Every four years the lifeboat nations of the world gather at a different venue to share and exchange information and technical expertise.

The 16th Conference was held in early June 1991 at Oslo.

Edward Wake-Walker, the Institution's Public Relations Officer, reports on the event and the topics on the agenda.

Picture a Norwegian fjord on a summer's evening, the light reluctant to fade in the northern latitudes of Oslo and a low sun glimmering occasionally through clouds which hang above the hills beyond the water's edge. Making steady progress along the fjord is a fine, white, threemasted sailing ship, her decks ringing with the sound of convivial conversation and in her wake a neat procession of smaller craft of every shape and colour. This is the sixteenth International Lifeboat Conference afloat.

Aboard the sailing ship, Christian Radich, are delegates from the 25 countries represented at the conference and in two lines astern are some 17 lifeboats currently in use in different parts of Europe. Soon these boats will break from their formation, one after the other, and in a burst of speed move past the onlookers lining the rails of the Christian Radich. It is an impressive sight.

Every four years member countries of the International Lifeboat Federation come together for a week to compare notes, to share ideas in design, technology and lifesaving methods and to renew important friendships. It is a week which with every conference becomes more crowded with presentations and discussions as the choice of boat design and building material diversifies and as equipment increases in sophistication.

One of the most intriguing philosophical differences in the approach to lifeboat design still lies in the debate on allowing for the threat of capsize. The RNLI's latest FAB 3 and FAB 4 prototype designs which were fully explained at the conference incorporate the self-righting capabilities common to all current RNLI all-weather lifeboats. These include a watertight wheelhouse with specially reinforced windows and capsize valves.

The Norwegians, as the RNLI, build lifeboats which would be extremely difficult to turn over, but they view a total capsize so unlikely that the design features incorporated by the RNLI are considered unnecessary.

Preferred building materials also differ from one country to another. The Norwegians have experienced some stress failure in the core material of their GRP sandwich hulls on their newer boats and have now switched to aluminium for their 19.6m (64ft) Skomvaer and 15m (49ft) Norboat class lifeboats. It is not a similar story elsewhere, however, as the success of the GRP Arun over the past 15 years has encouraged the RNLI to forge ahead with even lighter and stronger fibre-reinforced composite materials in the Mersey class and the FAB 3 and FAB 4 prototypes.

Delegates were particularly interested in samples of the materials used in these lifeboats when they were passed round the conference hall. Later, on the Oslofjord, they were able to board both a GRP Arun in the guise of the visiting relief fleet The Duke of Atholl, and the FRC relief Mersey class Marine Engineer to get a feel for them in action.

The French are also strong advocates of composite construction lifeboats to achieve strength, low weight and lower costs. They presented a paper on successful tests they had been carrying out on a GRP sandwich structure using Coretex as the core. They have an ambitious modernisation programme of their fleet underway at the moment and all their new boats, ranging from their 17.6m (58ft) allweather lifeboat to their 8.9m (29ft) vedette de deuxieme classe are built of GRP.

Sweden and Denmark also have a use for GRP, the Swedes in their new 14.5m (48ft), 22 knot lifeboat Erik Col/in, another visitor to the conference. She is not selfrighting and not all-weather but with her good towing capabilities and speed she is considered ideally suited for the comparatively sheltered Swedish waters and the sailing mad Swedes. In a population of 8 million people there are 1.2 million boats. Towing casualties to safety is a major concern for the Swedes who remarked that many pleasure craft were poorly equipped with towing bollards forward.

One of the most intriguing philosophical differences in the approach to lifeboat design still lies in allowing for the threat of capsize Denmark is developing a 15m (49ft) vessel which will double as a rescue and pilot boat and which will be capable of 40 knots. Kevlar and glass will be used to reinforce her composite hull-and she will be propelled by twin 680hp diesel powered water jets. She would make an exciting sight at the next conference in Uruguay in 1995. In fact, her country's representative in Oslo, the steel hulled, 23.3m (76ft) rescue and pilot boat Laurits Villiam Dam drew admiring comments from many delegates for her elegant lines.

Still addressing the composite-versus-aluminium debate, Germany concluded in a paper comparing the two materials that neither showed significant advantage over the other, either in performance or cost. They have therefore decided to stay with aluminium when ordering 15 new 8m (26ft)' 18- knot lifeboats, their latest requirement to cope with the burgeoning pleasure boat activity.

The German Lifeboat Institution has, incidentally, an extensive new boat building commitment on its hands with its recent inheritance of 11 lifeboat stations from what was East Germany.

The United States Coast Guard would admit to an element of 'better the Devil you know' philosophy when choosing aluminium for their new 47ft (14.3m) motor lifeboat prototype which they portrayed at the conference. (Unfortunately, the Gulf War aftermath had stymied their plans to transport the actual boat to Oslo.) Their naval architect generously acknowledged that this new boat had been developed with the help of useful consultation with European counterparts, including the RNLI. The new lifeboat, designed to replace their ageing fleet of 44ft (13.4m) cutters (from which the RNLI Waveney class was derived), is self-righting and capable of 27 knots.

Finland also had a new aluminium 16.25m (53ft) lifeboat to present to the conference. Her comparatively shallow 0.8m (2ft 7in) draught and low superstructure are examples of designing a lifeboat to fit local conditions. Often called upon to operate in the shallows of the Finnish coast and archipelago, she must have as little as possible below the water and above, as winter icing on her upperworks could threaten her stability. Ice is also considered the enemy of the GRP hull, its abrasion resistance not being as high as some other materials. Solid and broken ice in the sea is abrasive and any water absorbed by the material will cause further damage if it freezes. Hence the aluminium hull of this boat whose water-jet propulsion produces a speed of 25 knots.

The fastest lifeboats to visit Oslo came from Holland and Belgium. The Dutch sent their two latest rigid inflatable lifeboats, both evolved from the original experimental Medina design of the RNLI. The larger 14.4m (47ft) Johannes Frederik type is capable of 36 knots, and the 10.6m (35ft) Valentijn type, 32 knots. They both have aluminium hulls powered by twin water-jets, and their sea- keeping ability was shown to advantage in a film taken from an oil-rig during a gale. They were seen to accelerate away from large following seas which would have threatened a slower boat of the same size.

The Dutch, who appear to be the only country other than the UK to launch all-weather lifeboats from a beach, have also developed a new type of launching carriage for the Valentijn type rigid inflatable. The unit is designed hydraulically to lift the lifeboat clear of the breaking surf until she is in the optimum position for launching. The Belgian lifeboat, also a rigid inflatable, is capable of nearly 40 knots and on her way to the conference, supposedly in company with the other visiting boats, often appeared only as a speck on the horizon ahead of the rest of the convoy.

Various items of lifeboat equipment produced useful discussion at the conference. Delegates were interested to see the latest RNLI protective clothing (ably modelled by the Institution's Chief Technical Officer), and were also brought up to date on work to perfect a lifejacket for RNLI crews which is less cumbersome than the current one yet as effective a life-saver.

The Norwegians were using night-vision binoculars and goggles to good effect for searching, and the Dutch had developed a special platform which can be lowered over the transom of their new lifeboats to help recover people in the water.

The flashing blue light used to denote an emergency vehicle also caused some interesting discussion. RNLI lifeboats use a blue light, but the governments of some other ILF member countries do not recognise a rescue boat as a legitimate user. The conference felt that it would like to see the blue light more universally accepted, and also discussed other potential international markings to identify a lifeboat.

The topic of crew training was never far from the discussion and the RNLI, the Swedish Sea Rescue Institution and the US Coast Guard all presented papers on aspects of the subject.

Holland had a story to tell of the merger between the North and South Holland Societies, and Germany too had a unification tale to relate.

Canada presented a paper on some of the problems faced by their Coast Guard in providing search and rescue in the remote unpopulated areas of the north, while Sweden explained their dependence on volunteers.

One message that came through the conference loud and clear was that voluntary funding and volunteering in general were still effective methods of running lifeboat services in spite of growing sophistication in technology.

Public appreciation of such services is of course essential if they are to receive the support they require, and the RNLI raised at the conference some of the best ways of achieving recognition in the media.

And talking of publicity, the four-yearly International Lifeboat Conferences often fail to attract the media coverage they deserve. Totally apolitical, they bring together people from as far afield as China, Poland and Uruguay to share their experience on the common subject of saving life at sea. The Oslo conference, which fortuitously coincided with the Norwegian Sea Rescue Society's 100th anniversary celebrations, was in itself an embodiment and celebration of humanitarian attitudes throughout the world.

Voluntary funding is still an effective method of running a lifeboat service in spite of growing technological sophistication.