I was wondering if it was a chamber-specific thing - or if they were just talking about what happens when you don't have a crotch-strap.

 

There was a bit of a discussion about this at the US Sailing Safety at Sea seminar at the San Diego Yacht Club this past weekend and at the end of the seminar one of the presenters pulled apart a Spinlock PFD and showed its construction to a few of us.

My understanding is the inflation tubes on the Spinlock are not continuously attached to webbing. The left side has a strap to which the stem with a light at the top is attached but also holds the inflatable tube to the webbing. The right side lacks this and the inflatable tube migrated from the right side of the head to the left side on 4 individuals. It did not seem to be a case of the units riding up on the body. The energy of the breaking surf and the rolling of the boat in the surf may have played a role

Spinlock apparently claims that this has never been reported before.

The US Sailing accident report is online and is interesting reading.

Marc Hall
Crazy Fish - Maintaining, Upgrading and Sailing a Crealock 37

 

That is a big blow and comes as a surprise from one brand that makes very expensive PFD, several times the price of some others. That shows that price is not everything in what regards the choice of an equipment

Regards

Paulo

 

Spinlock deckvests were recently USCG approved.
I'd like to think that any defects were corrected as part of the approval process.

 

They were SOLAS approved long before they got USCG approved. The SOLAS approval is generally considered a much higher standard.

Frankly it looks like Spinlock made products that were defective. I would not be suprized to see a massive recall on these units with a redesigned one replacing it. But this will take some time. Figure a few months at least for them to rethink how they are made and for management to realize they are going to have to spend some major money.

 

Crotch straps should be mandatory and its not clear whether they were wearing them. Any pfd can rise above your head without them, especially smaller people like kids. They came standard with my Spinlock. I don't know if they still do.

I'm due to rearm our Spinlocks and I may consider a little test before doing so. No doubt, my wife I would practice an inflation with the old cylinders. If it have the time, I may try a jump overboard, with an without the crotch straps.

If I have the time...... :laugher I suspect the idea of cleaning, drying, etc will never happen.

 

Crotch straps should be mandatory and its not clear whether they were wearing them. Any pfd can rise above your head without them, especially smaller people like kids....

Simply not universally true, and that points to the central problem: lack of good testing protecoles.

Why is it not true? Kayak PFDs do not ride up if worn properly. Ever. More than a few paddlers are maytaged every single day, and the jackets stay in place. Why? several reasons:
* They don't rely on a strap around the chest, which is ALL WRONG for a PFD; it will ride up and it restricts breathing. Instead, they are around the waist.
* Real world testing. These guys test PFDs by taking them out and using them. On the other hand, USCG approval is based on flotation pounds and strap strength, not whether they work in actual practice.

The current standards include many measures of sturdiness, and the result is PFDs that don't fall apart:
Table of Contents for UL 1191

But what we need are standards that involve actual use:
* Does is stay in place?
* Can the wearer swim?
* Can all pockets, accesories be reached when inflated?
* Can the harness quick release be reached by a swimmer?

While a leg strap requirement (forget crotch straps--most guys will cut them off) makes some sense, it side-stepps the isssue of performance testing. Spinlock is a good company, but they should find this utterly humiliating; they sold stuff to the public that they should have known didn't really work. If the public wants something that can't work, they should have the character not to sell it.

The Coast Guard should share in the embarasment. They don't require meaningfull use testing. I didn't hear the CG say "we now see that PFD standards are woefully incomplete and will be re-evaluating our standards." Instead, they point fingers at race organizers.

 

I find it hard to believe that the bladder would "migrate" completely over to the other side of the vest by itself. Something tells me it may have been repacked in a not-so-good manner. In any case, it sounds like some stitching is needed to secure the bladder to the harness on the right side to prevent this in the future.

 

This was already discussed a few weeks ago.

 

Well, yes, it was...sorta, provided you got all the way through to post #207, though the points made are valid to this discussion. I have both the Mustang PFD, that you mentioned liking, and the Spinlock. The Spinlock, however, fits much more securely on me. The straps on the Mustang never seem to stay cinched tight and they're not easy to adjust. If the PFD is not tight around the chest, this is one of the reasons it can ride up when deployed. The Spinlock has a built-in strobe and spray hood. The Mustang has neither and it's near impossible to find a good location to strap anything to it. I bought the crotch strap when I bought the Mustang a couple years ago and they're pretty flimsy. IIRC, the Spinlock provides the crotch strap with the PFD. The reason I have these types of PFDs is because I am not convinced that a coastal-rated flotation PFD has the buoyancy to keep one afloat offshore in big swells and the extra clothes needed when sailing in 50 deg weather. But they don't give me warm and fuzzy feelings either. There is a huge element of just "trust me" in that they will deploy as expected. My plan is to also test the swimability of each when I replace the canisters. I think I got this idea from the PS article, which said it's near impossible to swim freestyle with the PFD deployed. Another reason is the non-USCG rating on the Spinlock. I need to have the Mustang as my bonafide USCG PFD.

I think Spinlock needs to issue a recall, and in the meantime, make some statement now that they are at least trying to address the concerns.

 

A question I do not know the answer to:

If you knew things were going badly and there was some probablity of going in the water, would you take off your inflatable and put on your paddling jacket, knowing it will perform dependably in very vilolent water?

I'm not really interested in a jacket that works in moderate conditions. As market participants, how do you value rough weather performance vs. comfort? Put another way, if they redesign the product so that it works better in rough water but is less comfortable or less convinient, would you buy it? If the answer is no, Spinlock won't be able to market it.

I suspect we are victims of our own unrealistic expectation and relience on regulators.

 

A question I do not know the answer to:

If you knew things were going badly and there was some probablity of going in the water, would you take off your inflatable and put on your paddling jacket, knowing it will perform dependably in very vilolent water?

The main reason I hear of people wearing the jacket type PFDs is because of the protection to your ribs if you bash into something. It also gives more warmth. With the "barely there" feel of the Spinlock and its built-in harness, you could wear both types if things started to get really bad. This would give you greater buoyancy, more padding protection, and a feeling of security knowing that something will work when you really, really need it. Of course, a smart business person out there would be making a PFD that meets all these objectives and likely make a killing over the competition.

 

The Spinlock is only useful as a safety net to accidentally ending up off the boat, when all primary means are focused on keeping me aboard.

If we are in a situation where we know we will be abandoning ship and have some time, I have a half dozen offshore type 1 pfds in a hold down below. No point goofing around with a delicate bladder, if you know you will be in the water.

 

TYPE V PFDS / SPECIAL USE DEVICES: Only for special uses or conditions.

Hybrid Inflatable PFDs
Canoe/Kayak Vest
Boardsailing Vests
Deck Suits

 

One more reg on inflatables. They are only USCG legal for those at least 16 years old.

 

One of you said:

"Inherently buoyant PFDs that are not worn count toward the one-PFD-per-person requirement even if not worn. Inflatable PFDs do not."

This is also true if boating in Canadian waters.

From this web site:

"Inflatable PFD are another option but for them to work properly you must understand their operation and maintenance requirements. You should also check which boating activities they are approved for, under the Small Vessel Regulations. For example, people less than 16 years of age or who weigh less than 36.3 kg (80 lbs.), and operators of personal watercraft are prohibited from wearing an inflatable PFD. They come in two styles:"

And from this site:

" You can also buy inflatable PFDs, but you must understand how to use and care for them if they are to work properly. You must also understand which activities and conditions they are approved for. Above all, remember that you have to be wearing an inflatable PFD for it to be approved on an open boat. If the boat is not open then you only need to wear it while you're on deck or in the cockpit.

Inflatable PFDs are NOT approved for:

anyone under 16 years old;
anyone who weighs less than 36.3 kg (80 lbs);
on a personal watercraft; or
for white-water paddling activities."

I hope that helps.

And if this snow ever goes away, we may actually be able to get out on the water this year.

Cheers

Rik

 

Before anyone questions why I am not wearing a PFD in my avatar picture, that picture was taken the day we bought the boat. I am standing behind the wheel smiling and Linda was instructed to get the camera angle right so you could not see the buildings or other yachts as we were on the hard about 200 metres from any water.

If I had fallen overboard at that point I would not have drowned, probably would have broken an arm or a leg or worse.

Maybe I should have been wearing a motorcycle helmet and a flack jacket.

 

Sure Rik, we believe you.

 

This is the reply I got from Spinlock about some of the problems with the PFDs riding over the wearer's head...

The s/y Uncontrollable Urge incident involved the crew using the lifejackets in large breaking surf on a Pacific Coast lee shore. This is always going to be a very challenging environment for inflatable lifejackets given the forces on the large inflated bladder created by the waves which try and pull the jacket off, as you are fighting to prevent inversion. The bladder attachment of the Spinlock Deckvest is not fundamentally different to the majority of inflatable lifejackets available and so we would expect all lifejackets to have behaved similarly. All lifejackets already go through a number of rigorous approval tests that include a 10 feet jump test with an inflated bladder to ensures the lifejacket stays in position. Given the unique circumstances of this incident the lifejacket approval bodies - ISO 12402 committee and the USCG must take the opportunity to review the performance testing requirements for lifejackets and we will make any changes to the Deckvest design if ISO confirm this is required, which will be applicable to all lifejacket manufacturers.

In our own testing we found that the correct, secure fitting of the chest belt and leg or crutch straps have the largest impact on the performance of all lifejackets. The Deckvest has always been designed to be easy to adjust, to ensure that it is worn securely and is supplied with leg straps as standard which we are sure would have helped in this situation. We will continue to improve our communication and training for the fitting and maintenance to ensure customers understand how to get the best performance from their Deckvest Lifejacket.

There is an important balance in developing and testing lifejackets to be wearable, usable products and not over specifying them to cover unique situations that could in turn reduce their use in more common situations. Lifejackets are designed for a purpose -to provide buoyancy, stability and to buy the user some time when in the water. We have to accept given the challenges of the marine environment, that there may be scenarios where this might not be all a user needs, or possibly is not the most suitable product to be worn.

I hope this helps reassure you that your Deckvest Lifejackets both inshore and offshore are still the right choice for your personal protection.

With regards the recent USCG Approval of the Deckvest LITE lifejacket, this approval was sought as it is more applicable for the inshore Deckvest LITE. The Deckvest is our coastal and offshore lifejacket approved to the latest International ISO12402 Standard for lifejackets which the rest of the world uses for Lifejacket Approval. Whilst the USCG recognises the ISO12402 standard, the US currently chooses to sit outside the international community. Unfortunately the USCG standard is a little behind the ISO1202 for offshore coastal design and we would have downgrade the design of the product to meet the USCG standard and the result would not be the Deckvest that has all the great features and comfort that you enjoy.