RE: [Paddlewise] EPIRB vs PLB; with and without GPS

G'Day Paul and Dave,

Paul wrote
>you could point out that if the thing is attached to you (as you expect)
> - and you are floating - then the device is floating

Paul,
AMSA might raise their point that EPIRBS are designed to float vertically and
PLB's are not: "An EPIRB activated on land or in a boat must remain vertical
to ensure the signal is not greatly degraded. Similarly, PLBs although
waterproof and constructed to float, are not designed to float upright so if
activating a PLB at sea it should be supported so that its antenna remains
vertical and out of the water."

Regarding this I'd be interested to know if an EPIRB floating in water is
really much more efficient than a PLB attached with the antennae vertical on a
life jacket and when would sea conditions disrupt either the floating vertical
antennae or lifejacket configurations. Strikes me it could be hard to test the
practicality of the lifejacket configuration without activating the PLB. More
questions for AMSA and perhaps there's a test report on the subject
somewhere?

Dave wrote:
>Is this sort of requirement simply handed down from from on high
>or is there a process incorporating feedback from the affected parties
>which leads to such a decision?

Dave
The Australian government decided not to support 121.5MHz beacon use following
the February 2009 decommissioning of COSPAS SARSAT satellite detection for
121.5MHz beacons. They required that we switch to 406MHz beacons. There was a
consultation with the community over this for several years. During the
process and at relatively short notice the decision to make a clear
distinction between EPIRBs and PLBs was made. There was much less community
consultation and the needs of sea kayakers were not so much ignored as not
thought about. Sea kayaking issues with PLBs vs EPIRBs were raised informally
a year ago just before the legislation was passed. Nothing much public has
come out of the discussion and a very few checks with retailers and kayakers
show me that they think the matter is uncertain and still being reviewed - but
as far as I know no-one has checked. Paul's email reminded me that I should
check formally as I regularly travel further than 2nm from shore. I found the
requirement in New South Wales to carry an EPIRB was quite definite.

These Paddlewise emails help to test my arguments before I approach the
NSWSKC, Australian Canoeing, AMSA and the State Maritime authorities with a
submission for clarification and change if necessary. Maritime authorities in
Australia seem to have a quite varied willingness to consider the
circumstances of sea kayakers. For example Western Australia has for many
years required sea kayakers to carry an anchor for no obviously good reason,
whereas South Australia has just shown a deal of flexibility and commonsense
in responding to a request for change.

I appreciate the feedback, its good to have these sanity checks.

All the best, PeterO
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************