TWL: for the good of the order
Well I guess I will set my lance and charge the conventional wisdom. I see
no particular reason why teenagers or adults are more expendable then young
children. Why do we not simply have a rule on persons on board - regardless
of age?
It is clear that certain operational entities, CG among them, have such
rules. Nothing wrong with that - if you are doing hazardous duty the outfit
worn should fit the role.
But back to the rec boater sitting at the dock. Where is the hazard? Is it
age related? Is my 4 year old who swims like a fish and is almost
impossible to drown more likely to be a victim than the drunken 60 year guy
on the the next boat who can't swim (nor walk in his present state)?
If we must restrict why not on the basis of survival liklihood instead of
age? Why not require a certification of swimming ability to ride on a boat
whether stationary or moving without a life jacket? If we are going to
require swimmers to wear life jackets don't we require that they provide
some function? Note that a strong swimmer in a life jacket can only be
significantly aided if it will unconditionally hold his/her head out of the
water. It is also fair to note that such jackets may well prevent survival
if the swim is long and/or difficult. Jackets are fine for non-swimmers but
don't do anyting for those who can survive perfectly well if conscious. So
you go down this slippery slope you quickly ban those jackets that do not
self right and hold the head out of the water.
When my wife began boating with me some 12 years ago we had an unfortunate
incident when she blew it getting on the boat and ended up in the water. I
saved her but only because I was large and strong and did the right things
to get her out of the danger area and to a place where I could get her on
the dock. After that I decided she had to swim well enough not to be in
danger of drowning if she goes in..and that is now the case. She can't swim
a mile but she won't drown falling off the dock - in fact she won't drown
unless hypothermia or something gets her.
Given the resurgence of the right and the taking of responsibility for ones
actions why don't we just leave these things up to the parents and boat
captains. If we are to regulate why not on a performance standard - rather
than pretty much irrelevant age?
I think a lot of this silliness if because we adult boaters don't want to
have to deal with such rules on ourselves and our peers.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-trawler-world-list@samurai.com
[mailto:owner-trawler-world-list@samurai.com]On Behalf Of Charles
Culotta
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 7:20 PM
To: Trawlerworldlist
Subject: TWL: Re: PFD's for children - required
Ken, et al,
I have always demanded all children, that includes all up to and
including
their senior yr. in high school, to wear PFD's when aboard my ski
boat. Note
I have the jacket type and not those UNCOMFORTABLE horse collar things. We
cannot expect kids to want to wear something like that all day.
The jacket style costs only few dollars more but as the
commercial says--
it is priceless!!!
The payoff was that none ever complained and compliance was never
a problem.
CCC
LETS ROLL
CHARLES and PAT CULOTTA
Patterson, La.
http://www.geocities.com/charlesculotta/
Its time to unfreeze my pocketbook I suppose and get a
propane sniffer. Any recommendations? Or anti
recommendations? Boatus has one listed sounds not bad.
Dan
=====
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball
http://sports.yahoo.com
It's not a matter of risk mitigation or management. It is based on the fact
that children don't know any better and can't make the choice to wear a PFD
on their own. Adults take that risk or wear the PFD voluntarily. There are
so many ignorant adults that don't take proper precautions with their
children, it's amazing. Just look at all the kids (and adults) that don't
wear seat belts.
My kids and my wife and I all wear pfds underway (not weigh!) either
selft inflating suspenders (the kids) or belt pack inflatables (adults).
The kids wore Type IIIs before they could swim. Put them on before going on
the dock and only took them off in the cabin or back in the car.
I view the requirement as an attempt to protect the innocent from their
parent's stupidity or ignorance.
Frank
At 09:38 PM 3/1/02 -0800, Jim Donohue wrote:
Well I guess I will set my lance and charge the conventional wisdom. I see
no particular reason why teenagers or adults are more expendable then young
children. Why do we not simply have a rule on persons on board - regardless
of age?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Timpano" ftimpano@infi.net
It's not a matter of risk mitigation or management. It is based on the
fact
that children don't know any better and can't make the choice to wear a
PFD
on their own. Adults take that risk or wear the PFD voluntarily.
Hi Frank,
That's an excellent point.
I hesitate to add anything further since I don't have children and since
it's been a long time since I was one. Lack of qualifications has never
stopped me before though, so:
Another reason to treat children differently has to do with body size. In
our waters and in most of the US west coast waters it's not drowning that
gets you if you fall overboard. Around here hypothermia and cold shock are
the primary dangers. Because children have smaller bodies and (normally) far
less body fat than adults they have less resistance to the cold. As we all
know, hypothermia makes it more difficult to help yourself and it also makes
it more difficult to make good decisions about how to help yourself. It's
also pretty well accepted that a PFD will provide significant insulation as
well as helping to keep the victim afloat. So children, with less natural
insulation and (presumably) poorer decision making ability, will benefit
more from wearing a PFD than will an adult.
While I was writing that paragraph it occurred to me that my description of
a child's susceptibility to hypothermia would also apply to a drunk adult.
Since, however, it's already illegal to operate a boat while intoxicated (It
IS illegal isn't it?) and it would be impractical (legally) to require that
drunk adult passengers wear PFD's we'll just have to think of those sorts of
casualties as evolution in action.
Coldly yours,
Alex
P.S. That requiring children to wear PFD's is a new regulation is a bit
confusing to me. Five or six years ago we had a young man (12 years old) as
a guest aboard. At that time we were told that it was a requirement that he
wear a PFD on deck. Was that a Washington State law only at the time?
ibid
Frank wrote in part:
I view the requirement as an attempt to protect the innocent from
their parent's stupidity or ignorance.
Frank is right on! Just over a year ago I was laying over in Port
Angeles,(WA) while taking the trawler north alone. There was a
family on the dock which consisted of 5 children with their father,
who was fishing. The oldest of these kids was 8 years. The kids
were having a lot of fun yelling and screaming while running up and
down the dock. I kept an eye on them sort of expecting something
might happen.
Returning from a supply trip I remarked to the kids, as I walked by,
and loud enough for the father to hear, that they should have life
jackets on. No reaction from the father.
A little while later I heard a large splash and knew what it was
without looking. As I leaped from the boat and was running up the
dock I could see the oldest boy going down....again. He went under
at least three times before I could get out to him and manage to
pull him out of the water. His struggles to the surface had been
carrying him far from the dock. The father had gone to another dock
too far away to be of any help at all. Lucky kid. He's going to live in
spite of his father's dumbness.
In several towns along the inside passage and all over Alaska there
are life-jackets for kids at the head of the dock ramps. These
jackets are hanging on nails in a sheet of plywood, to be used by
the children of the town while on the docks. They are installed and
maintained by local clubs, such as the Lions.
Incidentally, I wrote a letter to the local newspaper in Port Angeles
detailing the situation and suggesting such a solution. The paper
never even bothered printing it. They must have a surplus of
children there.
Sandy Floe
"Sea Eagle" (39 CHB)
Day Island, WA
I have stayed out of this debate till now, so here goes my 2 cents.
Where I work, the water is 40 in the winter and maybe 60 in the summer.
I have been taking my sons on trips since they were about 6 or so. By that
time they can swim. They don't roughhouse on the dock. Some trips take us
where it is 100 in the shade and 100 percent humidity. Wearing PFD's
constantly is outrageous at these kinds of temperatures.
We don't wear life jackets unless there is explicit hazard of going in.
PFD's are a joke. The grandfather who lost his 3 grandsons at La Push last
fall had them all wearing PFD's.
You can make up every story under the sun to justify requiring PFD's to be
worn constantly, and wearing same will save some lives. And it will kill
some others, because of a false sense of security.
All this regulation has possibilities for doing some good and for doing a
lot of harm. If you think that the correctness police can't indict you for
being irresponsible in letting your children be around water without
wearing a lifejacket, think again.
Before you start in on me, get this straight. Everybody who goes with me
has a survival suit, not a PFD, which I don't give a damn about. The suits
have whistles, mirrors, dye packs, lights and some EPIRB's. Don't go
complaining to me about my tactics, unless you bought and carried survival
suits for the children, like I have always done and have them practice to
get into them at least once or twice a year. After all, the suits are just
in case we have done something really stupid.
In the meantime, I figure I am entitled to my opinion, just a little more
than anyone else who is not as careful. There is no substitute for being
careful. After all the logical extension to the PFD problem is that nobody
does anything even in the bathtub, without one.
Oh, by the way. I don't think for a minute that the folks who disagree with
me about this sort of thing and are busy creating the regulations, care one
whit what my opinions are. And if you agree with me even a little, I
suggest they don't care about your opinions either.
Those who would try to regulate life with a microscope, generally don't
care what anyone else thinks. There is a really ugly side to all this
regulation. The education system is a failure and we have a whole culture
full of people who couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag. So, in
order to protect them from themselves, another regulation is needed. There
is no end to tactics like this and meanwhile the emphasis on REAL education
is left in a lurch.
It used to be that formal maritime education resulted in well qualified
officers and seamen. But, I have noticed a pattern recently where accidents
are happening that never should ever happen to well trained professionals.
If you get the idea that I don't care whether you agree with me or not, you
have that right. I don't write these posts for fun. I have watched too many
people get killed over the years, to want to sit around and wait for the
next one. But I am absolutely convinced that the only solution is
education. "The devil is in the details".
So, I write to correct misunderstandings and to describe tactics which I
have found to be successful, to challenge popular, but misguided notions
and to put to words that which I want my sons and others to have to ponder
in the years to come. I don't write for profit and I try not to obscure the
essential meanings in the forlorn hope, that my writings will be better
received.
Kindest Regards,
Mike
Capt. Mike Maurice
Near Portland Oregon.
When our first grandkids came on the boat several years ago, we insisted
that they wear PFDs anytime they were not on shore and away from the water.
We purchased childrens PFDs in several sizes for guests use also.
The result is that none of them will go on the dock without his PFD and will
not go outside the salon or pilot house without it. This is in spit of the
fact that we have a Portuguese bridge and walk around decks.
We added a mesh around the flybridge railing to protect children (and
adults) from going overboard. The mesh is see-through and matches the window
covers.
Even if the regs don't require PFDs - we do.
Don Sorensen
ESPERANZA
60 DeFever
Dallas
At 09:45 PM 3/1/02 -0800, you wrote:
Its time to unfreeze my pocketbook I suppose and get a
propane sniffer. Any recommendations? Or anti
recommendations? Boatus has one listed sounds not bad.
I have been considering the Cruzpro gd25.
http://www.cruzpro.com/gd20.html
You can set it to save power -- it can wake up every five minutes to take a
"sniff". It will also turn off your propane solenoid. These are available
in the US from www.downwindmarine.com
Best,
Steve
Steve Dubnoff
Nauticat 40 M/S, Pyxis, in Washington
sdubnoff@circlesys.com
Glenn:
My response to Richard follows:
Richard:
American Heritage Dictionary, second entry for weigh states: "Used only
in the phrase under weigh. (Variant of way.)"
Webster's Third International Unabridged has entries for both "underway"
and "under weigh".
FWIW
Wesley
Since posting that response to Richard I checked that most weighty of
references, the Oxford English Dictionary, which also supports the usage
if not the derivation stating that under weigh is "a common var. of
under way, from erroneous association with the phr. "to weigh anchor"".
Examples of this usage are cited from 1777 onwards.
Wesley
weldred@zoo.uvm.edu
Glenn Williams wrote:
Wes.
To weigh something is to ascertain it's weight. Right?
The term to weigh anchor came from those mythic days of sail when a bunch of
the boys tramped around a capstan feeling the weight of the anchor as they
hauled it up.
I'm with Zeke.
Cheers
Glenn Williams
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wesley Eldred" weldred@zoo.uvm.edu
Zeke:
"Weigh" is a vaiant form of "way" and, since one "weighs anchor" before
one can move one's vessel, I view "under weigh" as an fully acceptable
nautical turn of speech.
My opinion only
Wesley
Zeke Anderson wrote:
For the good of the order.... it's underway, not under weigh. As long as
we're here, lose is not to win, loose is not fastened down.
Since posting that response to Richard I checked that most weighty of
references, the Oxford English Dictionary, which also supports the usage
if not the derivation stating that under weigh is "a common var. of
under way, from erroneous association with the phr. "to weigh anchor"".
Examples of this usage are cited from 1777 onwards.
Wesley
If the venerable OED says the association is "erroneous", then I may too.
Nobody ever made any weigh
by sitting on the dock of the beigh.
But try to correct 'em,
they'll infer you're a rectum,
and then there's the devil to peigh.
8-) ;-0
Zeke Anderson
Kerrville, TX