesn't go. But unless the heel restraints were
over-long the heels should still have been yanked off without any
difficulty. However, there is an unfortunate tendency to leave these
life-saving cords over-long in the erroneous belief that shorter ones
will interfere with heel lift. And when regatta safety officers test
heel cords I doubt whether they assess the suitability of their length.
>
>(2) For some reason unknown we both ended up on the same side of the
> boat once we'd got free. So when we hung onto it it rolled over
> and over, rather alarmingly.
All of the boat rolls the same way, so this is the likely outcome.
> Eventually we positioned ourselves
> on opposite sides, and near the ends where the boat was narrow and
> it was easy to get an arm over, and things stabilised. Deduction:
> you can't just hang onto the boat: you need to be distributed
> on both sides.
A most excellent point, Henry.
Relatively easy to do that on flat water. Perhaps impossible in more
violent conditions - which needs underlining when considering staying
with an eight or four after stormy conditions have swamped & sunk it.
>
>(3) The coaching launch happened also to be in the basin. OK, so
> this had the downside that the senior VIII got to laugh at the
> capsize, but the major upside was that help was at hand, to
> get us on board and take the boat in tow.
>
> But we row over a couple of miles of river; the launch could quite
> easily have been at the other end of the course, and they might
> have been doing pieces on the straight section and not have come
> down into the basin until the end of the outing, maybe 40-60
> minutes later. Discussion: what should we have done if no launch
> had appeared? 100 yards to the dock side didn't *look* that far,
> but the walls are vertical.
I am very relieved that your rescue was at hand. What would you have
done without rescue?
You need to understand the absolute necessity of getting back into the
boat _without delay_. Do _not_ await rescue.
1. Tip boat right ways up
2. Bring oar handles together (over stroke's backstops)
3. One guy, grasping handles, heaves himself back on board while the
other helps to stabilise boat.
4. Guy #1 then continues to hold both handles while helping guy #2 back
on board.
5. Without fussing about lost kit or water in footwells, row as fast as
you can back to safety
>
>(4) Once we'd got back to the boathouse I found myself feeling quite
> weak and it was all I could do to lift the boat. Was this just
> the exertion of swimming around getting the blades out, and
> swarming over the transom onto the launch? Or was it some
> other factor?
You'd spent too long in cold water. What temperature was it? Somewhat
below 10C I'd guess? Check cold-water immersion survival tables &
you'll see what I mean - although most assume some level of clothing
greater than that for swimmers in rowing kit. Also, they don't often
refer to the consequences of loss of manual grip (which sets in rapidly
in cool waters), nor for the much greater chilling rate experienced by
those swimming or otherwise exerting themselves in water, rather than
just holding on.
Or read the following extract from
http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/TP/Tp13822/chapter-2.htm:
"The COMET had 27 persons on board and sank in Block Island Sound, Rhode
Island, about seven miles offshore, in 48°F [9ºC] water. The COMET had
no EPIRB and the only lifesaving apparatus was a 20-person buoyant
apparatus. About 15 of the survivors held onto the buoyant apparatus at
some point, including two of three who set out in a swamped dinghy to
get to the buoyant apparatus. Six others were able to use an 8’ X 10’
piece of flotsam for partial support. Almost everyone on board had a
lifejacket on when they abandoned ship. The two or three people who were
not able to get a lifejacket were able to use either the buoyant
apparatus or the flotsam. The first death occurred in the dinghy about ½
hour after the sinking. Deaths continued until rescuers happened on the
scene 4 hours later. A total of 16 persons died in this time."
That entire report on "Survival in Cold Waters", by the Marine Safety
Directive of Transport Canada, is well worth reading.
>
>In retrospect I find myself feeling slightly shaken; I'd be interested
>to hear other people's comments and experiences.
>
>Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Thanks for your excellent report, Henry. I'm sure you've already copied
it to the ARA for inclusion in its (non-existent) searchable accident
database?
3 cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
David Biddulph
news:a79s90pbvltp372t2...@4ax.com...
No. Heel restraints are _NOT_ the whole answer. What you need is to be
able to get your feet out of the shoes when the boat is upside-down without
you having to use your hands. The water safety code says (inter alia):
"Check also, when tied, that they are not too tight, thereby immobilising
the feet."
To go out in a boat with equipment that unsuitable is foolish in the
extreme. I'm very glad that you and your partner got away with it, and I
hope that your telling of the tale may discourage some other people from the
same dangerous exploit. This is another salutary reminder that getting
through regatta checks is not a complete and satisfactory test of safety.
There are only a limited number of things which control commission can cover
in their spot checks, and the responsibility for ensuring that equipment is
safe to use remains with the competitor in a regatta, just as it is during
training outings.
...
>
> In retrospect I find myself feeling slightly shaken; I'd be interested
> to hear other people's comments and experiences.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Christopher Anton
news:hGJqRNED...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
However, there is an unfortunate tendency to leave these
> life-saving cords over-long in the erroneous belief that shorter ones
> will interfere with heel lift. And when regatta safety officers test
> heel cords I doubt whether they assess the suitability of their length.
>
But I'm glad you've mentioned this Carl so we can get out of the habit of
thinking your heels need to lift several inches or more.
John Mulholland
John Mulholland
"Henry Law" <lawshous...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:a79s90pbvltp372t2...@4ax.com...
Heel restraints are only the whole answer if no other questions are asked!
The shoes must not be too tight, lengthwise as well as laces/velcro. The
heel restaints must not be too long; they should be tight when the heel has
lifted about two inches (50mm). The heel restraint must not snap under the
load; one of ours did this morning (a leather strap rivetted to the heel and
screwed to the footplate). The problem with these leather ones is that
there is little sign of deterioration until they snap. I prefer the cords
through loops, which are obvious when frayed and easy to replace without
tools.
>
> (2) For some reason unknown we both ended up on the same side of the
> boat once we'd got free. So when we hung onto it it rolled over
> and over, rather alarmingly. Eventually we positioned ourselves
> on opposite sides, and near the ends where the boat was narrow and
> it was easy to get an arm over, and things stabilised. Deduction:
> you can't just hang onto the boat: you need to be distributed
> on both sides.
>
That is a useful point, not usually mentioned in capsize drills which are
usually done in singles.
>
> (3) The coaching launch happened also to be in the basin. OK, so
> this had the downside that the senior VIII got to laugh at the
> capsize, but the major upside was that help was at hand, to
> get us on board and take the boat in tow.
>
> But we row over a couple of miles of river; the launch could quite
> easily have been at the other end of the course, and they might
> have been doing pieces on the straight section and not have come
> down into the basin until the end of the outing, maybe 40-60
> minutes later. Discussion: what should we have done if no launch
> had appeared? 100 yards to the dock side didn't *look* that far,
> but the walls are vertical.
>
Each club must do a risk assessment on its own water. Some use stretches of
water which can be observed from one spot, others have over 20 kms of
navigable water.
>
> (4) Once we'd got back to the boathouse I found myself feeling quite
> weak and it was all I could do to lift the boat. Was this just
> the exertion of swimming around getting the blades out, and
> swarming over the transom onto the launch? Or was it some
> other factor?
>
I find swimming much more tiring than rowing and, when you are trying to
'sort yourself out' after a capsize, you are probably being more energetic
than you would be in a pool. You may also have been suffering from slight
shock and hypothermia, either of which would affect your strength.
>
> In retrospect I find myself feeling slightly shaken; I'd be interested
> to hear other people's comments and experiences.
>
When you learn something yourself it is experience, when you learn it from
others it is education. Thank you for sharing your experience; hopefully we
can all learn from it.
>
> Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Jon Anderson
> And when regatta safety officers test
> heel cords I doubt whether they assess the suitability of their length.
In almost all regatts I have been to recently they have checked
thelength of our restraints to make sure they are not too long.
If the heel lifts above the ball of the foot then we are told to shorten
them. This did happen last year to a crew I was borrowed by.
Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
David Gillbe
> life-saving cords over-long in the erroneous belief that shorter ones
> will interfere with heel lift. And when regatta safety officers test
> heel cords I doubt whether they assess the suitability of their length.
I think this may be one of the places where Oxford organisation comes out
looking reasonably good safety wise. Crews aren't allowed to boat for events
unless the heel restraints are tight enough, such that the heel of the shoe
can not be lifted about horizontal (parallel with the water). doesn't
require a tape measure or a doctorate in engineering to check, and should
ensure that heel restraints do their job.
POWER10
I am glad that you and your partner are safe and sound. I never did get to row
a pair, surely the most difficult boat to master!
I have flipped in my 1x on numerous occasions, hitting hidden, barely below
surface logs and other debris in our challenging river. My quick release shoes
with good cords were efficient, and I was able to surface after being turned
completely upside down, yielding the brief thought: "Why do I do this thing?"
Fortunately, all my problems occurred when it was reasonably warm in the water.
Hope you have a nice row and come back dry the next time out.
Cordially,
Gordon/ WYRA
Gordon L. Pizor
Head Coach and Associate Director
Wilmington Youth Rowing Association, Inc.
WYRA
Stephen Blockley
> snip description of capsize<
> (2) For some reason unknown we both ended up on the same side of the
> boat once we'd got free. So when we hung onto it it rolled over
> and over, rather alarmingly. Eventually we positioned ourselves
> on opposite sides, and near the ends where the boat was narrow and
> it was easy to get an arm over, and things stabilised. Deduction:
> you can't just hang onto the boat: you need to be distributed
> on both sides.
> >John Mullholland said:
> >That is a useful point, not usually mentioned in capsize drills which are
> >usually done in singles.
The usual capsize drill as defined by the UK ARA Water Safety Code and done
in a single is no preparation (and little help) for when you end up in the
water from anything bigger then that.
Whilst practising coping with an emergency situation is really useful, it is
obviously foolhardy to practise in anything other than warm water eg in a
swimming pool, as cold water immersion is so inherently dangerous, and can
result in fatality within a minute or two - however many rescuers are on
hand. Unfortunately in real life unexpected immersion is rarely in water
above the 15 degrees C range (below which survival is significantly
affected) and hardly ever in water above 25 degree C (which has no impact on
survival). Things are very different in the cold...
(text moved about - sorry Henry)
> (4) Once we'd got back to the boathouse I found myself feeling quite
> weak and it was all I could do to lift the boat. Was this just
> the exertion of swimming around getting the blades out, and
> swarming over the transom onto the launch? Or was it some
> other factor?
It was no doubt the effect of the cold on your physical function. Carl has
sent us a link to a really useful research paper conducted by Transport
Canada, which gives real insight into how cold water immersion affects
physical performance:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/TP/Tp13822/menu.htm
Their research shows that "Cold shock" (atypical drowning) and "swimming
failure".... "probably accounts for the majority of open water immersion
deaths". Swimming failure is due to the effect of the cold on the
extremities, which takes a hold quite some time before the body core is
hypothermic. This is why everybody overestimates their swimming ability in
cold water - which bears little relation to swimming ability in the warm.
Here are some of the conclusions of the research:
1.. Wherever possible entry into water below 15°C should be avoided.
Direct entry into a life raft should be the objective.
2.. Transport Canada should use this philosophy in the design,
development and implementation of all new legislation. All vessels operating
in Canadian lakes and rivers at 15°C or below should carry liferafts that
can be easily launched and boarded by the entire crew and passengers.
3.. The only exception to this should be where it is physically or
practically impossible to stow a liferaft. Under such conditions the
passengers must wear inflatable lifejackets when on board.
4.. Closeness to the shore or the carriage of EPIRB are not a reason for
waiving this requirement because death from cold shock will occur within 3-5
minutes, and swimming failure in under 30 minutes. EPIRB responses have
averages between 90 minutes and 2 hours.
The implications for rowing are obvious.
> (3) The coaching launch happened also to be in the basin. OK, so
> this had the downside that the senior VIII got to laugh at the
> capsize, but the major upside was that help was at hand, to
> get us on board and take the boat in tow.
>
> But we row over a couple of miles of river; the launch could quite
> easily have been at the other end of the course, and they might
> have been doing pieces on the straight section and not have come
> down into the basin until the end of the outing, maybe 40-60
> minutes later. Discussion: what should we have done if no launch
> had appeared? 100 yards to the dock side didn't *look* that far,
> but the walls are vertical.
You were lucky Henry. Accident data shows time and again that coaching
launches are not to be relied upon. Either they are not where they are
needed (as in Leo's case), they cannot take all the survivors on board, they
capsize during the rescue procedure, or they suffer engine failure due to
rough water conditions.
David Biddulph said:
> >and the responsibility for ensuring that equipment is
> >safe to use remains with the competitor in a regatta, just as it is
during
> >training outings.
Sorry this is just not enough! The legal duty of care lies firstly with the
NGB to provide guidance and rules to provide a safe background to the sport,
to learn from incidents and accidents and adjust rules accordingly... and to
educate its Clubs and Members to provide a safe environment for activities.
Then it lies with Clubs to assess risk, to provide safe premises and
equipment and guidance and training for their membership, ensure the rules
of the NGB are implemented. Lastly individuals must assess risks, obey the
rules, and act in a manner which will not compromise the safety of others or
themselves - BUT, and this is a CRUCIAL point, their ability to do this
will obviously depend to a great extent on the degree to which the NGB and
Club fulfil THEIR responsibilities first.
We already know of a club which has settled out of court after an
incident.
>
> In retrospect I find myself feeling slightly shaken; I'd be interested
> to hear other people's comments and experiences.
>
> Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Glad you're OK!
Jane and Stephen
Henry Law
<stephenDO...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>hand. Unfortunately in real life unexpected immersion is rarely in water
>above the 15 degrees C range (below which survival is significantly
>affected) and hardly ever in water above 25 degree C (which has no impact on
>survival). Things are very different in the cold...
I could go and measure the water temperature - in fact I might just do
that if I can get there this week before it's changed too much - but
in the mean time does anyone have any idea what it might have been? I
googled around for quite a while for Salford Quays water temps and
could find only an annual variation (quoted at 4°-24°C) and a
triathlon site which expected 18°C last July. Carl suggested <10°.
Anyone know what the Thames is just now? Tees? Severn?
Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Rob Collings
> Carl Douglas wrote:
> > And when regatta safety officers test
> > heel cords I doubt whether they assess the suitability of their length.
>
> In almost all regatts I have been to recently they have checked
> thelength of our restraints to make sure they are not too long.
> If the heel lifts above the ball of the foot then we are told to shorten
> them. This did happen last year to a crew I was borrowed by.
>
> Jon
This is the rule of racing (IIRC the heel shall not rise above the
lowest fixed point of the shoe), but IME its far too long. Unless the
shoes are overly big, it can be awkward to get your feet out with such
long heel restraints. Your heel doesn't need to lift more than a
couple of inches while rowing, so slightly longer than that would seem
to be the best length for them. The best test is to sit in the boat
and try to haul your feet out of the shoes. I find I can rarely manage
that if the restraints are long enough to allow the heel up to the
level of the shoe fixings.
Rob.
Conor O'Neill
news:hGJqRNED...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
> >Now the talking points:
> >
> >(1) Despite the fact that the heel restraints were in good order (i.e.
> > they would have passed regatta inspection) both of us got one foot
> > stuck. I had to hang on to the boat with one hand while
> > I used the other to free my heel. Not life threatening (as
> > two stuck feet would have been) but pretty damn
> > uncomfortable. Discussion: are heel restraints the whole
> > answer? Or only when the shoes fit?
>
> Size 12 into 9 simply doesn't go. But unless the heel restraints were
> over-long the heels should still have been yanked off without any
> difficulty. However, there is an unfortunate tendency to leave these
> life-saving cords over-long in the erroneous belief that shorter ones
> will interfere with heel lift. And when regatta safety officers test
> heel cords I doubt whether they assess the suitability of their length.
I've been picked up for length of ties before, and seen officials check
length many times. The general rule they work on is that the shoes should
not lift up beyond level of the surrounding decking.
Conor
Katy Cameron
It depends on what, if anything, discharges into the water involved.
Some power stations for example can discharge warm water I believe
from cooling towers which will have an effect on the water in the
vicinity of the discharge - I seem to remember it was like this
sometimes on the Severn in Ironbridge.
KT
Mike Sullivan
"Carl Douglas" <Ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hGJqRNED...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
> Henry Law <lawshous...@btconnect.com> writes
snip. Useful information, Henry thanks.
> >(4) Once we'd got back to the boathouse I found myself feeling quite
> > weak and it was all I could do to lift the boat. Was this just
> > the exertion of swimming around getting the blades out, and
> > swarming over the transom onto the launch? Or was it some
> > other factor?
>
> You'd spent too long in cold water. What temperature was it? Somewhat
> below 10C I'd guess? Check cold-water immersion survival tables &
> you'll see what I mean - although most assume some level of clothing
> greater than that for swimmers in rowing kit. Also, they don't often
> refer to the consequences of loss of manual grip (which sets in rapidly
> in cool waters), nor for the much greater chilling rate experienced by
> those swimming or otherwise exerting themselves in water, rather than
> just holding on.
There's an additional factor involved of mental fatigue quite apart from the
cold water. In an accident like this, one can seemingly be in control,
have a plan for
self rescue that looks like it'll work fine, and something goes wrong and
suddenly fear
gets injected into the whole situation, perhaps even wondering if your life
is now being
threatened. I don't know if there's a clinical name for it, but I call it
'rescue exhaustion'.
The effect of this fear is an immediate reserve of energy, but that is
paid for later with an real physical exhaustion. In both cases there's a
loss of strength
and will, though one must have a sense of helplessness at some point in
rescue exhaustion.
Both have very different symptoms.
The differences in the symptoms are:
Hypothermia - a general lethargy, a wandering mind with physical symptoms of
numb extremities and slurring/numbness of speech. The muscles are tight and
contracted.
Rescue Exhaustion - A passing sense of relief, and a slight giddiness.
The relaxation of the
muscles can be profound.
The latter can happen in warm water, or on a hike, or after a car accident
and I believe are mild shock symptoms.
I've had a lot of experience with both, mostly from bodysurfing. You can
overcome the rescue
exhaustion with some mental tricks. In your case, you can be sitting on the
dock with the boat
alongside the dock full of water, you dripping wet, and say to your partner:
Wow somebody
left a perfectly good straight pair swamped alongside this dock. Should we
rescue it for the
club?' It works fine to get back your strength. Nothing you can do
about hypothermia but warm up.
Mike
Carl Douglas
This evening (Monday), at the end of a warm day, and after a heck of a
lot of rainfall, the temperature of the surface waters of the Thames at
Staines (about 8cm/3" down) was 11C/52F. Due to the time of day & the
flow, I wouldn't expect much variation with depth - but my electrical
thermometer is not made for submersion.
What an inner-city river basin's water temperature might have been
2+days ago & ~200 miles north, up there in Manchester, I can only guess.
I wouldn't suppose it would have been >10C
Cheers -
Martin Carr
> >
> I've been picked up for length of ties before, and seen officials check
> length many times. The general rule they work on is that the shoes should
> not lift up beyond level of the surrounding decking.
>
> Conor
Conor
The current rules stipulate that the restraints should stop the heels
rising above the lowest fixed point of the shoe.
May be it was coincidence that this point might be somewhere near
level with the decks of your boat
chris harrison
>
>
> The usual capsize drill as defined by the UK ARA Water Safety Code and done
> in a single is no preparation (and little help) for when you end up in the
> water from anything bigger then that.
With respect, it is still a whole lot better than nothing. It still
prepares you in some way for the shock of immersion (which is still a
shock, even in a heated indoor pool with plenty of helping hands in
attendance), for the sense of disorientation (which is still present
even if you know you're about to turn over) and for the panic which will
undoubtedly set in if you don't find yourself above the surface within a
few seconds.
But the thing that I found most enlightening was that it underlined that
it is far from impossible to turn a single back over and get back into
to it. It was a lot easier than I had thought.
Of course, environmental factors at the time of a 'real' immersion might
make righting yourself and climbing back in a lot harder than in the
drill - but that does not make the drill worthless.
Personally, I felt that the capsize drill was one of the more worthwhile
aspects of the ARA's Instructors Award course.
rowdoc
multiple individual velcro fasteners, or a single "grab" velcro
fastener (like the Ro-Shoo)? I've never actually capsized (touch wood
- or more likely kevlar or whatever the boat is made from) but thought
that the lace up shoes or multiple velcro fastener shoes would be more
of a liability in a turn-over.
The natural tendency would be to try and get to the surface ASAP, and
the pull on the shoe as you try to get your foot out would be a
twisting one, that would tend to tighten the shoe on your foot like
one of those finger traps, and allow less movement to release your
heel. A shoe like the ro-shoo with a single rip-strip of velcro would
be more amenable to a pull on it to open, and from memory when open
the aperture goes further down the front of the foot - which should
help you get out.
As an aside, the thermal "shock" of your dunking will have released a
fair old dollop of adrenaline into your system, so you'd hit a bit of
a low as it worked out of your system. Glad you made it back though...
Carl Douglas
>> length many times. The general rule they work on is that the shoes should
>> not lift up beyond level of the surrounding decking.
>>
>> Conor
>
>Conor
>
>The current rules stipulate that the restraints should stop the heels
>rising above the lowest fixed point of the shoe.
>
>May be it was coincidence that this point might be somewhere near
>level with the decks of your boat
If you are correct in the above, Martin, that is a good example of what
happens when rules are made up by those who can't grasp the science.
Years ago we all rowed in fixed clogs, or with our own shoes held by
straps over the meta-tarsals & with heels resting in fixed heel traps.
The stretcher was always at ~45 degrees. In case of need, the foot
disengaged promptly because there was nothing to stop it from doing so
Then people started fitting shoes, leading to a string of actual & near
fatalities when inverted rowers found themselves trapped by their feet.
Almost 30 years ago, after hearing the account of a survivor of one such
accident, I introduced the use of a _short_ (please note the emphasis)
cord connecting the heel of the shoe to the heel of the stretcher. We
set this at a length which allowed the heel to lift off the stretcher by
~5cm/2". That works fine.
However, for the heel to reach the level of the lowest fixing bolts on a
typical rowing shoe will require a cord length of ~13cm/5". Before that
cord can tighten the heel will be being pulled towards the stretcher &
the foot be becoming constricted into the shoe by the shortening effect
of the wrapping of the shoe sole around the foot, lengthways from toe to
heel. This can easily trap the foot into the shoe despite any tug on the
heel, especially if the shoe is already tight on the foot, & regardless
of whether the laces are tight or not. In which case the heel restraint
is now useless
So who codified this wholly unsatisfactory rule, & on whose advice?
Henry Law
>Just out of interest Henry - were the shoes in the boat laced up,
>multiple individual velcro fasteners, or a single "grab" velcro
>fastener (like the Ro-Shoo)?
They were scruffy old shoes with laces like old-fashioned gym shoes.
But as they were too small for my feet I didn't have them laced up.
I'm going to make sure that boats that I row in future (small boats,
anyhow) have big enough shoes.
>As an aside, the thermal "shock" of your dunking will have released a
>fair old dollop of adrenaline into your system, so you'd hit a bit of
>a low as it worked out of your system.
Yes, that makes sense. Reminds me of the time a school friend drove
his car into a parked skip with four of us on board ...
Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Neil Wallace
snip
> Thanks for your excellent report, Henry. I'm sure you've already
> copied it to the ARA for inclusion in its (non-existent) searchable
> accident database?
Thanks indeed, Henry. It sparked off some very interesting discussion.
Carl - I'm never sure how much tongue is in cheek when you make a remark as
above; surely you are not suggesting that _every_ capsize be reported to the
ARA (or relevant governing body)?
Jon Anderson
> Carl - I'm never sure how much tongue is in cheek when you make a remark as
> above; surely you are not suggesting that _every_ capsize be reported to the
> ARA (or relevant governing body)?
I have to fill out an accident form for every capsize.
Henry Law
<Ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>Or read the following extract from
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/TP/Tp13822/chapter-2.htm:
"Page introuvable". It's this now
http://www.tc.gc.ca/MarineSafety/tp/Tp13822/chapter-2.htm
Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Martin Carr
>>
> So who codified this wholly unsatisfactory rule, & on whose advice?
>
> Carl
Carl
Here is the exact wording from the ARA's rules of racing
heel restraints. All boats where "fitted shoes" are employed must have
effective heel restraints. These must be properly adjusted (The heel
should be prevented from rising higher than the lowest fixed point of
the shoe) and in working order. Likewise, the foot release from any
other type of fitment that may be used must be self-acting and not
require the intervention of the athlete or a rescuer.
Martin
chris harrison
Why not? The only way to spot trends is through accumulation and
analaysis of data - you only know what you're looking for when you've
studied data you didn't realise was important.
Certainly every capize should be reported via an accident report form,
which (I believe) suggests that the ARA should receive a copy of any
filled in. Our club's safety officer is increasingly hot on this subject
- to such an extent that we represent a very large percentage of all
those received by our region. Does that mean we're less safe or more
accident prone - or that others are under-reporting?
Capsizes are not so frequent that reporting every one is going to swamp
(sic) the ARA's admin function. But until they are *all* reported we
just won't know how infrequent they really are.
Christopher Anton
system.
"Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer*NOSPAM*@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:2ged3mF...@uni-berlin.de...
Christopher Anton
"chris harrison" <ne...@lowfield.com> wrote in message
news:40a225b3$0$58824$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
> Why not? The only way to spot trends is through accumulation and
> analaysis of data - you only know what you're looking for when you've
> studied data you didn't realise was important.
>
> Certainly every capize should be reported via an accident report form,
> which (I believe) suggests that the ARA should receive a copy of any
> filled in. Our club's safety officer is increasingly hot on this subject
> - to such an extent that we represent a very large percentage of all
> those received by our region. Does that mean we're less safe or more
> accident prone - or that others are under-reporting?
I have a similar problem at work, viz the reporting of adverse reactions to
drugs. It's estimated that only 10% or so are ever reported but that doesn't
make the reporting scheme valueless. It's almost certainly the case that
you're keener than most to report but those reports will enable trends to be
spotted in the database, and hoepfully signals detects and lessons learnt.
Stuart Jones
"Christopher Anton" <c.a...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jnsoc.23343$nd3....@pathologist.blueyonder.net...
> All capsizes should be recorded under the ARA's new Incident reporting
> system.
Not "reporting", "recording".
Non-critical capsises where nobody's hurt etc, are supposed to be recorded
in your funky new accident log, and the number of each type of recorded
incident submitted to the ARA.
Andrew Weaver
Do they really want me to report everytime a novice I am coaching capsizes
when they let go of the handles at front stops because I told them to?
Andrew
Neil Wallace
Nice one Andrew!
what about my Clubmate who fell off a pontoon last month?
We haven't recorded (or reported) that.
We all had a bloody good laugh though.
And before the safety police jump in here, we did learn a valuable lesson
from it - don't stand on one edge of the pontoon when Wallace is lifting the
other.
Carl Douglas
Henry's reported capsize was certainly not a trivial event.
Nor is any capsize, swamping or collision (including of launches) in
which the crew is then in difficulties or suffers injury.
The swamping debate demonstrated the gross under-reporting of rowing
mishaps. That under-reporting left rowers widely ignorant of a
significant hazard, allowed builders to continue making boats which
offer no support when support is most needed, & given room to NGBs to
act irresponsibly over crew safety.
This discussion makes the case for public reporting. It has shown that
important lessons need to be learned about shoe safety, cold-water
immersion, what to do when capsized in a dangerous location (how many
would automatically think of righting the boat & getting back in?), &
what to expect of yourself during & after such an event.
Henry gave us a first class account of what happened, warts & all. It
is vital for the safety of rowers everywhere that such reporting be
encouraged. To that end it is equally vital that named individuals not
be subjected to personal criticism. Let only those who never made a
mistake leap to criticise anyone who has the guts to admit things went
wrong.
So, no, I did not write with tongue in cheek. I meant it all.
Cheers -
Carl
PS I have said before & will now repeat:
I am all for people willingly taking risks when those risks are known &
are an essential part of what they are doing or of the enjoyment of that
activity. However, I see no earthly point in systematically ignoring
known & valueless hazards, especially when a consequence of so doing is
that others will stumble upon them unawares, & then perhaps be injured
or die.
C
Sarah Gardiner
feel more comfortable with what it takes to capsize a single, and
really understand the dangers and the reality of going into the water.
Doing it in a controlled environment, prepares people for it happening
in reality.
doing it in bigger boats would logistically be a headache, and I
believe that statistically you're more likely to tip yourself in from
a single. So it makes sense to practice capsizing one.
I don't agree with the ease of getting back into a boat - capsize
drill taught me and a couple of others that regularly scull (sometimes
alone) on the Tideway that getting back in isn't easy and that
swimming the boat to shore quickly is safer. We decided it might be a
question of size and/or strength - I have difficulty in reaching over
the boat to get both blade handles together, plus my body weight isn't
that much, so I have difficulty in pushing the hull down into the
water as I climb up... maybe I'm just not agile enough! That knowledge
would certainly make me think twice about sculling (or pairing)
somewhere that I might have difficulty in climbing out of the water,
it's also made me a bit more cautious about going out alone!
As for reporting, some clubs always do reporting better than others -
I believe (as mentioned earlier) the ARA is in the process of
implementing more procedures that will help English rowing be more
inclined to report incidents. This involves the regional water safety
advisors providing each club safety advisor with a log book and
guidelines on what to report and how, then the club SA's returning
this information annually to the ARA. I think failure to do that will
have implications for your ARA affiliation. Seems like the ARA are
taking water safety pretty seriously?
when I worked in a pub we had to report everything - if you wanted a
plaster from the first aid box it had to be noted, every cut, slip or
customer incident was noted. Over cautious perhaps, but seems sensible
and was an easy routine to get into. Health and hygiene were important
issues!
Sarah
Henry Law
Gardiner) wrote:
>doing it in bigger boats would logistically be a headache, and I
>believe that statistically you're more likely to tip yourself in from
>a single. So it makes sense to practice capsizing one.
I entirely agree; one of my objectives for the near future is to do
some capsizes in the (cleaner, slightly warmer) inner dock at Salford.
I know that at least one of the other scullers in the club will join
in.
But following my experience last week I'm convinced that this
precaution needs to be extended to pairs. And (pace Carl who
described the process in such matter-of-fact terms) getting back into
a pair sounds even more difficult!
>alone) on the Tideway that getting back in isn't easy and that
>swimming the boat to shore quickly is safer.
OK on the Tideway (well, most of it) because when you get the shore it
shelves gently and you can get onto terra firma and get your bode out
of the water. Not so good downstream of Putney, in a dock, or some
other vertical-sided venue. And it does depend on how far away the
"shore" might be.
Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Carl Douglas
>On 13 May 2004 02:57:06 -0700, Sarah_...@gardiner.uk.net (Sarah
>Gardiner) wrote:
>
>>doing it in bigger boats would logistically be a headache, and I
>>believe that statistically you're more likely to tip yourself in from
>>a single. So it makes sense to practice capsizing one.
>
>I entirely agree; one of my objectives for the near future is to do
>some capsizes in the (cleaner, slightly warmer) inner dock at Salford.
>I know that at least one of the other scullers in the club will join
>in.
>
>But following my experience last week I'm convinced that this
>precaution needs to be extended to pairs. And (pace Carl who
>described the process in such matter-of-fact terms) getting back into
>a pair sounds even more difficult!
>
I would prefer not to have to explain, in similarly matter-of-fact
terms, the possibly fatal consequences of being defeatist about getting
back into the boat....
When you have just fallen in is crucially the time to take rapid stock
of your predicament because, in cold water, every second of delay
disables you. It is very definitely _not_ a time to get prissy about
what it might take to get back into the boat.
Rowers are supposedly well-motivated people. If getting back into the
boat is the surest route to self-preservation, then don't ponder the
difficulties, just do it.
A story came back in '78 about Hugh Matheson, the GBR M1x for the Worlds
in Karapiro, NZ. The GB squad had a training camp at Sydney Harbour.
They were warned about the possibility of sharks in the water. Hugh was
unlucky enough to capsize. According to the version I heard, he was
back into his boat almost before he got wet. Clearly he appreciated the
possible risks & wanted to live a bit longer.
>>alone) on the Tideway that getting back in isn't easy and that
>>swimming the boat to shore quickly is safer.
>
>OK on the Tideway (well, most of it) because when you get the shore it
>shelves gently and you can get onto terra firma and get your bode out
>of the water. Not so good downstream of Putney, in a dock, or some
>other vertical-sided venue. And it does depend on how far away the
>"shore" might be.
Hoping for rescue when against the Fulham wall or below Putney bridge on
a cold, dank winter's evening could be tantamount to suicide. So let's
not build up the perceived difficulty of regaining ones seat after a
capsize. If you need to, you can do it. OK?
Cheers -
Carl
Stephen Blockley
We did not say the ARA capsize drill is worthless - but we did criticise its
limitations.
We would like to see the drill include information and training on what to
do if a boat which is NOT a single capsizes or sinks. At the moment the
instructors award document for Capsize Drill (Lecture no: IAO2.2 / CAO2.2
2NVQ Module: "ARA14 EMERGENCIES) - which we believe is the latest version -
is written for drill in a single only. There is one reference to fours and
eights:
" NB Fours and eights are unlikely to turn over except at landing stages
when athletes fail to get out properly. Tandem rigged fours are prone to
rolling over when turning in poor conditions."
The similar reference in the pre 1998 version of that document was a little
more informative:
"NB Fours and eights are unlikely to turn over (except, perhaps, at the
landing stage). They may sink however and here the best option is to stay
with and tow the boat."
So both the reference to the possibility of sinking and that brief (but
inadequate) advice on what to do was removed in 1998. Thus it seems to us
that the ARA drill misses a valuable opportunity to warn and prepare rowers
for emergencies that may arise other than a single capsize.
Jane and Stephen
Sarah Gardiner
> precaution needs to be extended to pairs. And (pace Carl who
> described the process in such matter-of-fact terms) getting back into
> a pair sounds even more difficult!
You have a good point Henry - actually falling in from a pair is
probably just as likely!
>
> >alone) on the Tideway that getting back in isn't easy and that
> >swimming the boat to shore quickly is safer.
>
> OK on the Tideway (well, most of it) because when you get the shore it
> shelves gently and you can get onto terra firma and get your bode out
> of the water. Not so good downstream of Putney, in a dock, or some
> other vertical-sided venue. And it does depend on how far away the
> "shore" might be.
>
I believe that rowing boats aren't allowed downsteam of putney (where
the tideway becomes steep sided) without a launch, I certainly
wouldn't go there in a single (or a pair!)
as I said in my previous post, my difficulty in getting back into a
single has made me revise my personal 'risk assesment'.
what are your club rules on rowing through the dock? anyone know
anything about rules on other docks? or steep sided rivers ?
but possibly it might mean restricting pairs work to crews that know
they can get back in (some clubs restrict sculling to people who have
completed a capsize drill, and the ARA recommnends this).
I'm not sure about relying on getting back in the boat in a time of
crisis... what you are capable in a more controlled enviroment isn't
necessarily what you can do under duress).
Sarah
chris A.
my depth and with no prospect of rescue. Getting back in was
relatively simple and I think self-rescue is something all scullers (&
rowers)need to be able to perform (otherwise no rowing without a
safety boat seems the way we're going).
Rowing boats that sink are plain stupid & unacceptable. No excuse for
it - we have ample buoyancy available - we just need to make the
spaces under the seats watertight - its really as simple as that.
I rowed around the Isle of Wight last year in a Burgashell coastal
four (supposedly designed for rough water). The watertight
compartments consisted of the areas under the bow & stern canvasses
which left us with about 2/3 of the boat open to flooding. We hit
rough water off the south of the Island & swamped the boat within
about 20 seconds (self-bailers don't deal with this - boat wash on the
Tideway will have much the same effect I guess)
The stern went down & our cox was in trouble - we pulled him into a
RIB immediately. The rest of the crew stayed in the boat but the
gunwales were still submerged so no chance of rowing out of trouble.
This boat could & should have stayed afloat & rowable. All we needed
to do was isolate the footwells from the interior of the boat & put a
self-bailer in each footwell. I think the same applies to pretty much
every rowing boat. You can make rowing boats 'unswampable' (unless you
punch holes in them) and we're only talking about changes that might a
couple of kilos to the all-up weight of a boat. Solution - increase
the FISA minimun weight and add a buoyancy requirement to ensure boats
remain rowable under 'submerged' conditions.
We don't need to be in danger out there - this problem is entirely
preventable.
Buoyancy aids for rowers would provide a 'belt & braces' solution. If
kayakers & dinghy sailors can cope with them I'm sure we could some up
with a design that allowed rowers to row....
Henning Lippke
> you punch holes in them) and we're only talking about changes that
> might a couple of kilos to the all-up weight of a boat. Solution -
> increase the FISA minimun weight and add a buoyancy requirement to
> ensure boats remain rowable under 'submerged' conditions.
Absolutely true, but you don't even have to alter the FISA rules. Just
change the deadweights in almost every new shell for sealed compartments
and at the same time enjoy increased hull stiffness.
-HL
Henry Law
<Ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>a cold, dank winter's evening could be tantamount to suicide. So let's
>not build up the perceived difficulty of regaining ones seat after a
>capsize. If you need to, you can do it. OK?
Er, Carl, I wasn't debating for one moment the necessity for doing it;
the Canadian paper referred to elsewhere in this paper contains enough
information to explain why it's essential to do it immediately.
What I meant rather was that if we try getting back into a pair in an
exercise and find we *can't* do it (and it definitely does sound
harder than getting back into a single), that would be a reason for
not going out in one without adequate safety cover.
À propos getting back in, help me work it out in my mind: grasping the
handles together means, as you wrote, that they end up over stroke's
slide. I can see that Bow could get in when it's like that, because
his or her seat/slide area is free. But given the need for Bow to
continue to hold both blades, where does Stroke's body land on the
first heave out of the water?
The last thing we want is our capsized crew wasting precious energy on
failed attempts to get back in, especially as their muscle strength
and firmness of grip may already be reduced by the low temperatures.
Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Carl Douglas
>On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:53:46 +0100, Carl Douglas
><Ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>a cold, dank winter's evening could be tantamount to suicide. So let's
>>not build up the perceived difficulty of regaining ones seat after a
>>capsize. If you need to, you can do it. OK?
>
>Er, Carl, I wasn't debating for one moment the necessity for doing it;
>the Canadian paper referred to elsewhere in this paper contains enough
>information to explain why it's essential to do it immediately.
>
>What I meant rather was that if we try getting back into a pair in an
>exercise and find we *can't* do it (and it definitely does sound
>harder than getting back into a single), that would be a reason for
>not going out in one without adequate safety cover.
>
>À propos getting back in, help me work it out in my mind: grasping the
>handles together means, as you wrote, that they end up over stroke's
>slide. I can see that Bow could get in when it's like that, because
>his or her seat/slide area is free. But given the need for Bow to
>continue to hold both blades, where does Stroke's body land on the
>first heave out of the water?
The logical way for a swimmer to re-enter a boat is where it is closest
to the water. I am sure that any non-injured rower can clamber over the
stern "canvas" into the footwell & thus regain their seat. The order in
which you re-enter is hardly critical, but don't hang around drawing
lots for first shot ;^). And for the purposes of re-entry, all parts of
the boat are usable, regardless of whether slide areas are free or paint
might get chipped. Just take care not to snag your crown jewels on
sharp corners!
Mine was but one of a number of viable schemes for re-entry. Others
might involve one swimmer holding a rigger end while the other clambers
over a deck from the same side. By all means let's have some alternates
proposed. And let's put them to the test. Rowers often bemuse me by
their willingness to argue but reluctance to go & test. Too many wordy
theorists, too few who will put things to the test (from which groups I
certainly exclude you, Henry!)
Remember, BTW, that when you add your weight to any part of a shell,
that part goes down into the water somewhat, thereby assisting your
re-entry
>
>The last thing we want is our capsized crew wasting precious energy on
>failed attempts to get back in, especially as their muscle strength
>and firmness of grip may already be reduced by the low temperatures.
That's why they need a) to understand the dangers & b) to move quickly.
A couple of failed attempts followed by a successful re-entry into the
boat, before you have started to chill, makes far more sense than
wallowing with increasing helplessness, only to chill inexorably, slip
away & drown.
And in case anyone doubts it:
Yes, I have fallen in, on occasion & in wintry waters. It ain't much
fun. But a strong sense of self-preservation did the necessary for me
when it mattered. The record books are not short of accounts of
seemingly impossible feats made possible by adrenaline. But getting
back into your single, double or pair is not remotely within that heroic
category. Indeed, I understand that some reputable sculling schools
incorporate self-recovery from capsize in their early curricula
Sarah Gardiner
> terms, the possibly fatal consequences of being defeatist about getting
> back into the boat....
>
> When you have just fallen in is crucially the time to take rapid stock
> of your predicament because, in cold water, every second of delay
> disables you. It is very definitely _not_ a time to get prissy about
> what it might take to get back into the boat.
>
> Rowers are supposedly well-motivated people. If getting back into the
> boat is the surest route to self-preservation, then don't ponder the
> difficulties, just do it.
I'm not being prissy! I'm being practical and I have made a risk
assessment.
as part of my own personal risk assesment for my outings (in a single
on the tideway, sometimes unsupervised) I decided that it would be
best to attend a capsize drill, so that I could see under controlled
conditions what might happen. Having been lucky in the 2 times I'd
fallen in previously I thought it was time to be prepared rather than
lucky. One of these times, I tried unsucessfully to get back in from
the water.
Capsize drill was in Putney swimming pool. I performed the ARA tip
out, tap boat, right boat and swim with the boat from the bows
routine. Later on I attempted a re-mount. There were a couple of
people who have sucessfully re-mounted who explained a couple of
methods for doing so before I went afloat. I tried several things
without sucess. As I mentioned earlier I'm fairly light (58kg) and
small, and despite the fact that I knew I wanted to do this (so I
could be self resucing on the Tideway) I really couldn't. Watching the
men trying the same exercise it seems like they are able to push the
boat further down into the water, so making the climb in easier.
The effort of attempting a re-mount left me very tired (even in warm
water) (and extensively bruised!) so much so that I decided that
swimming for the side is going to get me out of the water quicker than
trying, failing and still having to swim.
my personal risk asssement now says:
don't go out without a launch when it looks very rough, or it is very
cold, or in the dark.
If I do go out alone, stay in the vicinity of the club.
if I do fall in, and the bank is fairly near, swim rather than attempt
re-mount.
If I fall in somewhere where I can't get to the bank, THEN attempt a
re-mount.
Don't try high risk activity (starts, square blades, sculling over
high wash) on a bit of river that might be difficult to get out of.
Get OUT OF THE WATER as soon as possible.
So what I am recommending is that everyone should try capsize and
re-mount and see what happens. To make up their own risk assesement
(with help from their club and the ARA).
If in the future someone can teach me how to get back in sucessfully
then I can ammend my risk assessment!
regards
Sarah
Carl Douglas
>
>I'm not being prissy! I'm being practical and I have made a risk
>assessment.
Sorry if I gave offence. On occasion the business of staying alive
demands a rather robust attitude, so I try to discourage negative
thinking.
>
>as part of my own personal risk assesment for my outings (in a single
>on the tideway, sometimes unsupervised) I decided that it would be
>best to attend a capsize drill, so that I could see under controlled
>conditions what might happen. Having been lucky in the 2 times I'd
>fallen in previously I thought it was time to be prepared rather than
>lucky. One of these times, I tried unsucessfully to get back in from
>the water.
>
>Capsize drill was in Putney swimming pool. I performed the ARA tip
>out, tap boat, right boat and swim with the boat from the bows
>routine. Later on I attempted a re-mount. There were a couple of
>people who have sucessfully re-mounted who explained a couple of
>methods for doing so before I went afloat. I tried several things
>without sucess. As I mentioned earlier I'm fairly light (58kg) and
>small, and despite the fact that I knew I wanted to do this (so I
>could be self resucing on the Tideway) I really couldn't. Watching the
>men trying the same exercise it seems like they are able to push the
>boat further down into the water, so making the climb in easier.
>
>The effort of attempting a re-mount left me very tired (even in warm
>water) (and extensively bruised!) so much so that I decided that
>swimming for the side is going to get me out of the water quicker than
>trying, failing and still having to swim.
You were quite right to take that capsize course. And you are right to
then bring the problems you encountered into this discussion.
Could you tell us the various approaches to re-entry that you attempted
& why they did not work for you? Someone here might then be able to
give advice which might prove helpful.
>
>my personal risk asssement now says:
>
>don't go out without a launch when it looks very rough, or it is very
>cold, or in the dark.
>If I do go out alone, stay in the vicinity of the club.
>if I do fall in, and the bank is fairly near, swim rather than attempt
>re-mount.
>If I fall in somewhere where I can't get to the bank, THEN attempt a
>re-mount.
>Don't try high risk activity (starts, square blades, sculling over
>high wash) on a bit of river that might be difficult to get out of.
>Get OUT OF THE WATER as soon as possible.
>
>So what I am recommending is that everyone should try capsize and
>re-mount and see what happens. To make up their own risk assesement
>(with help from their club and the ARA).
>
>If in the future someone can teach me how to get back in sucessfully
>then I can ammend my risk assessment!
>
Sounds good as far as it goes, but rather restrictive at certain times
of year. But because you have to expect the unexpected (no risk
assessment can take account of the mad tug or launch driver), your
ultimate protection is still to master a re-entry technique suited to
your weight & physique.
Let's see if some of the RSR gurus Paul keeps on about can help you.
Henning Lippke
> The logical way for a swimmer to re-enter a boat is where it is
> closest to the water. I am sure that any non-injured rower can
> clamber over the stern "canvas" into the footwell & thus regain
> their seat. The order in which you re-enter is hardly critical, but
> don't hang around drawing lots for first shot ;^). And for the
> purposes of re-entry, all parts of the boat are usable, regardless
> of whether slide areas are free or paint might get chipped.
If it's only paint that gets chipped during entry... I can imagine more
severe damages done to the boat when you enter it from the 'wrong' end,
wherever it may be depending on boat make. Especially when entering via
the deck of a boat with soft decking.
-HL
--
Remove 'mail.' to reply.
Henning Lippke
> > I would prefer not to have to explain, in similarly matter-of-fact
> > terms, the possibly fatal consequences of being defeatist about
> > getting back into the boat....
> >
> > When you have just fallen in is crucially the time to take rapid
> > stock of your predicament because, in cold water, every second of
> > delay disables you. It is very definitely _not_ a time to get
> > prissy about what it might take to get back into the boat.
> >
> > Rowers are supposedly well-motivated people. If getting back into
> > the boat is the surest route to self-preservation, then don't
> > ponder the difficulties, just do it.
>
> I'm not being prissy! I'm being practical and I have made a risk
> assessment.
>
> as part of my own personal risk assesment for my outings (in a single
> on the tideway, sometimes unsupervised) I decided that it would be
> best to attend a capsize drill, so that I could see under controlled
> conditions what might happen. Having been lucky in the 2 times I'd
> fallen in previously I thought it was time to be prepared rather than
> lucky. One of these times, I tried unsucessfully to get back in from
> the water.
> I tried several things
> without sucess. As I mentioned earlier I'm fairly light (58kg) and
> small, and despite the fact that I knew I wanted to do this (so I
> could be self resucing on the Tideway) I really couldn't. Watching
> the men trying the same exercise it seems like they are able to push
Interesting. But I have seen more than once that our juniors (weight <
45 kg) get back into the boat without trouble (and partly clothed). So I
guess it's not only the weight to push the boat down. Or are you
extremely overboating?
Henning Lippke
> Let's see if some of the RSR gurus Paul keeps on about can help you.
Come over here, we have lots of nice patches of water to train on, and
it's becoming warmer...
My recipe, in four steps, requires that you have rightened the boat and
the oars perpendicular to the boat.
1. Grab both handles with one hand, and press the hand down into the
footwell. The boat should then lean towards you.
2. With a first stroke of the legs and the other hand wherever you like
to have it, lift your hips to the edge of the boat's cockpit.
3. (Now it sounds awful, but is quite easy) With a second stroke, lift
yourself a little higher, turn around and get you seated on the deck,
preferably in the middle.
4. Lift the hand wich grabs the oars, and the boat will righten. Now you
can take your legs out of the water and prepare for getting back on the
seat again.
Although you need to get back quick to the boathouse in an emergency, I
would recommend that you sit about half a minute on the deck before
climing back onto the seat. I've more than once seen people falling back
in while doing this, I'm not sure about the reason. Maybe exhaustion,
more probably the shock and reduced consciousness.
Andrew Weaver
Last year I drank with and occassionally coached for Tokyo Foreign
Language University. Bando-san the lightweight women's single sculler
clipped a buoy and capsized at a local regatta early on in the season.
Swam to the side and got out. End of regatta.
After quite a lot of practice at getting back into the boat, she did a
training run over the same course, in reasonably similar conditions.
She capsized in the same place, on purpose this time, got back on and
carried on to the finish. The time she did the whole course in would
have been good enough to qualify her for the next round.
I just wish I was a good enough sculler to do that.
Andrew
David Gillbe
What? Fall in during regattas? Even I can teach you that one Andrew.
</jk>
Martin Carr
> I'm not being prissy! I'm being practical and I have made a risk
> assessment.
>
> water) (and extensively bruised!) so much so that I decided that
> swimming for the side is going to get me out of the water quicker than
> trying, failing and still having to swim.
>
> my personal risk asssement now says:
>
> don't go out without a launch when it looks very rough, or it is very
> cold, or in the dark.
> If I do go out alone, stay in the vicinity of the club.
> if I do fall in, and the bank is fairly near, swim rather than attempt
> re-mount.
> If I fall in somewhere where I can't get to the bank, THEN attempt a
> re-mount.
> Don't try high risk activity (starts, square blades, sculling over
> high wash) on a bit of river that might be difficult to get out of.
> Get OUT OF THE WATER as soon as possible.
>
> So what I am recommending is that everyone should try capsize and
> re-mount and see what happens. To make up their own risk assesement
> (with help from their club and the ARA).
>
> If in the future someone can teach me how to get back in sucessfully
> then I can ammend my risk assessment!
>
> regards
>
> Sarah
Sarah
I think you have a most valid point here. I too row/scull on the
Tideway and have in my 20 odd years of sculling gone in three times
all thankfully in the Spring/Summer months.
The recollection of those moments are that it would have been almost a
physical impossibility to get back in the boat, especially when you
have a faster than average stream always running on the tideway.
My own risk assessment therefore is similar. First and foremost I
think it is impractical to get back in a sculling boat on the tideway
therefore;
1. Weekends the vets at my club always scull in a group
2. If I am out on my own out of regular hours I will only scull at
times when I know there is plenty of bank to swim to, never at the top
of the tide
3. If on my own during 'core' hours (Tues/Weds/Thur evenings - Sat/Sun
mornings) I would always scull in busier spots - you may get washed
down by coaches but at least they are around if you get into
difficulties.
As for going beyond Putney I never heard it's restricted - though it
really isnt worth it in single - you can go that way but its back to
port to port navigation and there are too many shoals and part
submerged obstacles which raise the hull damage factor.
If you really do want to do the mileage, do the Tideway Scullers
piece, from Chiswick Bridge to the Pink House down to the Black Buoy
and back to chiswick Bridge - approximately 15 miles - plenty long for
most folk!
Martin