Water Police unable to identify PFD1

[tigermullet]

Have just received a response from Marlin to my email yesterday in which I asked if the jackets purchased 5 days ago complies with As1512 (1996). Here it is:-

I am in receipt of your email dated Tuesday 27 February 2007.
On advice from SAI Global, Australia’s largest Certification Auditors for Australian Standards, the Australian Standard is AS1512, NOT AS1512 (1996).
Should you require any additional information I would be happy to advise.
Yours sincerely
John Murray
Director
Marlin Australia Pty Ltd


That was very nice of them to respond so quickly but now I do not know between the manufacturers, MSQ and enforcement bodies who's up who and who's paying the rent!

[Stuie]

This is confusing. My jackets appear to meet all requirements except thy don't have reflective tape. I have read that this is needed, yet in the MSQ update it just states " parts which are visible when the wearer is submerged (from the armholes up) are high visibility in colour". The jackets are bright yellow and as far as I am concerned are high visiblity. I guess I'll just see what happens next time I am inspected.

[tigermullet]

The confusion might be about to end! My friend (I wish he would hook up to the internet) has received via my email a very helpful and gracious response from MSQ. Having opened it relay the information by phone, it reads as though the jackets we were interested in (Marlin) manufactured in 2006/07, marked PFD1 and stamped AS1512 but without the (1996) marking are compliant.

Apparently a 'PFD Information Bulletin" is to be published shortly so it might be an idea to keep an eye on the website.

What surprises me about the whole deal is that it looks as though I might have been in breach of the regulations ever since 1996 and even those lifejackets purchased in 1998 and 1999 were not compliant. I do not believe that the old jackets were inadequate in any way but the possible breach could have easily ended with expensive an expensive fine.

I am prepared to let the matter rest and will not start another bun fight by giving my opinion on how all of this came about.

[tigermullet]

The confusion might be about to end! My friend (I wish he would hook up to the internet) has received via my email a very helpful and gracious response from MSQ. Having opened it to relay the information by phone, it reads as though the jackets we were interested in (Marlin) manufactured in 2006/07, marked PFD1 and stamped AS1512 but without the (1996) marking are compliant.

Apparently a 'PFD Information Bulletin" is to be published shortly so it might be an idea to keep an eye on the website.

What surprises me about the whole deal is that it looks as though I might have been in breach of the regulations ever since 1996 and even those lifejackets purchased in 1998 and 1999 were not compliant. I do not believe that the old jackets were inadequate in any way but the possible breach could have easily ended with an expensive fine.

I am prepared to let the matter rest and will not start another bun fight by giving my opinion on how all of this came about.

CORRECTED VERSION

[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!!!

Perhaps there needs to be a new thread on the fire extinquisher issues as all this ridiculous stupidity of some with no sense who want to live in a throw away world and continually pull up p$ss poor excuses and whinge should have the opportunity to state their case without affecting the real issue with the PFD's.

Regards, Kerry.

[trueblue]

Kerry, all due respects mate - but...

Extinguishers came up as a discussion point related to the gazetted ammendments for life jackets. Fire extinguishers were mentioned by me as a support to the life jacket discussion in that a gazetted ammendment for the fire extinguishers law ALSO had not been advised to the Water Police and Fisheries Patrol as was the case with the life jackets Law.

The failure of MSQ to advise the enforcement officers about the ammendments to the law for both issues is exactly what this thread was about.

You were the bloke who started throwing the thread off course by being cantankerous and aggressive with your own opinions about fire extinguishers by challenging the suitability of the wording in the ammendment. Right, wrong or indifferent, thats what the ammendment says and that is the law as it stands - which was the original point I was making.

Had you not riled everyone up with your aggressive challenges and taken the thread offcourse, you wouldn't have got the barrage of irritated replies that you did.

I'm man enough to let it all go if you are, and I'd ask everyone else to do the same.

Regards

Mick

[bootyinblue]

Kerry, all due respects mate - but...

Extinguishers came up as a discussion point related to the gazetted ammendments for life jackets. Fire extinguishers were mentioned by me as a support to the life jacket discussion in that a gazetted ammendment for the fire extinguishers law ALSO had not been advised to the Water Police and Fisheries Patrol as was the case with the life jackets Law.

The failure of MSQ to advise the enforcement officers about the ammendments to the law for both issues is exactly what this thread was about.

You were the bloke who started throwing the thread off course by being cantankerous and aggressive with your own opinions about fire extinguishers by challenging the suitability of the wording in the ammendment. Right, wrong or indifferent, thats what the ammendment says and that is the law as it stands - which was the original point I was making.

Had you not riled everyone up with your aggressive challenges and taken the thread offcourse, you wouldn't have got the barrage of irritated replies that you did.

I'm man enough to let it all go if you are, and I'd ask everyone else to do the same.

Regards

Mick

Here Here Mick....

Well said, I am all for a new thread on fire extinguishers!!

And as far as Kerry is concerned, he can air his grievances in that thread about our throw away society. But as far as I am concerned I would rather have a fire extinguisher that is by your calculations a maximum of 2 years old than one that is 6 years old and has only been visually inspected each year.

But each to their own I guess.... hence the differing points of view expressed on here.

[rick k]

If you want to argue about jackets, which are in, which are out, that's great.

Jeremy on page 6 posted a link I found pretty helpful, except maybe for SOLAS


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
apathy is the enemy

www.brisbanesportfishingclub.com.au

[Mrs Ronnie H]

Hi All
Seiing the jackets have to have an official stamp to make them identifiable is there any reason why they cannot be restamped?????????????
This is just a thought as we all have jackets in perfectly good condition apart from the fact the stamp has worn off etc. Perhaps there should be somewhere we can take them, have them inspected and re-stamped. Would save alot of hassle and also expense. Suppose that would be too easy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And as for the police-- well they are just doing their job and doing what they are required to do. I know this sounds so minor but you should all remember that most of these rules and laws are made by people who sit back in their air conditioned offices and really have no idea of the real world outside. !!!???? Make the Rules but have no experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ronnie

[dnej]

This may help

[subzero]

One thing that is abundantly plain is that their is poor communication between the various Gov Dept's.
What is worse is that Qld Maritime seem to be fixing damage caused by them retrospectively only after numerous complaints from the members of this site and that the Enforcement agencys tend to be poorly informed to the intent of any new legislation as well and not understanding that higher standards (SOLAS), cover lower standards (PFD1).

This poor communication filters right through each and every interested party from the manufacturer, poorly informed sales people and then eventually the Rec Boater wears it by copping a fine he should NEVER have got in the first place (Re SOLAS Jacket not displaying PFD1 Label).

Common sense would dictate that when legislation changes, that their should be a grace period for phasing in, in that time the information and the intent would and should be disseminated to all partys that this affects. The grace period should geve time to educate and promote the reasonong behind the changes and give people the knowedge and time to meet that requirement.

The only way I can see this being effective is if MSQ in particular, utilised the processes they already have in place by sending out important updates as a Notice to Marinersw. (N.T.M).

N.T.M's are free services administered by MSQ, you can add your name to the mailing list by emailing them and you will get 1 or 2 messages almost every day informing mariners about important safety changes, usually relating to beacons, bouys, shoaling, flare displays etc.
Life jackets ARE important safety matters, as are changes to fire extinguisher regulations. These SHOULD be included in NTM's instead of leaving everyone in the dark untill the last minute.

If it was to be done this way, the Water Police, Manufacturers, Shop Assistants and Boaties could be all kept up to date with the most current or impending changes.
For those that cant be bothered signing up then I guess that you have to wear the consequences.

I would like to think that stores would make it mandatory that the NTM's relating to saleable products would be brought to the attention of all sales people and then prospective purchasers so that those without the internet are not impacted unfairly.
At least this way, we would all know what the hell is going on!!! (Probably)

You can register to recieve NTM's by clicking here.
http://www.support.transport.qld.gov...rsRegistration

Perhaps Nugget might like to use the might of the Media to discuss this issue?
Cheers Lloyd

[rick k]

I think if I had a reasonably current SOLAS or Coastal jacket, and was fined, I'd be arguing.

My 1993 PFD1s comply with the current requirements, so it isn't altogether new........maybe there were some dodgy imports

[Wear the fox hat]

a) I would still like to know why holders of boat licences weren't notifiied instead of finding out via this thread or some weak item in the Sunday Mail or whatever it was. I'm sorry, but for such an important thing like this that concerns ALL holders of boat licences, we should have been notified in the mail. I don't care about a poor arse excuse like it may have been "too expensive for the government to consider." They can still send this out with your boat rego advising of an impending date of when it is going to happen instead of guys getting pinged with $150 on the spot fines when they thought they were legal. What a crock of shite! (no offence to the guys giving out the tickets. Obviously they aren't informed that we are misinformed)
b)2 weeks ago I was at a BCF store & Hutch Wilco Pulsar PFD1 jackets were selling for $99. Went to another branch today & they were selling for $124. Work it out???????? We're getting punted in the deep end again & I need 3 new ones)

WTFH (pissed off by bungling bureaucracy again)

[tigermullet]

EXACTLY, Wtfh - the same thing happened with capacity labels. Several years ago a note was included in the registration renewal giving information that capacity labels were available together with a telephone contact number for them to be ordered. Thinking that it was a requirement I phoned and got three or four labels only to find out that it was a suggestion that they be used.

Not too long ago, when the suggestion for use became a requirement, there wasn't any notice included in the registration renewal form.

No breach for me on this requirement because, being a bit of a cynic, I attached the labels when it was only a suggestion, reasoning that it would not be too long before the idea became an 'empire building' exercise and the subject of regulation.

The 'new' life jacket/PFD subject is much more serious and I cannot fathom why we were not notified with boat registration renewal.

A phone call to MSQ asking the same question you outline was met with embarrassed silence.

Let's hope that the soon to be published PFD Information Bulletin will clarify the matter - especially in regard to AS1512 (1996). The missing (1996) on the stamping on current jackets should be cleared up sufficiently to prevent the over enthusiastic enforcement of unintended consequences resulting from poor wording of the regulation itself.

[PinHead]

a) I would still like to know why holders of boat licences weren't notifiied instead of finding out via this thread or some weak item in the Sunday Mail or whatever it was. I'm sorry, but for such an important thing like this that concerns ALL holders of boat licences, we should have been notified in the mail. I don't care about a poor arse excuse like it may have been "too expensive for the government to consider." They can still send this out with your boat rego advising of an impending date of when it is going to happen instead of guys getting pinged with $150 on the spot fines when they thought they were legal. What a crock of shite! (no offence to the guys giving out the tickets. Obviously they aren't informed that we are misinformed)
b)2 weeks ago I was at a BCF store & Hutch Wilco Pulsar PFD1 jackets were selling for $99. Went to another branch today & they were selling for $124. Work it out???????? We're getting punted in the deep end again & I need 3 new ones)

WTFH (pissed off by bungling bureaucracy again)

No Govt is going to send out law alterations for licence holders for anything...they did not send them out for the new road penalties that came into force on 1st March..are we that ambivalent that we need the Govt to hold our hands and tell us all what to do every time something changes? The onus is on us as licence holders to ensure we are aware of the current rules...many have said that a licence is a right therefore with that right comes the responsibility to ensure we are familiar with the current laws pertaining to the relevant vehicle we are licensed to operate.