NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

Heads up.

The National Transportation Safety Board will be holding a public forum to
discuss
the merits of requiring all boaters to wear (not just carry) PFD.

**************************
Washington, D. C. -The National Transportation Safety Board will hold a public
forum to discuss mandatory wear of personal flotation devices (PFD) on
recreational boats, NTSB Chairman Ellen Engleman Conners has announced. The
one-day forum will begin at 9:00 am on August 25, 2004 at the NTSB Academy in
Ashburn, VA.

The purpose of the forum is to gather all available data, and to promote an
open and informative discussion of policy issues related to mandatory PFD use.
The Safety Board has a long history of working to improve recreational boating
safety. It has been on the Board's "Most Wanted" list of transportation safety
improvements since its inception in 1990.

"The Board has made a solid commitment to advance recreational boating safety
by all means available to our agency," said Chairman Engleman Conners. "A
public forum will be an excellent mechanism to bring together agencies and
organizations to identify solutions that will improve public safety in
recreational boating."

Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs, even though in many cases, PFDs
were aboard. These statistics have been consistent from year to year and Coast
Guard statistics show that approximately 450 lives could be saved each year if
the victims wore PFDs. The Safety Board wants to build on this information and
other data available to evaluate the safety benefits of mandatory wearing of
PFDs on recreational boating.

Currently, most States require PFD wear for children and for personal
watercraft operators. No State requires PFD wear for all occupants. Yet six
years of observational studies by the Coast Guard show that less than 5% of
adults in open boats wear PFDs.

Some of the issues discussed at the forum will be:

The impact of federal and/or state legislation mandating wearing of PFDs on
recreational boats
Various vessels and type of operation that should be included in or exempted
from mandatory wear rules
New PFD technology
Alternatives to mandatory wear rules

Registration details for the forum and directions to the Academy may be found
on the Board's website at www.ntsb.gov.

NTSB Media Contact: Keith Holloway, (202) 314-6100

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

http://www.ntsb.gov/academy/CourseInfo/MS701_200408.htm

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

That will really go over well on cruise ships.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Heads up.

The National Transportation Safety Board will be holding a public forum to
discuss
the merits of requiring all boaters to wear (not just carry) PFD.

**************************
Washington, D. C. -The National Transportation Safety Board will hold a
public
forum to discuss mandatory wear of personal flotation devices (PFD) on
recreational boats, NTSB Chairman Ellen Engleman Conners has announced.
The
one-day forum will begin at 9:00 am on August 25, 2004 at the NTSB Academy
in
Ashburn, VA.

The purpose of the forum is to gather all available data, and to promote
an
open and informative discussion of policy issues related to mandatory PFD
use.
The Safety Board has a long history of working to improve recreational
boating
safety. It has been on the Board's "Most Wanted" list of transportation
safety
improvements since its inception in 1990.

"The Board has made a solid commitment to advance recreational boating
safety
by all means available to our agency," said Chairman Engleman Conners. "A
public forum will be an excellent mechanism to bring together agencies and
organizations to identify solutions that will improve public safety in
recreational boating."

Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs, even though in many cases,
PFDs
were aboard. These statistics have been consistent from year to year and
Coast
Guard statistics show that approximately 450 lives could be saved each
year if
the victims wore PFDs. The Safety Board wants to build on this information
and
other data available to evaluate the safety benefits of mandatory wearing
of
PFDs on recreational boating.

Currently, most States require PFD wear for children and for personal
watercraft operators. No State requires PFD wear for all occupants. Yet
six
years of observational studies by the Coast Guard show that less than 5%
of
adults in open boats wear PFDs.

Some of the issues discussed at the forum will be:

The impact of federal and/or state legislation mandating wearing of PFDs
on
recreational boats
Various vessels and type of operation that should be included in or
exempted
from mandatory wear rules
New PFD technology
Alternatives to mandatory wear rules

Registration details for the forum and directions to the Academy may be
found
on the Board's website at www.ntsb.gov.

NTSB Media Contact: Keith Holloway, (202) 314-6100

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net...
That will really go over well on cruise ships.

Oh, you senile fool! Do you REALLY think that "cruise ships" are recreational boats?

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
That will really go over well on cruise ships.

Oh, you senile fool! Do you REALLY think that "cruise ships" are
recreational boats?

Well, people go on them for recreation.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

How typical... one more opportunity for big gov to be our daddy.

Listen, everyone... regardless of which side of the aisle you align yourself
with, this has got to come down to personal liberty and responsibility.
This is in the same vein as helmet laws for motorcycles and seatbelt laws
for cars. Are they effective a saving lives? Absolutely. Is it a good
idea to use them? Without question. Should free citizens of this country
be forced into using them it they would otherwise choose not to? Certainly
not.

I have a 19 month old little girl. When she, her mother and I go out on my
little boat, she wears her PFD (as is the law) but her mother and I do not.
When I go out alone with my little girl, I put mine one BEFORE I deploy the
boat. They are decisions *I* make based on my personal judgment of the
situation.

The 750 boaters who died in '02 did so as a result of decisions they made
as individuals. Tragic, yes. However, if everytime someone dies were are
then likely to be compelled by government to relinquish yet another personal
choice then we cease to be a free people. Suggestions are great. Strongly
worded advice is wonderful. Just let me make the final choice, stupid or
not.

J


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Heads up.

The National Transportation Safety Board will be holding a public forum to
discuss
the merits of requiring all boaters to wear (not just carry) PFD.

**************************
Washington, D. C. -The National Transportation Safety Board will hold a
public
forum to discuss mandatory wear of personal flotation devices (PFD) on
recreational boats, NTSB Chairman Ellen Engleman Conners has announced.
The
one-day forum will begin at 9:00 am on August 25, 2004 at the NTSB Academy
in
Ashburn, VA.

The purpose of the forum is to gather all available data, and to promote
an
open and informative discussion of policy issues related to mandatory PFD
use.
The Safety Board has a long history of working to improve recreational
boating
safety. It has been on the Board's "Most Wanted" list of transportation
safety
improvements since its inception in 1990.

"The Board has made a solid commitment to advance recreational boating
safety
by all means available to our agency," said Chairman Engleman Conners. "A
public forum will be an excellent mechanism to bring together agencies and
organizations to identify solutions that will improve public safety in
recreational boating."

Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs, even though in many cases,
PFDs
were aboard. These statistics have been consistent from year to year and
Coast
Guard statistics show that approximately 450 lives could be saved each
year if
the victims wore PFDs. The Safety Board wants to build on this information
and
other data available to evaluate the safety benefits of mandatory wearing
of
PFDs on recreational boating.

Currently, most States require PFD wear for children and for personal
watercraft operators. No State requires PFD wear for all occupants. Yet
six
years of observational studies by the Coast Guard show that less than 5%
of
adults in open boats wear PFDs.

Some of the issues discussed at the forum will be:

The impact of federal and/or state legislation mandating wearing of PFDs
on
recreational boats
Various vessels and type of operation that should be included in or
exempted
from mandatory wear rules
New PFD technology
Alternatives to mandatory wear rules

Registration details for the forum and directions to the Academy may be
found
on the Board's website at www.ntsb.gov.

NTSB Media Contact: Keith Holloway, (202) 314-6100

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

How typical... one more opportunity for big gov to be our daddy.

Listen, everyone... regardless of which side of the aisle you align yourself
with, this has got to come down to personal liberty and responsibility.
This is in the same vein as helmet laws for motorcycles and seatbelt laws
for cars. Are they effective a saving lives? Absolutely. Is it a good
idea to use them? Without question. Should free citizens of this country
be forced into using them it they would otherwise choose not to? Certainly
not.

I have a 19 month old little girl. When she, her mother and I go out on my
little boat, she wears her PFD (as is the law) but her mother and I do not.
When I go out alone with my little girl, I put mine one BEFORE I deploy the
boat. They are decisions *I* make based on my personal judgment of the
situation.

The 750 boaters who died in '02 did so as a result of decisions they made
as individuals. Tragic, yes. However, if everytime someone dies were are
then likely to be compelled by government to relinquish yet another personal
choice then we cease to be a free people. Suggestions are great. Strongly
worded advice is wonderful. Just let me make the final choice, stupid or
not

I agree completely, with one very important caveat:

Don't want to wear a helmet, a seat belt, or wear a PFD in a small, open boat?
No problem.
You shouldn't have to.

However, with personal freedom comes personal responsibility. No helmet, seat
belt, or PFD? Don't expect the taxpayers to search for you at public expense,
haul you to the hospital at public expense, cure you or bury you at public
expense, pay for your rehab or subsidize your survivors.

The risks you assume when you eschew basic safety precautions should be your
risks and yours alone. Perhaps you have the right to expose your own family to
the risk of loss of a breadwinner, etc, but why should everybody in society be
asked to pay for one individual's stubborn streak or stupidity?

"Big Daddy" not oly sets the rules, he's there to bail you out when things go
bad.
Don't want to follow the rules? OK. Just don't expect the bail out. Very
simple.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

but why should everybody in society be
asked to pay for one individual's stubborn streak or stupidity?


Why indeed?
This is typical liberal claptrap. They insist that the government must bail out
every stupid person who gets hurt or poor, then they bitch about it when
everyone does not follow their idea of what is safe or prudent.


This is the single biggist fear I have about socialized medicine. Once it
becomes someone else's money we may be barred from doing anything that is in
the slightest bit dangerous, determined by people who think going to the movies
is about as adventuresome as we should be.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

Why indeed?
This is typical liberal claptrap. They insist that the government must bail
out
every stupid person who gets hurt or poor, then they bitch about it when
everyone does not follow their idea of what is safe or prudent.

Speaking as a liberal, that's not at all what I said!

My approach would be: 1) Nobody is required to take basic safety precautions.
Want to go out in an open boat without a PFD, ride a motorcycle without a
helmet, or drive around without a seatbelt? Cool.
It's your life.

However, when lack of a seatbelt, PFD, or helmet leads directly to a condition
where you become a public expense.....sorry. You made an informed decision to
take the risk knowing that death or injury were possible results. Total
personal freedom = total personal responsibility.

If you want the public resources to help in time of emergency, it only makes
sense to
abide by the basic steps that would reduce the liklihood those resources would
have to be used.

Now there *are* some rules and requirements that need to be enforced. Those
that would likely impact innocent bystanders. For example, you should be
reasonably required to show running lights after dark, or make sure the brakes
are working on your car. It's not just your own life on the line.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
news:20040701201925.10996.00001027@mb-
Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs

Which means what exactly? *Most* people don't wear life jackets. So it's
probably accurate to say that most people who get into any accident will not
be wearing a life jacket when they get into that accident. Why doesn't the
Coast Guard thus claim that life jackets prevent accidents? Because it
would be an absurd conclusion! Just as it's absurd to assume that those 85%
died *because* they weren't wearing their life jackets.

The only statistic that would be meaningful would be one that looks at the
fatality/non-fatality ratio of boaters who *were* wearing their life-jackets
at the time of death. Then we'd know if a mandatory PFD law will save any
lives.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

450 a year is a statistically insignificant number.
While we are at it, why don't we factor in inexperience, suitability of the
boat to the conditions and intoxication. We will be down to "falling in the
bathtub" numbers ... but then we would have to wear helmets in the tub.
I do notice that these PFD rules always seem to exempt boats the size that
polititians own.
When the Bushes, Kerrys and Kennedys start wearing a PFD on their yachts I
will wear mine.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

In article ,
(Gould 0738) wrote:



I agree completely, with one very important caveat:

Don't want to wear a helmet, a seat belt, or wear a PFD in a small, open boat?
No problem.
You shouldn't have to.


Agreed.

However, with personal freedom comes personal responsibility. No helmet, seat
belt, or PFD? Don't expect the taxpayers to search for you at public expense,
haul you to the hospital at public expense, cure you or bury you at public
expense, pay for your rehab or subsidize your survivors.


Agreed to a point.

The risks you assume when you eschew basic safety precautions should be your
risks and yours alone. Perhaps you have the right to expose your own family to
the risk of loss of a breadwinner, etc, but why should everybody in society be
asked to pay for one individual's stubborn streak or stupidity?


Unfortunately, what is deemed as "basic safety precautions" by the
government to protect the individual from a specific threat, may induce
other unecessary risks. In other words, sometimes the cure is worse than
the illness.

Lets take the motorcycle helmet. Many who argue against having to wear a
helmet cite that helmets reduce your hearing and peripheral vision,
reducing the ability of the cyclist to drive defensively. If this is
true, then it increases the wearer's risk of being involved in an
accident, so why should the operator be labeled as stubborn, or stupid,
and denied assistance because they felt the benefits do not outweigh the
risks?

BTW - Similar arguments can be said about most PFDs which hinder one's
ability to move about aboard the vessel. I would wager there are even
cases where this hinderance may affect ones ability to do what needs to be
done to reduce a threat to the vessel and/or its occupants.


"Big Daddy" not oly sets the rules, he's there to bail you out when things go
bad.
Don't want to follow the rules? OK. Just don't expect the bail out. Very
simple.


Not that simple, but I tend to agree with your argument. I too think
personal freedoms need to go hand in hand with some level personal
responsibility, but I find the absolutes imposed by the "taxpayer burden"
point of your argument lacking in this and many other insance.

The taxpayer burden argument is weak, because where do you draw the line?
Why is it that I have no choice whether or not to wear a seat belt, helmet
or PFD, but somone can go into a store and get a fifth of liquor, pack of
cigarettes, or simply supersize their happy meal day after day. Why is it
that a few people who choose not to be employed (or underemployed) get
their choice AND receive benefits that I work to pay for?

I realize that the seat belts, helmets, and PFD reduce very immediate
risks and therefore reduce very immediate cost outlays from our social
welfare system, but that actual dollar ammount my be less than chronic
care for a heart, liver, sugar, or respitory problems brought about by
years of personal neglect. Couple this potentially higher cost with the
ammount of people who choose to indulge in these risky behaviours and I'll
say that our government has some really screwed up priorities when it
comes to saving lives and social welfare costs.

I believe in personal responsibility, but I also wish to live in a
civilized society. As such, I tend to favorably acknowledge, most of the
systems in place to care for those who make the "wrong decisions". I
understand that there are those who will abuse those systems, but will
hope that the vast majority others will behave responsibly and only use
those systems as a last resort.

In the absolute terms I'm reading, it seems like every individual who
doesn't goose step to the law is completley responsible for their actions
and unworthy of any type of government assistance. As a person who
accepts personal responsibility, I can understand this, but then I sure as
hell better be paying A LOT less in taxes :^)

Bob Dimond

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

The logical, irrefutable conclusion is that banning recreational boating
all together will save 750 lives a year. Thus under the prevailing "if even
one life is saved, we must do it" theory, recreational boating must go!

After all there is no public benefit in enjoying oneself. That must be the
opinion of those pushing these rules. I'm sure if you ask anyone who
doesn't wear a PFD on board (according to the article, that's almost
everyone) they have concluded that they have a more enjoyable time not
wearing it. I don't wear mine, but I keep it close at hand. That's the
choice I've made.

I do other things to mitigate the risk which I would be willing to bet are
much more important statistically in saving lives than wearing a PFD at all
times. I don't drink, I maintain control of the vessel, keep a constant
lookout, educate my passesengers, follow the rules of the road, give every
one a wide berth, slow down in unfamilar waters and do don my PFD in rough
conditions. If I do screw up, I'll take responsibility. I have millions of
dollars of insurance both for others (liability) and myself and family
(health, disability and if all else fails, life insurance).

According to the National Safety Council, in 2001, 734 people died from a
"Fall involving bed, chair, other furniture." see
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
If every bed, chair and other furniture had a seat belt, no doubt most of
these deaths could be avoided. Call it absurb, but there is absolutely no
logical distinction between this and the boat situation. And both would be
just as a ridiculous intrusion on my freedom. Stay out of my living room
and off my boat!!

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

The "taxpayer burden" is probably the dumbest argument in this whole issue. If
you fall out of your boat and drown it is probably the cheapest way for you to
die from a tax burden standpoint. Certainly a lot cheaper than the typical
10-15 years of illness that constitutes "natural causes".
People drowning before they reach 61.5 is probably the optimal situation if you
are really worried about the poor taxpayer. You paid into FICA/Medicare for 40+
years and didn't take a dime.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
news:20040701201925.10996.00001027@mb-
Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs

Which means what exactly? *Most* people don't wear life jackets. So it's
probably accurate to say that most people who get into any accident will not
be wearing a life jacket when they get into that accident. Why doesn't the
Coast Guard thus claim that life jackets prevent accidents? Because it
would be an absurd conclusion! Just as it's absurd to assume that those 85%
died *because* they weren't wearing their life jackets.

The only statistic that would be meaningful would be one that looks at the
fatality/non-fatality ratio of boaters who *were* wearing their life-jackets
at the time of death. Then we'd know if a mandatory PFD law will save any
lives.

Surely you aren't so dimwitted that you don't think PFD's save lives, are you?

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs

Surely you aren't so dimwitted that you don't think PFD's save lives, are
you?

It didn't do much for 112 of them.
Making 60 million people wear PFDs *might* save 450 lives (based on the
government estimate). That sure sounds like a lot of government intrusion for
very little benefit.
They would do a lot better if they made passengers in cars wear helmets. Try to
get that law passed

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

In article ,
(Greg) wrote:

Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs

Surely you aren't so dimwitted that you don't think PFD's save lives, are
you?

It didn't do much for 112 of them.
Making 60 million people wear PFDs *might* save 450 lives (based on the
government estimate). That sure sounds like a lot of government intrusion for
very little benefit.
They would do a lot better if they made passengers in cars wear helmets. Try
to
get that law passed

How many people were saved by PFDs? Forget the governments estimate.
We'll never know, because most of them simply climbed out of the water
and went about their business and never reported the incident. I'll bet
it was FAR more than 450 in any given year.

I wrecked my Harley years ago, split my helmet in two pieces, on
Interstate 35 at 70+. I walked away, pushing my hog, and never reported
it either.

Two years ago my neighbor was driving his Suburban down our county road,
unbelted. Based on the investigation, he got his right side tires into
the bar ditch, compensated by steering left, crossing the one lane paved
road into the left side bar ditch. The small jostling of the vehicle in
the left bar ditch ejected him out his driver's side window, where he
struck a mesquite tree at 55 miles per hour, then fell to the ground. He
died instantly. The Suburban continued down the county road for two
hundred and fifty yards before crossing back across the blacktop to the
right and continuing through a five strand barb-wire fence and brush for
another 100 yards before coming to a stop in thick brush. The vehicle
was undamaged except for minor cosmetic damage. A helmet did him no good.

My mother is a triage nurse in California. I once asked her what the
most disturbing thing she ever saw was. She told me of a young man who
dropped his motorcycle on the freeway. Before he could get up he was
struck by a car and dragged for several hundred feet. He was wearing his
helmet, but he was face down while being dragged. The helmet kept his
face in contact with the asphalt, removing his face, entirely. He
survived, unfortunately.

PFDs work, so do helmets and seat belts, but they are NOT a panacea for
accidents. **** happens.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

PFDs work, so do helmets and seat belts, but they are NOT a panacea for
accidents. **** happens.

Exactly! If NTSB wants a law that works, require that PFDs are kept accessible
and in good condition. That's enough.
I am the first one to say that when you are in imminent danger you should put
on your PFD but it is stupid to tell me I need to wear one when I an putting
around the back bay at the state mandated "slow speed" in 4 feet of water (or
less). In most of the Estero Bay you can walk ashore if the boat sunk.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

I am the first one to say that when you are in imminent danger you should put
on your PFD

Do you suppose most of the folks who fall overboard had enough warning that
they could have put on a PFD?

Except for suicides, 100% of the people who drown on a given day had no
intention of doing so. If they had even 10 seconds warning, most would either
change their activity, don a PFD, or both.

Accidents are tough to foresee.

Maybe the answer to wear *some* type of PFD, (even one of the belt packs), even
if not CG approved and have an approved PFD at ready hand. There's no easy
answer to this that will please everybody, which is why the topic goes round
and round, year after year.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs







According to NTSB statistics, 100% of passengers killed in commercial airline
crashes were not wearing parachutes.

I guess we should be looking into that....

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

According to NTSB statistics, 100% of passengers killed in commercial airline
crashes were not wearing parachutes.

I guess we should be looking into that....

Parachutes don't improve your safety on a commercial flight.

They can be useful, however, when leaping out of a plane.

More people will survive falling off a boat without a PFD than will survive
falling out of an airplane without a parachute.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
According to NTSB statistics, 100% of passengers killed in commercial
airline
crashes were not wearing parachutes.

I guess we should be looking into that....

Parachutes don't improve your safety on a commercial flight.

They can be useful, however, when leaping out of a plane.

More people will survive falling off a boat without a PFD than will
survive
falling out of an airplane without a parachute.

Although your premise may be correct, it is not practical for most every
boaters. You see it every day...he kids will be wearing life jackets but
how often do you see adults wearing one? Never. And why do you never see
passengers required to wear one on commercial vessels? Because it is not
required nor is it practical.

Yep...we could wear lifejackets, parachutes and personal airbags (is there
such a thing?) when we travel, but it really does not make sense nor is it
practical.

The best answer is education. Show your passengers where the life jackets
are and how to use them.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

On 07 Jul 2004 22:03:35 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

According to NTSB statistics, 100% of passengers killed in commercial airline
crashes were not wearing parachutes.

I guess we should be looking into that....

Parachutes don't improve your safety on a commercial flight.

They can be useful, however, when leaping out of a plane.

More people will survive falling off a boat without a PFD than will survive
falling out of an airplane without a parachute.

I'd think that 100% of the people who fall out of an airplane without a
parachute will die. I'm sure there are plenty of people who fall off a
boat without a PFD who survive.

Steve

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

how many of the deaths were alchol related??? i'll bet most were.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

Maybe we should simply require that all the type 4s on a boat must be in good
condition. The old kapok stories anout sitting on cushions rendering them
unsafe is obsolete. People should throw them away when the straps go bad or
they start splitting apart tho.
If you threw a type 4 to MOBs immediately the survival rate would go up
significantly. If nothing else it will give you a better target when you
execute your Williamson turn.
On my boat, if it looks like a type 4, it is. I don't have any cushions that
are not life saving devices, in good condition.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

I'd think that 100% of the people who fall out of an airplane without a
parachute will die. I'm sure there are plenty of people who fall off a
boat without a PFD who survive.

Steve

Good thing too. A whole lot of people fall off of or out of boats every year.

I'm trying to remember the last time somebody accidentally "fell out of" an
airplane.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

In article ,
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote:

I'd think that 100% of the people who fall out of an airplane without a
parachute will die.

During a bombing raid over Germany on 23rd March, 1944, Flight Sergeant
Nicholas Alkemade, R.A.F., jumped from his Lancaster at 18,000 feet, to
escape the holocaust of the blazing bomber, leaving behind his useless
parachute, that had been torn to shreds by shrapnel. His headlong fall
was broken by a fir tree and he finally landed in an 18 inch snow-drift,
without a single fracture. Naturally, the Luftwaffe authorities were
highly suspicious of his story of falling from such a height without a
parachute, but on investigation they found his shredded and unused
Œchute in the crashed remains of the aircraft.

Alan Magee, a gunner on a B-17 with the 303rd Bomb Group of the U.S. 8th
Air Force, was on a mission to St. Nazaire, France in January of 1943,
when his bomber was set aflame by enemy fire. He was thrown from the
plane before he had a chance to put on his parachute. He fell 20,000
feet and crashed through the skylight of the St. Nazaire train station.
His arm was badly injured, but he recovered from that and other
injuries.

Mo
http://www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/ffresearch.html

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

During a bombing raid over Germany on 23rd March, 1944, Flight Sergeant
Nicholas Alkemade, R.A.F., jumped from his Lancaster at 18,000 feet, to

Establishing once and for all that PFD's, like parachutes, are just frivolous.
:-)

Isn't it true that no matter how far you fall you reach a maximum terminal
velocity of about 125-150 mph? No doubt a "lucky" landing would be potentially
survivable.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

In article ,
(Gould 0738) wrote:

During a bombing raid over Germany on 23rd March, 1944, Flight Sergeant
Nicholas Alkemade, R.A.F., jumped from his Lancaster at 18,000 feet, to

Establishing once and for all that PFD's, like parachutes, are just frivolous.
:-)

Isn't it true that no matter how far you fall you reach a maximum terminal
velocity of about 125-150 mph? No doubt a "lucky" landing would be potentially
survivable.

It's interesting to note that above a certain altitude one passes out
from lack of O2. However, at that height, one usually regains
consiousness for the final 8,000 feet or so. Mercy? We don need no
steenking mercy!

A Personal Floatation Device would be good if that meant it worked in
air too!

I say that every one should have to wear neoprene underwear aboard
watercraft :^)

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

This thread has wandered all over the place but I still haven't seen the
justification for ALL boaters to wear PFDs all the time because a few hundred
people died (out of the tens of millions on the water). Don't you suppose there
were other illegal acts involved with those deaths and not wearing a PFD would
just be another law they broke.
At a certain point the Darwin factor will always win.

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 12:47:14 -0500, Jeepers
wrote:

In article ,
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote:

I'd think that 100% of the people who fall out of an airplane without a
parachute will die.

During a bombing raid over Germany on 23rd March, 1944, Flight Sergeant
Nicholas Alkemade, R.A.F., jumped from his Lancaster at 18,000 feet, to
escape the holocaust of the blazing bomber, leaving behind his useless
parachute, that had been torn to shreds by shrapnel. His headlong fall
was broken by a fir tree and he finally landed in an 18 inch snow-drift,
without a single fracture. Naturally, the Luftwaffe authorities were
highly suspicious of his story of falling from such a height without a
parachute, but on investigation they found his shredded and unused
Œchute in the crashed remains of the aircraft.

ok, make that 99.9% :)

Steve

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:54:11 GMT, something compelled
(Steven Shelikoff), to say:

I'd think that 100% of the people who fall out of an airplane without a
parachute will die.

I fell out of a plane and lived to tell about it.

Ok, it was tied to the ground and the drop was about two and a
half feet, but still.

Steve "My ass was sore for a week" Daniels

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:20:42 -0700, "Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam"
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:54:11 GMT, something compelled
(Steven Shelikoff), to say:

I'd think that 100% of the people who fall out of an airplane without a
parachute will die.

I fell out of a plane and lived to tell about it.

Ok, it was tied to the ground and the drop was about two and a
half feet, but still.

And for Navy egress training I've had to slide down the wing of an
airplane and jump off to the ground. The flaps were lowered so it was
only maybe a 5 foot drop. So ammend my statement to say "flying" before
airplane. And no, ultralights, paraplanes, helicopters and autogyros
don't count as airplanes.:)

Like a parachute for an airplane on the ground, a PFD won't help very
much if you fall off a boat that's in the driveway on a trailer. Ok,
well it may help break the landing a little..

Steve

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:54:11 GMT, (Steven
Shelikoff) wrote:

On 07 Jul 2004 22:03:35 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

According to NTSB statistics, 100% of passengers killed in commercial airline
crashes were not wearing parachutes.

I guess we should be looking into that....

Parachutes don't improve your safety on a commercial flight.

They can be useful, however, when leaping out of a plane.

More people will survive falling off a boat without a PFD than will survive
falling out of an airplane without a parachute.

I'd think that 100% of the people who fall out of an airplane without a
parachute will die. I'm sure there are plenty of people who fall off a
boat without a PFD who survive.

Steve

One of our team members in Vietnam fell out of a helicopter from 1,500
feet and broke his colarbone sp. He fell into triple-canopy jungle
that was 120 feet high and broke branches most of the way to the
ground.
Mark E. Williams

NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD
 

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On 07 Jul 2004 22:03:35 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

According to NTSB statistics, 100% of passengers killed in commercial
airline
crashes were not wearing parachutes.

I guess we should be looking into that....

Parachutes don't improve your safety on a commercial flight.

They can be useful, however, when leaping out of a plane.

More people will survive falling off a boat without a PFD than will
survive
falling out of an airplane without a parachute.

I'd think that 100% of the people who fall out of an airplane without a
parachute will die. I'm sure there are plenty of people who fall off a
boat without a PFD who survive.

Steve

Only American flyer to get a German bravery medal in WW2 jumped out of the
bomber without a chute. Tailgunner, and they could not wear a chute in the
cramped confines. Plane was shot up and going to crash, and fire is going
to get the gunner before the crash. Figured going quick was better and
jumped out. Could not get to his chute. Hit a sloping barn roof covered
with snow and into a snow bank. They were first going to shoot him as a spy
as no chute was found. They checked the plane and found his hat and the
chute. Awarded him a medal, but still kept him in a POW camp. So not all
those to leave airplanes without a chute die on impact. But probably in
excess of 30-50 million people trips on a boat a year, and you are going to
save 150 people from Darwinism? Seems like an ill conceived law.
Bill