Water Police unable to identify PFD1

[tigermullet]

So how does one get on when on the water with the kids and your jackets need to be inspected. The kids Jackets are marked on the inside and when they are removed it would be a breach of the regulation to take it off to see the markings???

Thanks for the heads up on that one RH. Damn! now I have to make another phone call to sort that one out. My wife's expensive jacket (she is a non swimmer) has all the appropriate information and appears to conform with the new As1512 but it is also marked on the inside.

I hope that doesn't have to be dumped. It cost quite a bit when purchased a couple of years ago and has only be used twice - well, not used, just carried and worn.

Unlike your children she does not have to wear it but the marking on the inside might breach some other obscure section of AS1512.

[Trevor2]

MSQ would not be allowed to reproduce the entire AS1512, but they would be allowed to quote the particular section/parts to effectively inform us of what the requirements are. They also would be able (maybe able is not the correct word) to detail the requirements of AS 1512 without breeching copyright.

It is not good enough and I am not sure it would be legal to charge people without having first given people the ability to be informed of the requirements. I think that also means the the rules must be generally available at no cost.

Kind regards Trevor

[bay_firey]

Tigermullet
You are right on the money , the world does get madder

We HAVE to comply with this Australian Standard (ignorance is no defence) and yet the only way to be sure is to BUY a copy of the standard $24.16 for the pdf version and only $26.84 for the hardcopy

Details are available here http://www.saiglobal.com/shop/script...=stds000013864 if anybody is interested.

You can down load a free 6page preview copy but you don't even get past the the contents pages.

[bootyinblue]

Yeah Mick I have 4 (that is FOUR) 1kg, 2 in the boat, 1 in the ute and a spare and for my miserable joe average four extinguishers to be inspected and tagged costs $36 per year (Thirty-six dollar including GST). These are standard joe average Chubb 1kg extinguishers serviced by Chubb and Yes I have to take them in.

Regards, Kerry.

So am I right Kerry in that you have 4 x 1kg units and you shell out $36 per annum for testing? For $36 you could replace 2 of these units per year each year and still have change.

But it appears you may have more dollars than sense!!!

[peterbo3]

He might have TWO brand new units & a small amount of change, but by my maths he will still be shy TWO tested units.

[trueblue]

So am I right Kerry in that you have 4 x 1kg units and you shell out $36 per annum for testing? For $36 you could replace 2 of these units per year each year and still have change.

But it appears you may have more dollars than sense!!!

I'll have to say that at $9 per inspection and tagging, Kerry is in Front. That is the cheaper option.

A quantity of 4 is obviously better than 2 for the price, as I got quoted $15 per inspection where it is not worthwhile. Further, it is also possible to purchase 1 kg extinguishers cheaper than the discussed $16 at Bias. The cheaper the single use extinguisher is, the less viable the inspection and tagging is. This is especially considering the fact that the dry powder in the extinguisher on a boat compacts with vibration and unless regularly taken out of the boat and shaken upside down until the powder is free won't actually work in the case of a fire.

Also, if the law is changed to inspection and tagging being mandatory for all extinguishers the price will go up, not down. Any time you look at a service that has been made mandatory, it becomes a cash cow for the service provider and the price invariably rises.

Cheers

Mick

[tigermullet]

Tigermullet
You are right on the money , the world does get madder

We HAVE to comply with this Australian Standard (ignorance is no defence) and yet the only way to be sure is to BUY a copy of the standard $24.16 for the pdf version and only $26.84 for the hardcopy

Details are available here http://www.saiglobal.com/shop/script...=stds000013864 if anybody is interested.

You can down load a free 6page preview copy but you don't even get past the the contents pages.

Thanks for that information BF but it has got even more mad.

I was about to telephone MSQ to get clarification on the labelling (it is on the inside of another expensive jacket) when my friend arrived.

He had purchased the same lifejackets as I did last week - another cheaper style but they did seem to have all of the appropriate marks:- Manufacturers name or trademark, donning and care instructions, model number, date of manufacture, batch number, PFD1, reflective tape etc., together with a reference to AS1512.

However, just before he arrived he had telephoned MSQ to do a final check instead of taking my relayed information as gospel. I will not mention the name of the contact in MSQ because even though I do not doubt the information was recorded correctly I did not speak to the person.

We compared jackets and they are identical and less than one week from purchase.

Here is the problem - even though our new jackets comply in every respect they do not have a reference to AS1512 (1996), instead they refer to AS1512. Apparently that missing (1996) is very important. He was advised to contact the manufacturer to obtain a statement confirming that our new jackets satisfy the criteria of AS1512 (1996).

We composed an email and fired it off from here (he does not have internet) and are hoping for some sort of response from the manufacturers some time today - the email was sent just after close of business yesterday.

If we are able to get the appropriate statement from the manufacturers, MSQ advises that we should keep the statement on board the boat to show any inspector that they do comply. Now get this! - If we are inspected and the statement is judged to be not good enough in the determination of the individual inspector (Water Police or Boating Patrol) we should contact MSQ who will try to intercede on our behalf.

We now have the situation where our jackets comply in every respect except for the missing (1996) and need a statement from the manufacturer that the jackets do, in fact, comply but even that might not be enough for an individual, authorised person to issue an on-the-spot fine.

As boaties we might be able to be equipped to provide a level of safety for emergencies but very little can be done to protect ouselves from the tender mercy and incompetence of the authorities.

[Jeremy]

I have been following this thread with some interest. Very keen to find out if my life jackets comply. Much better to buy new jackets than to get a fine and then buy new jackets.

I finally found a page on the msq web site that explains the requirement. Sorry if this has been posted here before, but I thought it might be useful.

http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Home/Safet...ices/#markings

Jeremy

[tigermullet]

Thank you Jeremy. MSQ has finally published the requirements in easily understood form - it is about time!

You will notice that the requirements do not state that AS1512 (1996) must be printed on the jackets which is a difference to the information received from MSQ via the telephone yesterday.

Still, it appears that progress is being made. I might have a shot at phoning them today whilst waiting on word from the manufacturers on whether they will provide supporting documentation.

[_Dan_]

Maybe one of our political mates has bought shares in a PFD manufacturer and decided he wanted to make some money??? If they havent by now im sure one of them would have jumped on this bandwagon.

It has happened before in other areas and will happen again...

[Trevor2]

I find this really annoying also. We carry safety gear way over and above what is specified in the collective rules, including light sticks, lights on jackets, strobe lights, portable vhf in grab bag, etc . . . But we are not assisted or informed in any measurable way prior to enforcment.

I am sure MSQ are reading this thread, I am glad they are. The update to the requirements for PFD's was posted to their site yesterday. Seemingly when they realised they do have an obligation to inform us of requirements.

There are still some problems with the rules and the labelling, and possibly more correctly how MSQ has gone about this.

A lot more that PFD1/2/3 and AS1512 appear to be required from what was posted yesterday.

1. Does AS1512 specify that jackets have to carry the latest ammendment date (1996)?

2. My inflatables carry the SAI Global 5 tick identification but do not carry the date identification. Yet MSQ's website says that:

'Purchasers can ensure their PFDs are compliant with the standards by having jackets bearing the SAI-Global "five ticks" symbol or the compliance marks of other certification bodies."

So my jackets are seen to comply (inflatables do, the others do not), yet they do not carry the year of ammendment identification?????

3. If these rules came into being in 1996, why have we heard nothing (or I have not) about them till now? Why cannot MSQ (and police) inform regarding requirements before prosecuting when this looks like being a large problem for the boating community.

4. Why have so many illegal jackets been allowed to be sold (since 1996, eleven years)??? and no one has seemingly realised or done anything about this - state and federal governments governments, boating organisations, retail outlets, or magazines etc?

Kind regards Trevor

[seatime]

I have been following this thread with some interest. Very keen to find out if my life jackets comply. Much better to buy new jackets than to get a fine and then buy new jackets.

I finally found a page on the msq web site that explains the requirement. Sorry if this has been posted here before, but I thought it might be useful.

http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Home/Safet...ices/#markings

Jeremy

Thanks Jeremy for the link, and thanks to MSQ for releasing that information.

However, and this is in no way critical of MSQ at all, but it appears the photos accompanying the descriptions of a PFD 2 & PFD 3 are reversed. The green/grey/black jacket is a PFD 3, and the yellow/black jacket is a PFD 2.
The yellow is a more visible colour than green.

regards
Steve

[Gary Fooks]

A slight sideline

when MSQ changed the rules to recognize the European standard for inflatable PFD's (gazetted August 2006, but planned earlier) they did not tell Water Police or Fisheries Patrol

heavy sigh

Gary

[trueblue]

A slight sideline

when MSQ changed the rules to recognize the European standard for inflatable PFD's (gazetted August 2006, but planned earlier) they did not tell Water Police or Fisheries Patrol

heavy sigh

Gary

Which is exactly the point I was making earlier...

[tigermullet]

It looks like the jury is still out on the question of whether it is necessary for AS1512 (1996) to be printed on the jackets or whether AS1512 alone is sufficient. It is only an assumption if the year of manufacture is later than 1996 that the jacket conforms with AS1512 (1996).

A reasonable assumption you would think but it might not be enough to convince an issuer of on-the-spot fines. AS1512 (1996) does not state a need for printing of the latest standard, however the regulation makes reference to AS1512 (1996)and that implies the necessity for the printing on the jackets to show AS1512 (1996).

My friend and I are still waiting for a response from one Manufacturer on whether our recently purchased PFD1's actually comply with AS1512 (1996). If they do not then a lot of retail outlets are going to have a pile of stock to return to the manufacturers to be junked or re stamped.

This friend's telephone call this morning, pointing out the difference in the now, much more helpful information on the MSQ website, and yesterdays verbal advice from them concerning the missing (1996) printing has thrown in a bit of confusion.

I think that the matter is being referred for a ruling.

I hope that they have advised the Boating Patrol and Water Police to take it easy until this matter is sorted out.

It was, after all, a mess of MSQ's making