The NTSB in their bureaucratic wisdom is proposing a rule to require ALL
people on recreational boats to WEAR PFD's ALL the time. Here is a link to
the site, and the e-mail address to send your comments to. Since boating has
continually gotten safer, I certainly see no need for this. I do support the
PFD laws for kids and small boats like canoes, kayaks, and PWCs. If you
don't want to end up wearing a life jacket all the time, send it your
comments!
____________________________
http://www.ntsb.gov/academy/CourseInfo/MS701_200408.htm
This site is the NTSB.
They are considering this month a rule to require all on board to wear PFD's
ALL THE TIME.

Check out the site and then e mail

Holloway, Keith (NTSB)


with whatever comments you have. Be nice!

--


Keith
__
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their
shoes.

False alarm.

There is no legislation or administrative ruling that will be taking effect in
30 days.

There is a "discussion" of the general concept of mandatory PFD usage scheduled
for August 25.

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 07:10:40 -0500, "Keith"
wrote:

The NTSB in their bureaucratic wisdom is proposing a rule to require ALL
people on recreational boats to WEAR PFD's ALL the time. Here is a link to
the site, and the e-mail address to send your comments to. Since boating has
continually gotten safer, I certainly see no need for this. I do support the
PFD laws for kids and small boats like canoes, kayaks, and PWCs. If you
don't want to end up wearing a life jacket all the time, send it your
comments!
____________________________
http://www.ntsb.gov/academy/CourseInfo/MS701_200408.htm

Having been a victim of a accidental overboard (twice) , I'm all for
it.

Besides, the new suspender type inflatables are comfortable and don't
get in the way of anything.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:43:44 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
Having been a victim of a accidental overboard (twice) , I'm all for
it.

Besides, the new suspender type inflatables are comfortable and don't
get in the way of anything.

================================================== =====

I own a suspender type inflatable but I certainly don't wear it all
the time, only when I perceive a very real risk of going over and/or a
very real risk of non-recovery. Would you advocate that the
passengers aboard a 70 foot motor yacht all wear inflatable vests?
What about a 50 foot trawler in inland conditions? What about a 40
foot sportfish? Or a 30 foot express cruiser in flat water?

Hopefully you see my point. The vast majority of the time I would not
want to be wearing a PFD even in my 24 ft I/O, let alone any of the
other examples mentioned. On the other hand I have no problem what so
ever wearing my vest on deck in rough mid-ocean conditions, even on a
60 footer. Discretion and experience is required to make an
intelligent call. Have you ever tried to legislate that?

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
False alarm.

There is no legislation or administrative ruling that will be taking effect in
30 days.

There is a "discussion" of the general concept of mandatory PFD usage scheduled
for August 25.

Not to mention that NTSB is not regulatory body with power to create
any new regs. They can recommend changes, but the Coast Guard or
Congress would have to codify any change in either the CFRs or US
Code.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:47:52 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:43:44 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
Having been a victim of a accidental overboard (twice) , I'm all for
it.

Besides, the new suspender type inflatables are comfortable and don't
get in the way of anything.

================================================= ======

I own a suspender type inflatable but I certainly don't wear it all
the time, only when I perceive a very real risk of going over and/or a
very real risk of non-recovery. Would you advocate that the
passengers aboard a 70 foot motor yacht all wear inflatable vests?
What about a 50 foot trawler in inland conditions?

Good point. And I will adress that further on down. However, let me
say that my very first experience with going overboard was off the
rear end of a 47 foot Hatteras/Bertram/Something when I slipped on
some fish scales/blood, bounced off the transom and went ass over tea
kettle into the Caribbean. Fortunately for me, the mate was quick on
the draw and chucked a life ring - short swim, they did a Williamson
turn and pulled me back through the tuna door. :)

I've worn a PFD ever since that incident and that was over 25 years
ago.

What about a 40 foot sportfish? Or a 30 foot express cruiser in flat water?

The second time was this summer on a flat calm St. Lawrence Seaway
trip - thirty foot Luhrs (sp?) open sport. Once again, fish guts on
the floor, ba da bing, ba da boom and I'm over the side. This time,
I'm wearing my inflatable and it worked great. Unfortunately for me,
the idiot running the charter didn't have a boarding ladder that was
workable (as in the aluminum was so rotten, it broke when they put it
into the holder), so we had to call the Coast Guard who got there,
pulled in me in and I rode back to the pier with them - I wasn't going
to step foot in that boat again. :)

I have a 32 foot Contender CC and a 20 foot Ranger CC - I wear one on
those boats. I wear one on the Vineyard Ferry and I make my wife wear
one. I won't get on a boat without wearing one.

I have participated in Search and Recovery as a diver for folks who
could very well be alive today if they had been wearing a PFD when
they went over - one of the recoveries was a beautiful 20 year old
girl who was knocked overboard about ten or so years ago in a boating
accident at night - she drowned - no PFD.

I have ample personal experience with overboards and drownings to make
a strong case for wearing a PFD all the time. However, my personal
experience may be an anomaly I grant you.

Hopefully you see my point. The vast majority of the time I would not
want to be wearing a PFD even in my 24 ft I/O, let alone any of the
other examples mentioned. On the other hand I have no problem what so
ever wearing my vest on deck in rough mid-ocean conditions, even on a
60 footer. Discretion and experience is required to make an
intelligent call. Have you ever tried to legislate that?

It's not a question of legislating anything like experience. I have a
ton of experience on small and large vessels - mostly fishing type
boats - a few sailing vessels. I have had two accidents involving
accidental overboards - one on a large vessel and one on a smaller
vessel. In my experience, it's dangerous period. Thus, I wear one.
You have a ton of experience and wear one based on the situation. We
are both experienced, yet have two different viewpoints - that's fine.

The point you make about vessel size is supported by USCG and Canadian
stats on accidents. It would appear that most accidents involving
accidental drownings involve boats under 26 feet LOA - that seems to
be pretty valid from 1997 on through 2004 although the LOA is creeping
up a little to around 30 feet,

But you can't stop at a certain LOA level if you are going to attempt
to create legislation that actually accomplishes something. A rule
stating that you have to wear one under 26 feet LOA is discriminatory
in a sense.

Could we agree on a compromise? Say anytime on an open deck, a PFD is
required in a recreational circumstance?

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:51:54 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Could we agree on a compromise? Say anytime on an open deck, a PFD is
required in a recreational circumstance?

====================================

Not likely. I believe it should be a matter of personal choice or
left up to the discretion of the captain. It's true that preventable
accidents have happened (and happened to people I knew), but the
numbers are very small compared to automobile/motorcycle casualities.

I'm a firm believer in keeping the government out of boating to the
maximun extent possible. Every new law gives the USCG or your local
F&W enforcer another excuse to board you.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:22:22 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:51:54 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Could we agree on a compromise? Say anytime on an open deck, a PFD is
required in a recreational circumstance?

====================================

Not likely. I believe it should be a matter of personal choice or
left up to the discretion of the captain. It's true that preventable
accidents have happened (and happened to people I knew), but the
numbers are very small compared to automobile/motorcycle casualities.

Ah - so such things as seat belt laws, driving lights, air bags and
helmet laws are rational reactions to the amount of traffic deaths,
but PFDs are not a rational reaction to the stats on boating accidents
& drownings?

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just curious.

Really.

I'm a firm believer in keeping the government out of boating to the
maximun extent possible. Every new law gives the USCG or your local
F&W enforcer another excuse to board you.

Then we shall agree to disagree on the boating PFD issue.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message

Ah - so such things as seat belt laws, driving lights, air bags and
helmet laws are rational reactions to the amount of traffic deaths,
but PFDs are not a rational reaction to the stats on boating accidents
& drownings?

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just curious.


Personally I think seat belt laws and helmet laws are wrong. The only people
that
get hurt by not wearing a seat belt or helmet is the person making that
choice. It's
up to them. ~ Sure their families might be "hurt" too but it's up to them.

As for air bags, I'm of mixed mind. On the one hand I believe it's up to the
consumer
to decide if they want to buy them (pay for them) and/or use them. But with
an industry as large as cars I can see the point of view that says many auto
makers
would never even offer them as an option if it wasn't the law.

Driving lights? Not sure what you mean. But driving lights being on at the
proper
times save OTHER people, not just the guy that uses/doesn't use them. So
that's
OK with me.

PDFs: I think it's the captain's & passengers choice. I've got no problem
with a
law that say's you must HAVE enough PDF for everyone. That way the person
that
want's to use one has one availiable. But why tell anyone* they have to use
one??

Now, for children, I can see & agree with laws requireing them to wear PDFs
or seat belts. The idea her is we're helping to protect children from super
stupid
parents.

PS: I wear my seat belt 98% of the time, always wore a helmet when I rode
motorcycles even in CT where not required, and almost never wear a PDF:
I wear a PDF when the conditions are bad, when I'm out on a deck where
I can easily fall, or when there is no one else on the boat. But I'm almost
never in any of those conditions.

Anyway, that's my .02



, air bags, and helmet laws are all

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:37:49 -0400, "Gary Warner"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message

Ah - so such things as seat belt laws, driving lights, air bags and
helmet laws are rational reactions to the amount of traffic deaths,
but PFDs are not a rational reaction to the stats on boating accidents
& drownings?

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just curious.


Personally I think seat belt laws and helmet laws are wrong. The only people
that
get hurt by not wearing a seat belt or helmet is the person making that
choice. It's
up to them. ~ Sure their families might be "hurt" too but it's up to them.

As for air bags, I'm of mixed mind. On the one hand I believe it's up to the
consumer
to decide if they want to buy them (pay for them) and/or use them. But with
an industry as large as cars I can see the point of view that says many auto
makers
would never even offer them as an option if it wasn't the law.

Driving lights? Not sure what you mean. But driving lights being on at the
proper
times save OTHER people, not just the guy that uses/doesn't use them. So
that's
OK with me.

PDFs: I think it's the captain's & passengers choice. I've got no problem
with a
law that say's you must HAVE enough PDF for everyone. That way the person
that
want's to use one has one availiable. But why tell anyone* they have to use
one??

Now, for children, I can see & agree with laws requireing them to wear PDFs
or seat belts. The idea her is we're helping to protect children from super
stupid
parents.

PS: I wear my seat belt 98% of the time, always wore a helmet when I rode
motorcycles even in CT where not required, and almost never wear a PDF:
I wear a PDF when the conditions are bad, when I'm out on a deck where
I can easily fall, or when there is no one else on the boat. But I'm almost
never in any of those conditions.

Ah - see, that's an interesting qualification.

However, in my case, I have inflatables that I make folks wear on my
boats and that's that. I also don't allow alcohol on my boats, but
that's a whole different story. :)

Anyway, that's my .02

Good enough - it's a consistent viewpoint - fair and reasoned.

Just a difference of opinion. :)

Later,

Tom