My condolences as well.
I understand the CG is not enforcing this particular rule, and letting the
skipper decide.

The problem: If the skipper declares a possible hazardous bar and orders the
jackets be donned, the passengers will wonder why they are spending good
money to put themselves at risk . The other option is to turn back, but the
skipper has a financial incentive to not make that call. It would be best to
take the decision away from the skipper and let the authorities declare when
conditions warrant their use.

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...
Sorry to hear about your dad and the others that died in that
incident.

But the regulation does not appear to be too ambiguous. It says that
master of the vessel *shall* require passengers to don life jackets...
To say that lifejackets should be worn when crossing ANY bar or inlet
is overkill as not all are hazardous.


Sec. 185.508 Wearing of life jackets.

(a) The master of a vessel shall require passengers to don
life
jackets when possible hazardous conditions exist, including, but not
limited to:
(1) When transiting hazardous bars and inlets;
(2) During severe weather;
(3) In event of flooding, fire, or other events that may possibly
call for evacuation; and
(4) When the vessel is being towed, except a non-self-propelled
vessel under normal operating conditions.
(b) The master or crew shall assist each passenger in obtaining a
life jacket and donning it, as necessary.



(Carl) wrote in message
. com...
Change the law! My dad was killed on that boat. Chapter 46, Code of
Federal Regulation, part 185.508 needs to be changed to take the
decision to make the passengers wear PFD's out of the hands of the
master of a vessel. Make it a requirement to wear PFD's when crossing
any inlet or bar. To bulky, or cumbersome? Got to be macho? Then
you're stupid, and selfish. Wearing a PFD for 10 (ten) minutes while
crossing an inlet or bar will not ruin your trip. Not wearing a PFD
could end up costing you your life, and those that love you a large
chunk of theirs. I ask that you contact your senators and congressmen
and ask them to change this ambiguous law to be more specific. If not
every time when crossing a bar or inlet, then at a minimum when the
Coast Guard has issued a small craft advisory. Great to be
macho...DUMB to be dead.

"Steve Alexanderson"
Idon'tlikegreeneggsandspamIdon'tlikethemsamIamsal
wrote in message news:3f25801c_1@newsfeed...
My condolences as well.
I understand the CG is not enforcing this particular rule, and letting the
skipper decide.

The problem: If the skipper declares a possible hazardous bar and orders
the
jackets be donned, the passengers will wonder why they are spending good
money to put themselves at risk . The other option is to turn back, but
the
skipper has a financial incentive to not make that call. It would be best
to
take the decision away from the skipper and let the authorities declare
when
conditions warrant their use.


Your points about the Captian's motivations are all logical and
valid. Except that, just as with air-line pilots, we assume the
skipper doesn't want to die or be on a sinking vessel either.

Also, if you don't have faith in your Captain (or if your faith is
misplaced) then you've got more problems than just PFDs.

That Captain is responsible for an aweful lot of things. Makes
lots of decisions. You basically either have to agree to put
your life in his/her hands (and mind) or dont go.

"Carl" wrote in message
om...
Change the law! My dad was killed on that boat. Chapter 46, Code of
Federal Regulation, part 185.508 needs to be changed to take the
decision to make the passengers wear PFD's out of the hands of the
master of a vessel. Make it a requirement to wear PFD's when crossing
any inlet or bar. To bulky, or cumbersome? Got to be macho? Then
you're stupid, and selfish. Wearing a PFD for 10 (ten) minutes while
crossing an inlet or bar will not ruin your trip. Not wearing a PFD
could end up costing you your life, and those that love you a large
chunk of theirs. I ask that you contact your senators and congressmen
and ask them to change this ambiguous law to be more specific. If not
every time when crossing a bar or inlet, then at a minimum when the
Coast Guard has issued a small craft advisory. Great to be
macho...DUMB to be dead.


If you want to wear one, wear one.
No one is stopping you.
I will decide for myself, thanks.

"-v-" wrote in message news:%YDVa.1110

If you want to wear one, wear one.
No one is stopping you.
I will decide for myself, thanks.

Pretty selfish if you ask me.

Most people have relatives and other loved ones who suffer deeply when
somebody dies, especially a sudden and utterly avoidable death.

'Course if it's all about you and you don't give a damn about your family,
YMMV.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"-v-" wrote in message news:%YDVa.1110

If you want to wear one, wear one.
No one is stopping you.
I will decide for myself, thanks.

Pretty selfish if you ask me.

Most people have relatives and other loved ones who suffer deeply when
somebody dies, especially a sudden and utterly avoidable death.

'Course if it's all about you and you don't give a damn about your family,
YMMV.

Nothing selfish about it.
Its called personal responsibility.

Nothing selfish about it.
Its called personal responsibility.

Works for me, as long as the people who
knowingly and deliberately disregard, PFD, helmets, and seat belts remember
that nobody else is "responsible" to go looking for their sorry carcass and
society at large is not "responsible" for keeping them alive after insurance
and personal fortunes are exhausted.

OOPS! What's this? The guy who cracks his head open because he wasn't wearing a
helmet still expects the public ambulance to come and try to save him?
The guy who drowns for lack of a PFD still expects publicly funded SAR to
search for his body, and still expects publicly funded social security to
provide widows and orphans benefits to his widow and minor children?

And Oops! Everybody belonging to the same health insurance plan is indirectly
footing the increased bill?

So, what happened to "personal responsibility"?

I agree to some extent. I believe it should be your right to wear or not to
wear protective devices, helmet, seatbelt, pfd..etc. same as it is to smoke
or not to smoke. I don't think insurance should cover "negligence". In this
day and age personal responsability has fallen to the wayside and lawsuits
and insurance claims took its place. Thats the reason the U.S. is in the
shape its in. We need to wake up and put the responsibility back into the
hands of the people and enforce it. Hit people in the pocket book.

Gould 0738 wrote:

Nothing selfish about it.
Its called personal responsibility.


Works for me, as long as the people who
knowingly and deliberately disregard, PFD, helmets, and seat belts remember
that nobody else is "responsible" to go looking for their sorry carcass and
society at large is not "responsible" for keeping them alive after insurance
and personal fortunes are exhausted.

OOPS! What's this? The guy who cracks his head open because he wasn't wearing a
helmet still expects the public ambulance to come and try to save him?
The guy who drowns for lack of a PFD still expects publicly funded SAR to
search for his body, and still expects publicly funded social security to
provide widows and orphans benefits to his widow and minor children?

And Oops! Everybody belonging to the same health insurance plan is indirectly
footing the increased bill?

So, what happened to "personal responsibility"?

Gone with the wind I am afraid. Maybe all the roads should be made of
rubber :-)

It's sad when someone loses someone close. But we all make choices, and
should be able to make them as we see fit..

Capt Jack R..

"-v-" wrote in message
.. .

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"-v-" wrote in message news:%YDVa.1110

If you want to wear one, wear one.
No one is stopping you.
I will decide for myself, thanks.

Pretty selfish if you ask me.

Most people have relatives and other loved ones who suffer deeply when
somebody dies, especially a sudden and utterly avoidable death.

'Course if it's all about you and you don't give a damn about your
family,
YMMV.

Nothing selfish about it.
Its called personal responsibility.


Frankly, I agree. My 14 yr old son dons a vest more often than I tell him
to, based on his intuition about the water on any given day. The more
boating accident news stories I show him, the more he uses the vest. It's up
to each person to be safe. But, having said that, it should be obvious that
if the captain gives an order, it should be followed.

"Gary Warner" wrote in message ...
"Steve Alexanderson"
Idon'tlikegreeneggsandspamIdon'tlikethemsamIamsal
wrote in message news:3f25801c_1@newsfeed...
My condolences as well.
I understand the CG is not enforcing this particular rule, and letting the
skipper decide.

The problem: If the skipper declares a possible hazardous bar and orders
the
jackets be donned, the passengers will wonder why they are spending good
money to put themselves at risk . The other option is to turn back, but
the
skipper has a financial incentive to not make that call. It would be best
to
take the decision away from the skipper and let the authorities declare
when
conditions warrant their use.


Your points about the Captian's motivations are all logical and
valid. Except that, just as with air-line pilots, we assume the
skipper doesn't want to die or be on a sinking vessel either.

Also, if you don't have faith in your Captain (or if your faith is
misplaced) then you've got more problems than just PFDs.

That Captain is responsible for an aweful lot of things. Makes
lots of decisions. You basically either have to agree to put
your life in his/her hands (and mind) or dont go.

First, Thank you all for your condolances. Many of you that have
written in response to my post have written many things I have thought
or talked about. In reference to this particular post: you Gary, have
struck a chord that is worth much debate. On the 17th of June, as my
brother and I were driving back to Spokane from picking up my fathers
remains and personal effects, I spoke with a representative of the
NTSB. This gentleman stated to the effect that the charter fishing
industry is much like the airline industry WAS 20 to 30 years ago.
It took many airliner crashes, and the tremendous loss of life with
that, to initiate change in the laws to create the rigorous safety
standards that are in place today. While comercial airliners still do
crash, the instances are relatively few and far between. Why can't
the charter fishing industry withstand the same type of rigorous
safety laws? I understand that the implications of such laws will
create greater overhead, and thus a smaller bottom line for fishing
charters, but just like airlines did, isn't paying a few more dollars
for a fishing trip worth the added safety? I believe so.

As for the added cost of PFD's going bad through daily use...buy in
bulk. It is much more cost effective. More PFD's equal more jobs.
Might be simplistic, but is one way to look at it.

Again, thank you for your condolances.