High tech kill cords - the next generation?

[indaba1991]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Nothing wrong with a damn good thrashing, never did me any harm, harumff

Heavens above - a Public Schoolboy on Ribnet! Whatever next?

[Observer]

@ Pikey Dave.

Why do you insist on a different system being "idiot proof" and/or "reliable" to any greater extent than the kill cord system. The kill cord system is far from idiot proof. The device itself is robust and reliable but the system as a whole is not reliable (as was shown).

Two systems do not have to be mutually exclusive. There is no reason I can see why an electronic system with some <operator control present> test could not be developed and installed in addition to a kill cord. Possibly there may be an option for it to be manually disabled so that advanced operators would would rely on the kill cord alone (in the same way that I can choose to disable ESP in my car).

[teamplonker]

Originally Posted by Observer

@ Pikey Dave.

Why do you insist on a different system being "idiot proof" and/or "reliable" to any greater extent than the kill cord system. The kill cord system is far from idiot proof. The device itself is robust and reliable but the system as a whole is not reliable (as was shown). ).

I think the system on the whole is reliable, human error is the problem ( as was shown ).

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Observer

@ Pikey Dave.

Why do you insist on a different system being "idiot proof" and/or "reliable" to any greater extent than the kill cord system. The kill cord system is far from idiot proof. The device itself is robust and reliable but the system as a whole is not reliable (as was shown). Can't argue with that

Two systems do not have to be mutually exclusive. There is no reason I can see why an electronic system with some <operator control present> test could not be developed and installed in addition to a kill cord. Possibly there may be an option for it to be manually disabled so that advanced operators would would rely on the kill cord alone (in the same way that I can choose to disable ESP in my car).So you want to add another imperfect /flawed system on top of another?

As I said, show me a system that is better than the one we have & I'll buy it. All you are proposing is more of the same. I think it's fair to say that we would all like a system that works regardless of the human input, but as yet, that system does not exist. All you are proposing is an ideal, a concept, that was covered ad nauseum in the thread. Tell me how this system of yours will work, how it will be implemented in a marine environment, how much it will cost. When you've perfected that, we'll move on to lifejackets At some point we have to accept that we are human, fallible, & have to suffer the consequences of our actions. To think that we can solve everything with science/money/regulation is delusional..... IMHO of course

[MustRib]

Originally Posted by Observer

@ Pikey Dave.

Why do you insist on a different system being "idiot proof" and/or "reliable" to any greater extent than the kill cord system. The kill cord system is far from idiot proof. The device itself is robust and reliable but the system as a whole is not reliable (as was shown).

Two systems do not have to be mutually exclusive. There is no reason I can see why an electronic system with some <operator control present> test could not be developed and installed in addition to a kill cord. Possibly there may be an option for it to be manually disabled so that advanced operators would would rely on the kill cord alone (in the same way that I can choose to disable ESP in my car).

Its great that people are thinking about "improving" the concept of the kill cord, to make it unavoidable/forgettable. It sounds like it would need to involve some kind of electronics, proximity, wireless etc and I think what Pikey Dave is saying is that - when the going gets interesting, relying on something like that to not fail and disable the engine may not be his cup of tea, something I have to agree with.
The two systems do not have to be mutually exclusive - as you say, but if I have a kill cord and switch I think I would pass on any electronic ancilliary device...

[j.i.wilson]

supposing every new engine came with a blue tooth (type) radio, ie short range

supposing every new engine came with a toggle that the short range radio could detect at , say 10m

supposing if the engine radio lost contact with the toggle

suppose that killed the engine

suppose the toggles cost £10 so all passengers could have one.

suppose this could be bypassed for 30 mnutes by flicking a switch on the engine

suppose the whole lot cost £30

why would this be bad?

[MustRib]

Originally Posted by j.i.wilson

supposing if the engine radio lost contact with the toggle

suppose that killed the engine

why would this be bad?

suppose that you were manouvering in a big beam sea

suppose you were in a big following sea

suppose that the engine was killed

suppose you had to leave the helm to go back to the engine to restart it

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by j.i.wilson

supposing every new engine came with a blue tooth (type) radio, ie short range

supposing every new engine came with a toggle that the short range radio could detect at , say 10m

supposing if the engine radio lost contact with the toggle

suppose that killed the engine

suppose the toggles cost £10 so all passengers could have one.

suppose this could be bypassed for 30 mnutes by flicking a switch on the engine

suppose the whole lot cost £30

why would this be bad?

Because a boat can circle in 10m and 10m is a lot further than the length of a killcord.

IF you were talking about a killcord replacement that is.

Somehow the concept of any part of a proper waterproof marine bluetooth device costing a tenner eludes me

[Starovich]

supposing every new engine came with a blue tooth (type) radio, ie short range
The 10,000 existing?

supposing every new engine came with a toggle that the short range radio could detect at , say 10m
Thats twice the length of my boat. Only needs to be 1m or less.

supposing if the engine radio lost contact with the toggle
suppose that killed the engine
water and delicate electronics and your life?

suppose the toggles cost £10 so all passengers could have one.
So which one controls the cut off? the one on the passenger in the bow or
the one in the stern or the one driving?

suppose this could be bypassed for 30 mnutes by flicking a switch on the engine
people would keep using it especially for those " im just pottering round in the harbour"

suppose the whole lot cost £30
This level of tech, in a marine market?!

why would this be bad
^^

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by j.i.wilson

supposing every new engine came with a blue tooth (type) radio, ie short range

supposing every new engine came with a toggle that the short range radio could detect at , say 10m

supposing if the engine radio lost contact with the toggle

suppose that killed the engine

suppose the toggles cost £10 so all passengers could have one.

suppose this could be bypassed for 30 mnutes by flicking a switch on the engine

suppose the whole lot cost £30

why would this be bad?

Suppose the same numpty that doesn't use his killcord put all those expensive bluetooth toggles in a bag in the console, you're missing the point. All you've done is replace one flawed system with another (flawed, complex, expensive) one, which has been my point all along.

[teamplonker]

Originally Posted by j.i.wilson

supposing every new engine came with a blue tooth (type) radio, ie short range

supposing every new engine came with a toggle that the short range radio could detect at , say 10m

supposing if the engine radio lost contact with the toggle

suppose that killed the engine

suppose the toggles cost £10 so all passengers could have one.

suppose this could be bypassed for 30 mnutes by flicking a switch on the engine

suppose the whole lot cost £30

why would this be bad?

Once again human error could creep in I.E not wearing the toggle like not wearing the kill cord.
You may just as well stick with the couple of pound plastic coated piece of string that works if you use it.

[A1an]

I've sussed it....



Junk the outboards and lets get ourselves some paddles.

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by j.i.wilson

supposing every new engine came with a blue tooth (type) radio, ie short range

There is a guy over on PBO's forum doing just that for his yacht as MOB alarm.
YAPP idea - MOB alert system

supposing every new engine came with a toggle that the short range radio could detect at , say 10m

supposing if the engine radio lost contact with the toggle

YAPP's system could be rigged to do that.

So you drop your mate off on a jetty have he heads off with your toggle, you have lunch and now you go to leave and engine wont start as toggle missing, so you override --> you are no better than the situation the MAIB describe where it was possible the helm didn't put the KC on because she was only travelling a few hundred yards to the mooring.

suppose that killed the engine

suppose the toggles cost £10 so all passengers could have one.

That cost is within the YAPP budget. Not within a commerical one though.

suppose this could be bypassed for 30 mnutes by flicking a switch on the engine

Up till then you were not a million miles off a solution. Then you provided an override
YAPP have options to over ride single toggle. Would need to decide what happens if whole system fails.

suppose the whole lot cost £30

YAPP costs - but its a not for profit.

BUT the **whole** cost £30 - I can't replace a KC and switch for that??
The toggle was £10. So thats 2 toggles and a VERY cheap base. More like £30 base, £10 toggle. Need 4 or 5 toggles. Total cost £80 + fitting for a very small solution.

Battery powered toggle. When battery dies people will disable it.

why would this be bad?

Because you haven't found a way to stop them being left in a locker. Left in my jacket pocket but I take my jacket off coz its hot etc.

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

Because a boat can circle in 10m and 10m is a lot further than the length of a killcord.

IF you were talking about a killcord replacement that is.

Somehow the concept of any part of a proper waterproof marine bluetooth device costing a tenner eludes me

The YAPP system doesn't need to be that waterproof. it alarms if the toggle fails. You'd only want it to be waterproof to prevent false alarms.
The base unit would want to be waterproof but doable in budget I expect.

Originally Posted by teamplonker

Once again human error could creep in I.E not wearing the toggle like not wearing the kill cord.
You may just as well stick with the couple of pound plastic coated piece of string that works if you use it.

I agree. Had the helm not been wearing a KC because she'd been to the bow to get a mooring boy or lift the anchor single handed etc then this might have been a logical solution as the KC might not have been long enough... but she just forgot to put it on.

To catch that you need some means that if you are taking the KC off while still have power you maybe have either a mechanical process or an electrickery one that means you can't go above fast idle ?

[Nos4r2]

Why fast idle? Do you think the prop will only kill you a little bit?

[akirk]

the problem with toggles / kill cords / etc. is simply that the system includes a human decision to use it...

plenty of systems built into cars which are automatic - plenty of systems built into hedge trimmers / drills / lawn mowers / strimmers / etc. which require continual involvement to keep the engine running...

it would be neither expensive nor difficult to come up with such a system, but it would be more expensive than a kill cord so persuading manufacturers to include it would be difficult unless regulatory, and that is unlikely...

Alasdair

[Timw44]

You can make systems as smart as you like but they are only any good if people use them. Killcords work effectively - if you use them. Simple really...

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

Why fast idle? Do you think the prop will only kill you a little bit?

Yip. I'd rather be a little bit dead than a big but dead.

I was assuming that there are times when someone legitimately wants to be underway but not tethered. I struggle to find any need to be at WOT without tether.

I was also assuming you are less likely to be forcefully ejected if not making massive way through the water.

I may have been assuming the severity of any contact would be less in that you may be able to get away from the boat at lower speed...?

But it wasn't perfect. (A) because the prop will still be turning (B) because last time I saw someone go overboard on a rib (not the helm) it was idling and they were getting off onto a jetty. Coming alongside single handed is one of those times you *might* want the engine to stay alive but need to leave the throttle and *might* be more likely to go for a swim.

Originally Posted by akirk

the problem with toggles / kill cords / etc. is simply that the system includes a human decision to use it...

plenty of systems built into cars which are automatic - plenty of systems built into hedge trimmers / drills / lawn mowers / strimmers / etc. which require continual involvement to keep the engine running...

it would be neither expensive nor difficult to come up with such a system,

I've never used a hedge trimmer, drill or lawnmover while bouncing over waves.

I've never been in a situation where if my hedge trimmer suddenly stopped trimming I might be in a gravely dangerous situation.

I've never been in a situation where I wanted to use my hedge trimmer hands free while I tried to pick up a mooring buoy...

[teamplonker]

IDEA!
Inexpensive, unintrusive, non eletronic, no possible human error factor.
What about a spring loaded throttle, I'm sure I have read about them somewhere on here.

[Nos4r2]

I cannot see anything that can be done to force people to use killcords or any type of hi-tech alternative to killcords that won't severely impact on safety at a different point.

[biffer]

There have been kill cords on boat controller for 30 odd years. There were idiots then the same as now. If there was something that was twat proof we would be using it by now