Why lifeboat designs and SAR training from one country rarely fit another

It is easy to think that if a lifeboat, training system or rescue procedure works well in one country, it should work just as well somewhere else. But in maritime search and rescue (SAR), things are rarely that simple. 

Saving lives at sea may be the shared goal, but the work itself looks quite different from one place to another. That is why lifeboat designs and training systems are rarely adopted exactly as they are. 

Every rescue environment is different 

A rescue crew in Finland works in very different conditions from a crew in Greece or Brazil. Some crews operate among narrow channels, rocks, islands and even ice. Others work in warm seas where drysuits are not needed. Some SAR organisations cover lakes and inland waters, not just the sea. Wave conditions and the wider environmental conditions can vary greatly too. 

Because of this, the “right” boat or training system in one country may be a sub-optimal choice in another. A design built for offshore rough water may not suit shallow coastal waters. Training developed around one environment may not prepare crews well for another. 

Money, history and resources matter 

Just as environments differ, the rescue organisations are not set up in the same way. Some have existed for more than 200 years, while others are much newer. Some have many stations and boats, while others have only a few. Funding also differs widely. In some places support comes from donations, in others from government, and in some countries, volunteers even pay to volunteer. 

These differences affect what can realistically be adopted. A training manual written in a well-funded organisation may assume good equipment, strong infrastructure and plenty of support. That may not match the reality elsewhere. The same applies to rescue boats. 

Equipment is easier to copy than systems 

Simple equipment often transfers more easily than training or procedures. A helmet, a flare or a lifejacket has a clear purpose. Even then, adoption is not automatic. Some crews resisted helmets because they were uncomfortable or made them “look stupid”. In some cases, whether crews accepted them depended heavily on the attitude of the coxswain. 

Training systems are more complex. They involve habits, judgement, teamwork and local culture. A written procedure may look clear on paper but still fail in real rescue conditions. That is why procedures often need to be adapted, simplified or rebuilt. 

Culture shapes what people accept 

SAR organisations can still be strongly hierarchical. Senior figures often have great influence over what is accepted and what is ignored. Some stations are based in small, close-knit communities where change can be difficult. Traditions matter. Local ways of doing things matter. A new system from abroad may be seen as unnecessary or simply “not for us”. That is one reason why even good ideas do not always get adopted easily. 

Training is not only about words. It is also about how the material looks and feels. Long manuals full of technical language can be difficult to use, especially in lower-resource settings. In some cases, the best solution is to simplify the message and make it visual, using pictures and short bullet points. 

Even then, the details matter. Boats shown in the materials should look like local boats. People shown should reflect the local population. Colours, clothing and symbols need to feel right in the local setting. Otherwise, the material may be rejected before the learning even begins. 

The best ideas usually need translation 

The real lesson is that successful transfer is rarely about copying. It is about adapting.  

A piece of equipment may need a small change. A lifejacket may need to be redesigned for quicker use in mass rescue or a different look that suits the brand. A training manual may need to become shorter, simpler and more visual. A rescue procedure may need to fit local leadership, boats and ways of working. 

So the main question is not, “Does this work somewhere else?” It is, “What would this need to become to work here?” 

That is why lifeboat designs and SAR training systems from one country are rarely adopted directly in another. Not because the original idea is bad, but because rescue is always shaped by local reality.  

Download the “Improving the effectiveness of safety interventions in maritime SAR” report here.   

Note: This blog post is based on “Improving the effectiveness of safety interventions in maritime SAR” by Colin Pilbeam, Roland McKie and Caroline Jupe, published in March 2026. The report was funded by Lloyd’s Register Foundation.