Attn NPD Dam Permit Holders

[rayken1938]

From Marine Safety Website.

""While boats that do not require registration are not obliged to carry compulsory safety equipment, it is strongly recommended appropriate equipment is taken in the event of an emergency. Lack of preparation could lead to a breach of the general safety obligation. Carry enough safety equipment to be prepared for the unexpected."
I believe that the motion whilst well intentioned was very sloppy in its composition and should have been worded to state that all craft used by permit holders should have to carry all safety equipment the same as Marine safety Qld legistation for registered craft.
This way they would also have to carry a suitable anchorong device which they missed out on and also if the legistation is changed in the future it would negate the need to change the deed of agreement.
Cheers
Ray

[TheRealAndy]

I don't believe this statement is correct. I compete regularly with and against people with inflatable life jackets

It is correct. I was running an Aus titles in January and some guys turned up with inflatable life vest. Some one threatened a protest because of it and we subsequently modified the sailing instructions to cater for the clause in the YA regulations.


YA SPECIAL REGULATIONS 2009 - 2013 For off the beach small open ballasted & small open trailable yachts. Under Regulation 5.01.3 Inflatable PFD’s shall not be used.

You would have to check if your class qualifies in the 'off the beach' category because I cant remember the exact details off hand.

From Marine Safety Website.

""While boats that do not require registration are not obliged to carry compulsory safety equipment, it is strongly recommended appropriate equipment is taken in the event of an emergency. Lack of preparation could lead to a breach of the general safety obligation. Carry enough safety equipment to be prepared for the unexpected."
I believe that the motion whilst well intentioned was very sloppy in its composition and should have been worded to state that all craft used by permit holders should have to carry all safety equipment the same as Marine safety Qld legistation for registered craft.
This way they would also have to carry a suitable anchorong device which they missed out on and also if the legistation is changed in the future it would negate the need to change the deed of agreement.
Cheers
Ray

Transport Operations (Marine Safety—Recreational Ships Miscellaneous Equipment) Standard 2006

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...nstOpMSA94.pdf

Its spelled out in that act what saftey gear is required for unregistered boats. You can also refer to Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 2004 which also contains saftey gear legislation (inlduing the part about kids wearing pdf's)

I have read case law on smooth waters inside rivers before, so there is precedent. This means if you were to argue in court that a dam or lake does not qualify under s15(2)(a) of the Transport Operations (Marine Safety—Recreational Ships Miscellaneous Equipment) Standard 2006 you would most likely lose.

Furhtermore, whilst i dont trust MSQ website because I have found (an alerted them) to many mistakes. However, it is specified on the website somewhere that all dams are considered smooth waters.

[tim barra master]

rayken
Ray
While you have merit in what you say I would have no objection to carry a anchore if nesseary
I have never seen print aywhere that impoundments require anchoring devise on any size craft registered or not And In your opinion do you think a anchore on a lake would save or potentially save a life given a wind drift would only push a boat to the bank anyway, very few lakes get enough flow to cause current drift
I have never carried anchoring devises that would be even up to standard for openwaters That being said i sometimes carry a small wieght used to hold a canoe or kayak over fish schools on lakes and have on multple occasions been asked to present safety gear to the water rats( our boys and girls in blue ) never once have i been asked for a anchore



The PRFMA were discussing this change before the regretfull trajety on wivenhoe.
To try to improve the boating access cheme to be more family friendly upon requests from several permit holders


Cheers Tim.

our juniors are our future

[PinHead]

"the realandy" I respectfully suggest you have a closer look at the rules.
Curerently 99% of boats on NPD are not registered. They are electric, paddle, peddle, sail or oar powered. There fore the only safety requirements are for a light after dark. They need no other safety equipment. (Thats not to say most dont have it, its just not required)

Under MSQ laws Children do not have to wear life jackets in unregistered boats, nor boats over 4.8m. My dam boat is both.

The PRFMA passed the motion, and it will be a requirement of the new deeds and strongly recommended for those with current deeds (You have to sign a legal contract called a deed to get on to NPD, it is current until May next year).


I'm in no way against reasonable consideration of safety improvements. However to bring in mandatory safety requirements with no consultation with experts, those the changes will affect, or those that actually write the laws concerned is not the right way.

If the PRFMA had said look we think there is a problem, talked with MSQ, called a meeting of permit holders, consulted with boating experts, maybe even called on the local member to lobby to change the rules for everybody, I'd have been behind them 100%. They Didn't.

why should the PRFMA consult with anyone over any rule changes..they make the rules..either abide or don't go there.

As i said previously, I think it is a top idea.

Now think about ot from PRFMA's side...they would obviously have to hold insurances to permit people to have access to the dam..after the recent tragedy, and hopefully it never happens again. but should it happen on North Pine..I think there would be sufficient grounds for some serious legal action.

Life is full of rules..you may not agree with a lot them (I don't agree with a lot of the other boating rules) but you abie by them..simple as that.

[rayken1938]

Real Andy can you point the relavent portion of the act including page number that spells this out as I have had verbal confirmation that other than the general safty provisions there is no legistation covering unregistered craft. ( Aprox 3 weeks ago).
I am in no way challenging the PRFMA's right to alter their rules re safety on the dam. In fact I thing it is a good idea that they are being proactive in the matter.
All I am pointing out is that it would be much cleaner and simpler to implement if it mirrored the current regulation for registered craft.
This would make it easy to immediatly implement any forthcoming legistation changes rather than having to have a rule change to reflect any changes.
Tim an anchor in an electric powered craft is an importent item of equipment to prevent you being blown on to a lee shore in the event of a battery failure.
NPD and other Dams can get quite rough in a stiff breeze.
Ps I am a PRFMA member and would point out that the motion for the rule change was carried unanimously.
Ray

[TheRealAndy]

Real Andy can you point the relavent portion of the act including page number that spells this out as I have had verbal confirmation that other than the general safty provisions there is no legistation covering unregistered craft. ( Aprox 3 weeks ago).
I am in no way challenging the PRFMA's right to alter their rules re safety on the dam. In fact I thing it is a good idea that they are being proactive in the matter.
All I am pointing out is that it would be much cleaner and simpler to implement if it mirrored the current regulation for registered craft.
This would make it easy to immediatly implement any forthcoming legistation changes rather than having to have a rule change to reflect any changes.
Tim an anchor in an electric powered craft is an importent item of equipment to prevent you being blown on to a lee shore in the event of a battery failure.
NPD and other Dams can get quite rough in a stiff breeze.
Ps I am a PRFMA member and would point out that the motion for the rule change was carried unanimously.
Ray

Apologies, the link I posted is to a different act (still relevent thought) try this one here:

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...06/06SL019.pdf

s(5) 5 Application of pt 2
(1) This part applies to a person who is the owner or master of a
recreational ship, whether or not the ship is required to be
registered under part 3, division 42 of the regulation.

s(12) Part 3 Miscellaneous equipment for
particular recreational ships
that do not require registration

[rayken1938]

Andy
Thanks very much for quick response. Its just another example of inepitude of call centre staff as I rang them about 3 weeks ago and they pointed me to the section that I quoted.
It really reinforces the need to obtain an answer in writing because I do not believe that the statement that I rang them and was told such and such would be accepted as a valid excuse.It does appear that the entire act needs to be rewritten and all anomolies removed.
Cheers
Ray

[TheRealAndy]

BTW Ray, take what I say with a grain of salt. I am no lawyer. I want to study law, so in an attempt to decide if I can manage 6 years of uni I have spent the last 18months reading first year law student texts and reading legislation and case law. Decided this week that I am going to start the QTAC procedure to gain entry as a mature age student into law!

[Feral]

Sorry people, I'm hopeless at finding posts once they go of the front page of "recent posts" I did not realise the debate had continued.

Realandy, your wrong. I suggest you have a read of the bottom of page 2 of this link.

http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/~/media/msqfiles/home/safety/lifejackets-personal-flotation-devices/pdf_lifejackets_faq.pdf

However the original reason for this post was to raise the issue with NPD permit holders (and members) as to the intent of the PRFMA to assume responsibility for setting the safety standards of the dam, and point out that the standard they wished to set were higher than that required for boats in open waters. In effect give them a chance to give the PRFMA feedback before they made the changes.

It was not to start a debate on the merit of the current MSQ laws.

PRFMA have made their decision, Permit holders had a chance to offer feedback.

Whilst I dont like them firstly assuming responsibility for setting the safety standards, or secondly the decisions they have made, I will abide by it when it becomes part of the deed of agreement.

If their provided reasoning for changes appears sound, I will follow their recommendations before it becomes a requirement.

My daughter does not like wearing a jacket, she finds them hot and uncomfortable. (Children under 40kg can not wear an inflateable PFD) That is the original reason I got the 4.9m boat.

So she will probably stop coming fishing with me on the dam. Just means I will only take her fishing in the bay where she doesn't have to wear a jacket. That will be be a shame, but I wont force a child to go fishing when she doesn't want to, it will just turn her off fishing altogether.

I would also like to point out the issues raised by Ray about the anchor are valid, you could also add that a V sheet could be a very important addition. However I'm sure they would have covered all of this in their risk assessment process.

However I do have to admit I am baffled as to why they would require some kayak users to wear life jackets but not others has me stumped. EG kayaks that would be classed as paddle craft, the user has to wear life jackets, but those that are not paddle craft (Hobbies with mirage drives or kayaks with electric motors) dont? But as I said the the decision has been made.

[TheRealAndy]

Sorry people, I'm hopeless at finding posts once they go of the front page of "recent posts" I did not realise the debate had continued.

Realandy, your wrong. I suggest you have a read of the bottom of page 2 of this link.

http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/~/media/msqfiles/home/safety/lifejackets-personal-flotation-devices/pdf_lifejackets_faq.pdf

However the original reason for this post was to raise the issue with NPD permit holders (and members) as to the intent of the PRFMA to assume responsibility for setting the safety standards of the dam, and point out that the standard they wished to set were higher than that required for boats in open waters. In effect give them a chance to give the PRFMA feedback before they made the changes.

It was not to start a debate on the merit of the current MSQ laws.

PRFMA have made their decision, Permit holders had a chance to offer feedback.

Whilst I dont like them firstly assuming responsibility for setting the safety standards, or secondly the decisions they have made, I will abide by it when it becomes part of the deed of agreement.

If their provided reasoning for changes appears sound, I will follow their recommendations before it becomes a requirement.

My daughter does not like wearing a jacket, she finds them hot and uncomfortable. (Children under 40kg can not wear an inflateable PFD) That is the original reason I got the 4.9m boat.

So she will probably stop coming fishing with me on the dam. Just means I will only take her fishing in the bay where she doesn't have to wear a jacket. That will be be a shame, but I wont force a child to go fishing when she doesn't want to, it will just turn her off fishing altogether.

I would also like to point out the issues raised by Ray about the anchor are valid, you could also add that a V sheet could be a very important addition. However I'm sure they would have covered all of this in their risk assessment process.

However I do have to admit I am baffled as to why they would require some kayak users to wear life jackets but not others has me stumped. EG kayaks that would be classed as paddle craft, the user has to wear life jackets, but those that are not paddle craft (Hobbies with mirage drives or kayaks with electric motors) dont? But as I said the the decision has been made.

How am I wrong? All I have done is posted legislation. If I am wrong, they the law as its written and used is wrong.