Buoyancy Aids - New rules - how will they be applied?

davebrads · Post by **davebrads** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:46 am

I see that the rules for buoyancy aids has been changed to require that all BAs conform to ISO 12402-5 and be ICF registered.

Does the new ISO standard expect that the BA provides 60 Newtons of buoyancy? If so, this seems rather high and will require more bulky BAs. I guess that if it's written into the standard there is little we can do about it.

Does this mean that all our CE approved BAs are now redundant and we are going to have to replace them?

How is this going to be implemented in the UK? It is a bit much to expect a div 3 paddler to invest in a new BA just to do the odd race, surely we won't be taking too hard a line at this level.?

Similar questions arise with helmets

Can somebody who knows a bit more about this please explain?

MikeR · Post by **MikeR** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:09 pm

I would have thought it would make most sense to enforce the rule from div1 and above: however if you are relaxed with those rules at a lower level, where do you draw a line?

I'm waiting to see manufacturers gain ISO approval and the ICF registration for their equipment! So far only PeakUK seems to have the ISO certification required!

Fup Duck · Post by **Fup Duck** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:14 pm

I heard talk of there being a problem with a specific well known brand of BA's being outlawed due to weakness at the shoulder i.e giving out if someone was heaved from water.

Is this anything anyone else has heard, is there any grounding to this or is it just a rumour

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:18 pm

To be totally frank I do not believe that there has been sufficient notice nor sufficient detail in the ICF clarification to allow this rule to be implemented - if indeed the addition to BCU Slalom Rules in this manner be be deemed legally competent!

Unfortunately I don't have the standards to hand and I am not about to pay to check if my kit meets the requirements.

EN393 which is purported to be the basis of ISO12402-5 included a range of buoyancy options which included kids sizes at 45Newtons. Hence buoyancy Aids that may meet the required standard will fail the ICF test.

There is a query on USCG Type approval, the ICF statute dictates Type II, not sure how the US system works but for example the Astral Greenjacket is a Type V PFD.

It beggars belief that we have a discussion thread on startegy and methods of attracting people into the sport, then introduce damaging rule changes without (apparently) any real thought, consideration or consultation.

I suggest we use the Rules as per the yearbook, revision to Rule 19 may be debated, reviewed and considered during 2011 and brought forward for inclusion with any staged implentation at the ACM in November.

PS I have just trawled various sites looking at Buoyancy Aids (Brookbank; Palm; Astral; Endless River; Lomo etc.). There are references to CE/EN393 and USCG (Astral), however there does not seem to be any reference to ISO12402-5. Hence are we even in a situation whereby we can replace safe in the knowledge that the replacement will meet new standards...

Seedy Paddler · Post by **Seedy Paddler** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:43 pm

MikeR wrote:So far only PeakUK seems to have the ISO certification required!

Provided you are not small nor a junior, the XS sizes are designed with 50N uplift and hence fail the ICF requirement. Albeit they may well meet with ISO requirements.

We would be getting into a dangerous liability precedent if we insist that Juniors etc. wear oversize PPE.

oldschool · Post by **oldschool** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:23 pm

why can't we leave things alone?

Last years regs seem to be perfectly adequate for purpose. Absolute nonsence,

And on an aside if we force people to wear equipment which has a certain mark or standard if this equipment fails or proves insufficient causing injury or worse who is going to get sued first? Manufactures, distributers, governing bodies or event organisers.

Simply putting an extra line in the rule book saying at your own risk is going to be no protection from the blame culture laywers.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:10 pm

This was bought up at the ACM in Anne's report and it was suggested (as per the ACM minutes) that it would not be enforced in domestic competition until 2012.

I bought a new BA last year, it is fit for purpose and I have no intention of replacing it until it is no longer suitable. I am not going to change it because some jobsworth has decided that I need a 60N BA rather than a 50N BA. Furthermore I am not going to replace all the club BA's we purchased last year which have barely been worn for the same reason.

djberriman · Post by **djberriman** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:12 pm

Anyone checking kit and allowing a paddler to paddle with it is in effect passing it as safe to use, so in the blame culture if they then have a failure of that equipment they might well be liable. Which organiser is willing to take that one on?

I'm guessing the rules are there for manufacturers to manufacture too, and to help buyers when they buy new gear make sure they get the correct specs.

Who at an event (especially lower level) is going to have the time (or will be willing) to check every paddlers equipment and be suitable qualified to pass it? A sticker can be stuck or stitched on, who will know what has passed and what has not.

Who currently checks that bouyancy aids/helmets (even passing current regs) are fit for purpose and not damaged or have lost their bouyancy in some way? Is that not more important?

We rely on clubs checking their kit and individuals taking responsibility plus general observation at events.

We had a similar issue in my sailing club where we sign to say we have £1M public indemnity insurance but the club and its officers do not check that we do as then they might be liable if there was a claim and the policy was invalid in some way.

Richie · Post by **Richie** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:41 pm

If you look at the ICF equipment information sheet, you will see that the buoyancy aid changes won't be fully implemented until 2012. So long as your current buoyancy aid is CE approved and has buoyancy of 60N, it will be fine. Up until now, buoyancy aids have had to float 6kg when being tested at events. The 60N bouyancy will be tested using a standardised 6.12kg lead weight, which isn't too much more than they are currently tested too. I haven't checked mine, but I'm hoping they haven't designed it to float exactly 6kg!!

kendall chew · Post by **kendall chew** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:01 am

You could always attach a balloon to the shoulder strap. Pink for a girl, blue for a boy. This, in part, may alleviate the need for those cumbersome bibs one has to wear. It would certainly make the PFD more bouyant and, may reduce the need to wear one at all.

Anne · Post by **Anne** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:39 am

The slalom committee have initially given nearly 18 months notice of this impending change for domestic racing so no need to rush out and buy a new one but it does mean that anyone needing to do so can comply.

Checking at races is difficult, we struggle with man power to check boats let alone personal safety equipment except at major races and even then it is a struggle!!

My understanding is that this change in standards for manufactures changed 4 years ago, please correct me if I am wrong so they should by now be complying.

It has also been brought to our notice that a small buoyancy aid has 50N in it so to get the required 60N a small paddler would have to be wearing one too big! I think one of the assumptions the ICF has made is all paddlers are adult size and will therefore require the 60N. we are already in discussion on this one!

This was also discussed at the English council on Saturday and it was strongly suggested is that we SHOULD NOT be testing as we are not qualified to do this but only doing an eyeball test - checking the correct labelling, for wear and tear and for for no alterations, unusual stitching etc

davebrads · Post by **davebrads** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:38 am

On my reading of the rule as it is written in the UK slalom rules is that can either be ISO 12402-5, or else USCG Type III and 60N. In other words, if it is ISO approved, it has to meet the specification in that standard, which may allow other levels of buoyancy than 60N. Can anybody confirm what is written in the standard, and if my understanding of the rule is correct?

JamesH · Post by **JamesH** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:54 pm

What irritates me about this is has the ICF done any empirical testing to show that the old standards for BAs were in any way lacking?

If it has, it would be very instructure to be able to see it.

However, I strongly suspect not, thus this will be just another rule change for rule change sake.

James

Fup Duck · Post by **Fup Duck** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:27 pm

With kids you could get them to inhale an adequate amount of helium and seal them up with duck tape. Then for comic effect you could remove the tape and record their thoughts on their run before the effect wears off. If they have been misbehaving you could substitute helium with hydrogen and fire flaming arrows at them to encourage them to paddle faster.

In the meantime mine has two 50N BA's so I'll get him to wear both and I might make him wear two helmets as well.e wants to in

I don't imagine that anyone wants to incur the wrath of the US Coastguard, history clearly shows the forces of that nation have been involved in a shoot first ask questions later approach.

The designation ”Helmet for canoeing and whitewater
sports” - mine says wassersports

Dave Royle · Post by **Dave Royle** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:06 pm

In air a lead weight of 6.12kg would exert a downward force of 6.12 x 9.81 N = 60N. However, when the lead weight is put in water it will exert a downward force somewhat less. For further details contact Dr Archimedes who knows lots about this subject.