Imagine a vessel in distress, the challenging weather and sea state, the distractions and the anxiety onboard the ship or liferaft.
Whether a commercial ship, an offshore supply vessel, or a ferry, any emergency situation is extremely stressful, requiring calm decisions and actions by the captain and crew which could potentially save lives.
Reliable electronic safety equipment
For decades, with pyrotechnic flares as the accepted standard, a crew member has been expected to fumble for a flare pack, remove the cap, pull the string to ignite the flare while moving hands quickly out of the way, and hold the flare overboard, ensuring it is downwind.
The procedure is difficult in a distress situation, with failure to perform these actions correctly possibly resulting in injury or damage to the liferaft keeping survivors afloat.
However, today there are alternatives that offer an easier, less dangerous, toxic and outdated solution in an age bristling with reliable electronic safety equipment.
Availability and reliability of advanced technology
The general pyrotechnic carriage requirements for vessels subject to the SOLAS Convention
Commercial vessels are already required to carry EPIRBs, AIS transponders, GMDSS DSC radios, and Search-and-Rescue Transponders (SARTs) – all which will locate the survivors to within less than 110-metre radius. With the availability and reliability of this advanced technology, the persistence of mandatory flare carriage seems illogical.
The general pyrotechnic carriage requirements for vessels subject to the SOLAS Convention remain as follows: For ships – 12 rocket parachute flares, at least 2 lifebuoy self-activating smoke signals and 1 line throwing appliance; For lifeboats, liferafts and rescue boats – 4 rocket parachute flares, 6 red hand flares and 2 buoyant smoke signals.
Is it not time for regulators to embrace the alternatives and make electronic flares permissible?
The problem with pyrotechnics
Flares belong to a bygone era, when fire and smoke were the simplest way to attract attention. Nowadays, safety and environmental factors call for a change.
First, the safety issue is critical. Pyrotechnic flares burn at over one thousand degrees Celsius, often emitting molten slag and sparks together with smoke and a flame – all of which can come back at the user in high winds. Many mariners can relate stories of burns, fires, and close calls when trying to deploy them on an already unstable platform.
In fact, statistics from several maritime safety bodies suggest that misuse and accidental ignition of flares are responsible for dozens of injuries every year. For a ‘safety’ device, that is a perverse irony. Additionally, flares are one shot devices. There is no way to test them to be sure they work. The user just has to hope that when activated, potentially a few years after purchase, they work as expected.
Coastguards and police forces
Coastguards and police forces across Europe and the UK have been dazed by the need for safe flare disposal
Toxicity must also be considered. Most red handheld and rocket flares rely on strontium nitrate and similar chemicals that are both toxic and environmentally persistent. These chemicals present a health hazard to users and nearby people. The smoke can be full of fine particulate matter that can be inhaled into the lungs, while also irritating eyes, nose and throat.
Disposal is a serious problem. Once expired – usually after three years – they cannot be tossed in the bin or recycled. Instead, they become hazardous waste.
Coastguards and police forces across Europe and the UK have been overwhelmed by the demand for safe flare disposal, with many mariners resorting to hoarding old flares in sheds or, worse, illegally dumping them. Every expired flare represents a risk to the environment and anyone who potentially finds dumped flares.
Rules and regulations apply to time-expired flares
In terms of reliability, the fact is that pyrotechnic flares can fail. They can get damp, be damaged in storage, or simply not ignite when needed, or, worse still, in rare cases, explode when ignited.
Flares contain explosives and are therefore classified as Class 1 dangerous goods
Even when they function correctly, their window of effectiveness is fleeting, with a red handheld burning for about a minute. A rocket flare launches skyward, blazes for about 40 seconds, and then is gone. If no ship or aircraft happens to be looking in that narrow window, the opportunity is lost.
Finally, there is transportation and storage. Flares contain explosives and are therefore classified as Class 1 dangerous goods which means shipping and transportation is difficult and expensive. The same rules and regulations apply to time-expired flares. Flare canisters clutter lockers and demand careful storage away from damp conditions and potential heat sources.
The modern toolkit of safety
These problems demonstrate the huge contrast with the other equipment already required aboard commercial vessels – some of which is also usually carried on many recreational vessels.
Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) use satellite constellations like Cospas-Sarsat, GPS and Galileo to transmit a vessel’s position to rescue coordination centres anywhere on the globe. Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders broadcast a message and vessel position to every nearby ship equipped with AIS – effectively turning the entire commercial fleet and many recreational vessels into potential rescuers.
GMDSS DSC radios provide voice communication to coastguards and other vessels together with their location, while Survival Craft VHF radios, acting as GMDSS portable radios, although with no locating capability, are designed to be taken from the ship into the liferaft and then used to either call for help on VHF Channel 16 or talk to rescuers.
 |
| GMDSS DSC radios provide voice contact to coastguards and other vessels. |
Brief flicker of a pyrotechnic flare’s flame
SARTs (Search and Rescue Transponders) create either a radar or AIS target, allowing searchers to home in precisely on a vessel or liferaft.
SARTs create either a radar or AIS target, allowing searchers to home in just on a vessel or liferaft
This is a formidable array of technologies, far superior to the brief flicker of a pyrotechnic flare’s flame. They are continuous, reliable, and integrated into a global rescue infrastructure. If one signal is missed, another remains active. They run for hours, sometimes days – not seconds.
It seems ironic that regulators have not considered modern alternatives to pyrotechnic flares as a means of providing an alert or a locating signal to nearby vessels.
Enter the electronic flare
Electronic Visual Distress Signalling Devices (eVDSDs), sometimes called electronic flares, are the logical successor. Compact, waterproof and rugged, these units emit bright strobing LED patterns visible for miles. They can operate continuously for hours, sometimes over an entire night, and many incorporate infrared strobes detectable by night-vision equipment often carried or worn by search and rescue personnel.
Unlike pyrotechnics, they can be tested safely, reused, and either be recharged or fitted with new batteries. They do not expire with a three-year shelf life. They do not produce toxic waste. They do not risk setting a liferaft ablaze or potentially injuring the user or other crew.
The U.S. Coast Guard has already approved certain eVDSDs as alternatives to handheld flares for recreational vessels. In Europe, the conversation is warming, though regulatory inertia remains.
 |
| U.S. Coast Guard has approved certain eVDSDs as options to handheld flares |
Pyrotechnic flares vs electronic flares
The evidence is clear – electronic flares work, and they work better. For a casualty vessel, this means a simple, safe, push-button device which can provide a steady beacon that pulses for hours until help arrives, instead of one or two frantic flashes in the night. In all areas – user safety, environmental issues, disposal, transportation and storage – the electronic flare is an improvement over the pyrotechnic flare every time.
Essential feature, as there was no other way of signalling a distress apart from a large ship’s radio station
Setting operating lifetime aside (tens of seconds for a pyrotechnic flare compared to several hours for an eVDSD), the only other real difference between the two is that a pyrotechnic flare is always going to be brighter than an electronic flare. A hundred years ago, this was an essential feature as there was no other way of signalling a distress apart from a large ship’s radio station.
However, with all the other modern alerting and locating systems on ships today, this no longer matters. Electronic flares provide a light that can be seen from several miles away, which is more than sufficient when combined with other systems.
Why commercial vessels should lead
Some argue that small leisure craft are best suited for electronic flares, while commercial ships should retain pyrotechnics as ‘belt-and-braces’, but it is the other way around. Commercial vessels are the most heavily regulated and already equipped with multiple redundant communication systems. Their flare requirement is no longer for distress alerting – EPIRBs and the GMDSS see to that – but rather it provides a local visual locating signal once searchers are nearby. An electronic flare performs this function better than pyrotechnic flares.
Furthermore, commercial operators handle large volumes of flares, multiplying the risk. A ferry or offshore supply vessel may carry dozens of flares in liferafts and bridge lockers, each of which must be monitored for expiry and disposed. This large ongoing burden of hazardous waste is a significant problem compared to a fleet of eFlares, which can be tested annually, recharged, and remains serviceable for years.
The economics are persuasive. Though an electronic flare may cost more upfront than a set of pyrotechnic flares, the continual cycle of buying, storing, and disposing of pyrotechnics is eliminated. Over a few years, the balance tips in favour of electronics – not to mention the savings in risk and liability.
A culture of tradition vs a culture of safety
Why, then, do pyrotechnics persist? The answer lies in tradition and regulatory lag. Maritime rules are written slowly, often in response to major incidents.
The maritime world has never hesitated to replace outdated technologies with new innovations
Flares have been listed in safety equipment schedules for so long that many authorities see them as sacrosanct. Mariners, too, sometimes cling to the familiar, imagining that a rocket bursting overhead is more dramatic and thus more effective.
But drama does not save lives – it is precision, reliability, and safety that make a difference. The maritime world has never hesitated to replace outdated technologies with new innovations – sextants gave way to GPS, spark-gap radios yielded to satellite communications, and wooden lifeboats were replaced with modern inflatable liferafts. Each transition was resisted by traditionalists, and each is now universally accepted. Pyrotechnic flares are the next domino.
Regulatory pathways and momentum
Encouragingly, the movement is already underway. RTCM (Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services) has developed a performance standard for eVDSDs. The U.S. Coast Guard’s acceptance of these devices for recreational boats sets an international precedent. Manufacturers in Europe and Asia are pushing for parity, developing multi-colour strobes and AIS-integrated eFlares.
For the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), the task is simple: approve electronic flares as an equivalent carriage option and then consider phasing out pyrotechnics over a defined period.
 |
| U.S. Coast Guard’s acceptance of these devices for recreational boats. |
Carriage of modern alternatives to pyrotechnic devices
Commercial shipping, with its greater compliance infrastructure, should lead the way. By authorising eFlares on commercial vessels, regulators send a clear message and create the volume of adoption needed to drive prices down for all.
Accordingly, it is time to establish an International Standard for eVDSDs that could be adopted by IMO and other maritime agencies, and to expedite changes to international conventions and national regulations that would allow the carriage of modern alternatives to pyrotechnic devices, including eVDSDs, instead of pyrotechnics.
A matter of time and of lives
To continue mandating pyrotechnic flares in this context is no longer reasonable
Maritime safety regulations are not theoretical. They are written in blood, each clause echoing a past disaster. With flares, the disaster is subtler – not a single great catastrophe, but a slow accumulation of injuries, environmental harm and wasted money.
The seafaring world should not wait for a tragedy – a crew member maimed by a misfired rocket, or a fire started by a handheld flare in a liferaft – to act. The better technology already exists. The arguments against pyrotechnics are overwhelming.
Commercial vessels embody the professional side of the maritime world. They are held to higher standards because their operations carry greater responsibility: for passengers, for crew, and for the marine environment. To continue mandating pyrotechnic flares in this context is no longer reasonable.
Insisting on asbestos insulation
Electronic flares are safer, cleaner, longer-lasting, and already proven in service. With EPIRBs, AIS, GMDSS DSC radios, Survival Craft VHF radios and SARTs already onboard, pyrotechnics no longer provide real benefit.
To cling to flares today is akin to insisting on asbestos insulation because “it worked well enough for our grandparents”. We know better now and have a responsibility to do better. The sea will always be dangerous – but our tools for survival do not need to be.
