PDA

View Full Version : AS1512 Meeting the standard (Lifejackets)



subzero
28-10-2007, 01:55 PM
Hi all, thought I would post this file that I only just discovered I had. It explains to a certain extent the AS1512 PFD1, 2, and 3 requirements.
I am not 100%sure of its origin, it appears as though it has come to me through the BIAQ or MSQ people several months ago where I saved it without reading it.

I hope the info is of some help to a topic that has appeared many times before, I hope it hasn't already been posted somewhere on here before

Cheers Lloyd

Fitzy
31-10-2007, 10:22 AM
THat's good info, thanks for posting it Lloyd.

Just a note that the document is from MSQ & therefore only applies to Qld. Folks in other states should check with their relevant local authorities as different regulations apply.
Also worth noting the date on the document is April 3 2007. In case there is an update, please check with MSQ as the goal posts seem to move regularly with this type of thing.


Cheers,

Fitzy..

secret relations
31-10-2007, 02:14 PM
This is the biggest load of w@nk i have ever seen.

My old man got done for this in Baffle Creek north of Bundaberg, and has subsequently written to everyone complaining about it.

His arguement is when he was 25, the boat he was on went down 30 miles out at sea. It was just him and his mate, and unfortunately he was the only one that made it home. It seems that the lifejacket that saved is life is now no longer good enough to save peoples lives. It was good enough for him to swim 30 miles back to shore, but not good enough to save your life if your boat sinks in the middle of a creek, please.

I can understand and accept that regulations need to change as technology is updated, but compared to the new lifejackets, if i had the choice i would take the old ones any day of the week. The new ones look like nothing more than foam sewed together with some straps.

My theory, how many boat owners buy PFD's when they get their first boat and keep them as they get new boats? How many PFD's are the manufacturer's going to sell if everyone already has PFD's, not a great deal i would think. So, they somehow influence the decision makers that the old life jackets aren't safe anymore, so that everyone has to go and purchase new life jackets. The next step is that we will have to get new PFD's every 3 years or something.

I would love to see some kind of internal investigation into why and how this change came about. I don't understand how in the space of 12 months a PFD can change from being acceptable to being unacceptable. I can't remember reading of anyone drowning because the PFD they had on was of an older design.

For the record, my old man is refusing to pay the fine and refusing to change his life jackets over until someone can show him some hard evidence of why the new life jackets are better than the old ones, and why it is essential he needs to dispose of the old ones. He has explained this in writing to the police commisioner among others who has said he is looking into it.

mik01
31-10-2007, 06:09 PM
its a bit harsh that it doesn't meet standards just cos the tag may be missing off it!

gunna
31-10-2007, 06:41 PM
Whats the significance of the date of manufacture !! Does this expire at some stage ??

Poseidon
01-11-2007, 02:25 PM
The document and the MSQ website describe also the requirements for the service of inflatable PFD1 in-line with the manufacturers instructions. Can anyone assist with what the service requirements on the inflatable PFD1's are. The MSQ website indicate that 'recharge kits' are available and that you may purchase these and service the PFD yourself 'if competent', at least annually. By keeping a record of the service and receipt for the kit then you will be OK. It also mentions to ensure expired cylinders are replaced. Is there a service life recommended for the cylinder to ensure compliance?
I purchased my inflatable PFD's early last year so regardless I need to either have them 'serviced' by someone else or do it myself if 'competent'.
Any information would be appreciated and I imagine that there would be a large number of people who own PFD1 Inflatable Jackets in QLD who need to get a service done on them pronto or risk the fine.
If it all becomes too hard I might just buy a couple of $15 PFD1 normal units and avoid the service need however would prefer to keep the inflatables as they are far more comfortable to wear however don't want a fine for the convenience.

Regards Cameron.

Burley_Boy
02-11-2007, 09:58 PM
Thanks for the post Lloyd no critizism of you but yet another example of people trying to over legislate without applying common sense.
Should be a market in replaceable AS 1512 stickers if you ask me.

As if anyone getting tossed in the water in an emergency would start reading the donning instructions. Total bs. Should be more of a requirement that the skipper knows and has tested getting on the safety gear! Now that would be an improvement in safety if at least the skipper knows how to use his safety gear.
I'd say all this gear gets stowed after purchase and you won't find a single passenger who has browsed the "how to use" info on a silly tag.

If safety is the issue then maybe ensure that the skipper has a safety speech for his passenger that he is required by law to go through just like a flippin airline pointing out where the gear is and the condition of it. If your gear is faded by sun and gas cylinders are out of time then you should be done as the gear may very well fail in an emergency but the sticker or instructions are just silly but maybe its the best they can do.... Dunno I'm waffling but legislating out common sense is a pet hate of mine.

Longshot
02-11-2007, 11:44 PM
Dunno if this will be deleted by mods,but.

Was at Big wubbleyew store at Northlakes today and they have 60kg plus PFD1's with all the right jargon thereon for $14.85ea. Made in China, but today, whats not.

artesian
03-11-2007, 12:06 AM
Longshot, was that a super bargain price on their Hutchwilcos, or the usual boxy cheapies??

subzero
03-11-2007, 06:29 AM
Thanks for the post Lloyd no critizism of you but yet another example of people trying to over legislate without applying common sense.
No criticism taken BB but in actual fact legislation is written to protect those with common sense from idiots and those without common sense from themselves in my opinion.
Should be a market in replaceable AS 1512 stickers if you ask me.
When a label is no longer readable it likely means that the material has faded because of ultra violet light. When this occurs, stitching also suffers as does the buoyancy depending on the material it is made off. If it looks old and knackered then it almost certainly is. Frequently they will have been covered in the bow of the boat by other objects, will have mould and mildew growing on them etc. Often, you will see them with oil stains on as well but many people consider that these are quite useable.

As if anyone getting tossed in the water in an emergency would start reading the donning instructions. Total bs.
Quite right, total B/S, the really stupid part is that many of the people that have this equipment have it ONLY because they are forced to by law, not by choice. Consequently, when and if the time comes they have no idea how to work their epirb, set of a flare or even select the correct one, use a fire extinguisher or Don a life jacket. (Many deaths have been attributed in the old days to people jumping from sinking cruise liners in to the ocean with incorrectly fitted life jackets. They were old, solid and very bulky. They came with crotch straps that people did not attach. They hit the water, the jacket rides up, hits them in the chin and breaks their neck. Children die all the time from parents whom don't read instructions, examples include putting children in adult jackets therefore turning them face first in the water. Small children slipping out of life jackets once again because crotch straps have not been secured when those designed for the really young will often have them.
Should be more of a requirement that the skipper knows and has tested getting on the safety gear! Now that would be an improvement in safety if at least the skipper knows how to use his safety gear. A masters obligation is absolute, it is his requirement to ensure the safety of his vessel, crew and passengers. This includes safety briefings for those whom are unfamiliar with vessels and the marine environment. Many wont know what an epirp is or looks like so in the event of an emergency may have been right beside it and did not bother to grab it as they had no idea what it was for OR HOW TO RELEASE THE LATCH in a hurry.
I'd say all this gear gets stowed after purchase and you won't find a single passenger who has browsed the "how to use" info on a silly tag. Totally agree with you apart from the silly tag comment. That is why it is the masters responsibility to ensure that they do know. That is why if the instructions aren't readable when you sell your boat to the next poor mug whom doesn't know how to spell the word boat whom has been boating in his life and shifted to the coast to enjoy retirement then he has a problem and doesn't know how to use the equipment, maybe even what it is for.

If safety is the issue then maybe ensure that the skipper has a safety speech for his passenger that he is required by law to go through just like a flippin airline pointing out where the gear is and the condition of it. If your gear is faded by sun and gas cylinders are out of time then you should be done as the gear may very well fail in an emergency but the sticker or instructions are just silly but maybe its the best they can do.... Dunno I'm waffling but legislating out common sense is a pet hate of mine.
Now thats where the problem really lies, you are a switched on bloke, I have read many of your posts and they are normally quality posts. However these things often offend people because they think to themselves, why am i forced to put up with this B/S. You are forced to put up with this B/S because their are a large number of people that couldn't find themselves from their home to a hospital if the need arose with a million road signs to point them in the right direction. Yet on the waterways, with no roads, no signs, no streetlights, no servos to get out and ask directions people complain why do I need equipment suitable for navigation. Got me buggered, a paper chart from 10-15 years ago, all faded will do the job quite nicely and it will be the coppers fault when he books me, not mine because I can afford to spend $50 an hour running my boat, buy a carton of piss to take on the boat but stuff parting with $24 for a chart once every 3 years or so

I will add some posts from the standards site and discuss legislation next, they really have nothing to do with each other in the ways that many people perceive them to.... one is not created for the other, but is used to define a definition for where a person may have crossed the imaginary line and gone to far by the authority's.

Cheers Lloyd

subzero
03-11-2007, 06:38 AM
Taken from the Standards Australia web site http://www.standards.org.au/cat.asp?catid=2

What is a Standard?

A Standard is a published document which sets out specifications and procedures designed to ensure that a material, product, method or service is fit for its purpose and consistently performs in the way it was intended.

Standards establish a common language which defines quality and establishes safety criteria. Standards and conformance are the keys to ensuring the quality and consistency of physical, chemical and biological measurement throughout Australian society and the economy.

The 7 Benefits of Standards - Public Benefit, National Interest

Standards matter. They matter in Darwin as a mother buckles her child into a baby capsule, in Albury as a young couple discusses the designs for their new home, in Melbourne as a managing director decides on his new risk management strategy, in Adelaide as an engineer inspects structural design plans for a new development. All these people have one thing in common - they are relying on an objective, rigorous set of Standards to ensure these products and systems are safe and reliable. Thanks to Standards Australia and the thousands of experts that contribute to the development of Australian Standards, Australian consumers can have that assurance. Australian Standards set out the specifications and design procedures to ensure goods and services consistently perform in the way they are intended. They make a sustained contribution to generating national wealth, improving our quality of life, increasing employment, improving safety and health and using our national resources more efficiently.

Standards protect Australians

Australians at home, at play and at work are made safer by Standards. Traffic lights, footpaths, power points, seatbelts and child restraints, air quality, smoke and fire alarms are all underpinned by Australian Standards. Standards give businesses and consumers confidence that the goods and services they are developing or using are safe, reliable and will do the job they were intended for. Standards help consumers make everyday choices between one product and another. They protect Australian tradesmen - builders, electricians, plumbers - and their customers. Government public health, safety and environment policies are often measured against Australian Standard yardsticks.

Standards complement Australian regulation and make markets work better

Around a third of all Australian Standards form some part of Territory, State or Federal law. They are at the heart of the Australian Building Code and the Trade Practices Act. They help governments craft laws to protect the community and defend against terrorism. Standards help make laws and regulations consistent across Australia. By using a Standard, a South Australian consumer law becomes consistent with a NSW fair trading regulation. Standards offer an alternative to regulation, with less red tape and business costs, while still providing security for families and small business consumers.

Standards in everyday life

Standards have vastly improved global economic efficiency and provided enormous social benefits in the areas of safety, interchange ability, quality and reliability.

Simple examples of the many benefits of standardisation globally include:

*

Traffic light colours - universally red indicates stop, amber indicates caution and green indicates go.
*

Conformity in screw and thread sizes - a nut made in Melbourne Australia, fits a bolt made in Birmingham, UK.
*

Containerisation - standardised containers and their handling technology now move the majority of freight worldwide.

Other universal benefits of standardisation include:

Confidence - every day millions of people step into lifts, take aeroplane flights and work in high-rise buildings, safe in the knowledge that the architects and engineers who designed them applied the most rigorous engineering Standards.

Ease of choice - worldwide we have just three basic choices to make when fitting a light bulb to a socket: screw or bayonet, wattage and clear or pearl?

Universality - the most universal of all standardised commodities is 35mm film, which will fit all 35mm cameras made anywhere in the world.

Electrical safety - standardisation of the inherent safety characteristics of electrical systems and devices ensures a near 100% safety record.

Improving quality and environment - management systems benefit from the standardisation of their basic elements, streamlining measurement, comparison and improvement. The ISO 9000 and 14000 Standards have revolutionized the way businesses now view their quality and environmental obligations as tools for greater economic efficiency.

Imagine a world without Standards

A reminder as to how much of a difference standardisation makes is the example of overseas traveller who has to carry a suitcase full of adaptors from country to country. These plugs were all specified in the days before international standardisation was widely recognized and they are a daily reminder of the universal value of Standards. Similarly, the example of a person trying unsuccessfully to connect a computer to a phone system in a country other than the one in which it was bought.

subzero
03-11-2007, 06:45 AM
When you get product recalls it is frequently the result of some cheap, imported product from China, Taiwan or other country that likes to dump inferior product on those willing to skimp with their $$$.

I.E lead paint in Wiggles cars which the kids will suck on because the manufacturers tried to remain competitive and decided no one would notice.

Link to product recalls

http://www.recalls.gov.au/

subzero
03-11-2007, 07:43 AM
The long and the short of it is that standards are designed to meet minimum requirements of panels made up of those people whom are drawn from the respective articles fields. They decide on the minimum durability, how that can be achieved using correct storage methods, if and how it should conform internationally and how to test it along with a huge amount of other factors. The Australian Standards may be dictated to by world standards. (Life jackets in my opinion would have to conform to this because people travel internationally on boats). You can go higher in the standards, you can not go lower. If a standard says that for the jacket to be still in good working order requires the label to be clearly readable, then that is the standard. If it is no longer able to be read easily then it no longer meets the standard.

Standards were needed back in the days of the Titanic. If their were standards, there would have been sufficient Life Boats. Simple as that.

Their are plenty of unscrupulous retailers, boat owners, tradesmen and manufacturers, that we have asked to be protected from, standards are a way of helping us to protect ourselves especially if we are not versed on what we are buying in the first place.

Now how does legislation and enforcement come in to this?

We have a problem, some people don't do the right thing be it for profit, gain or plain ignorance and stupidity.
When the fuel we buy for the boats isn't up to scratch and we break down in the open ocean, thats a problem, when the rum in the bar that we buy is diluted thats a problem, however that cheap life jacket that will not do the job it is designed for isn't as we will never need it, its not important. The fire extinguishers don't need tagging and testing, the flares don't need to be in date and the battery's in the epirb last forever.

Well because some people do need it, people that are often responsible for other peoples loved ones as well we have enforcement. I personally wouldn't let my kids travel in a car with tires that no longer meet their legal requirement because it hasn't rained in so long that the tread is not as important as it would normally be in the wet. Hells teeth, my kids are responsible, if it starts to rain and they are driving they will pull over and wait for the roads to dry. Once again, yea right!!! But in a boat all rules if the cost me money are ok to ignore!!!!

We ask for enforcement all the time on here. The jet skis, the wakes from the gin palaces, the boats underway at night that are poorly lit (And probably don't meet the standards), the anchored vessels in the channel, the people taking jenny's, prawns, under size fish, fish out of season, the thieves, the burglars, the vandals, the dodgey vendors, but to hell with the safety equipment if i get pinged its the cops fault as he is revenue raising and not mine because I am a responsible boatie who knows better and will never run in to trouble. Yea right!!! Funnily enough, every one of the boats I pulled back, everyone of the searches I went on, every mishap, injury or what ever was planned on by the boat owner before it happened. It had to be. They were all experienced otherwise it was one of those freak things that would never happen again. In reality, often it was complacency bread by contempt... the most experienced people whom just once got distracted from their task by the fact of having done it a 1000 times.

Back to the enforcement, so we have the Police and the fisheries etc, if they are going to check your equipment they need to have some basis for determining if your equipment is up to scratch. This can not be determined so easily just by mere opinion as the public outcry would be huge as it can be on here at times so they must be based on some form of standard.
Guess what, they like to use the standard as a basis often in consultation with interested parties before hand. They sit at a table again, call for submissions, bring examples of those things together for and against and decide on a course of action. People such as the BIAQ sit in on these things and have a say. Then they find what is considered a common sense approach to resolving the original matter by introducing legislation that is likely to be palatable to the majority of the public.

Sadly you can never please all the people even half the time.

Now, I have probably offended a huge amount of people on here by making these comments and am going to try REALLY HARD not replying to any of the wall of bullets that are going to start heading in my direction.

They are MY OPINIONS, they are not necessarily facts, they are things as I understand them to be

subzero
03-11-2007, 08:04 AM
Here is a good example of experienced pilots talking before they are all about to die.
They are chatting up an airline hostess in the cockpit discussing a prior accident in another commercial airliner whom were distracted chatting up an Airline Hostess. Well, history repeats, mind not on the job because they were experienced and had done it a 1000 times before, they new better... wouldn't happen to them.
One of the worst parts about all this is these clowns asked for the hostess to make a comment to their wives on the recording as well so that if anything were to happen they would hear it. Sadly, they did... it happened

Download here.
Delta Air Lines Flight 1141
http://www.airdisaster.com/download2/dl1141.shtml

To have a listen to other CVR's go direct to
http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/

Cheers Lloyd

seatime
03-11-2007, 01:18 PM
Well said Lloyd http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/images/icons/icon14.gif I agree with everything you've said 8-)

Any offendee's could do worse than the education and enlightenment you've offered.

cheers
Steve

bay_firey
03-11-2007, 04:09 PM
Very well said Lloyd.

tigermullet
04-11-2007, 11:25 AM
That was very good Lloyd and no one could argue against having a standard.

My problem with MSQ was that when I asked for a copy of the standard AS1512 (1996) I was told that they had a copy but could not publish it because it was subject to copyright.

Here is the link that will provide you with the method and payment required to get hold of AS1512 (1996) for PFD's type 1.

http://www.saiglobal.com/shop/Script/Details.asp?DocN=stds000013864

Fortunately, MSQ published the standard some months ago but prior to that their site mentioned that PFD's must comply with AS1512 (1996). That was in place since 1996 and the only way to find out if your lifejacket complied with that standard was to pay the appropriate fee.

Several months ago I yelled loud and long and, finally, we now have the required markings etc., set down in the MSQ web site.

There is something dreadfully wrong when our legislators, through sheer laziness, write a regulation stating that it must comply with a standard and then require the population to seek out the standard and to pay for the privilege.

At the moment the legislation is still not correct and can be read or interpreted as meaning that PFD's must not only have printed on them "AS1512" but also "(1996)". From the last conversation with MSQ, some months ago, I was given to understand that MSQ was trying to get the various enforcement agencies to operate from the same 'page', i.e., agree that the additional "(1996)" was not necessary.

I hope that in future when and if the standard changes that it will be published in full so that we have some hope of complying.

Would you notice if future wording said that PFD's must comply with AS1512 (2008)? Not one person in a thousand would have noticed the change back in 1996. It took action by the Water Police in issuing fines for this matter to come to light ten years after the change took place.

I knew that our lifejackets had to comply with AS1512 - that was printed on them in very large letters so I thought that everything was okay until I started checking. In the end I threw out about one dozen of them, most of which were still in their original containers and kept stored in a dry, cool place. There wasn't anything wrong with them except that they did not have the precise wording required by AS1512 (1996). I am not complaining about that but I sure get mad when we are faced with acts of sheer stupidity by our regulating bodies.

That's my little rant for the day.;D

subzero
05-11-2007, 06:08 AM
tigermullet, I can understand your frustration at not being able to find out how or why the new standard differs to the old one especially when you have had to throw so much equipment out without exactly knowing why.
Once again, I am only guessing, but I would think the year 1988 would be significant in the fact that this was probably when the last major upgrade to the standards had taken effect. I am assuming that in more recent times (1996) there would have been a review of the standard whether it be because of improvement in different materials, new requirements for the addition of attachments or the need to match standards that are internationally accepted that may have changed.
I see really from your post that you do not have a problem with the Standards themselves, or the use of them for determining a means to see whether or not the requirements are being met.... you are more frustrated at the lack of information being curculated prior to the beggining of enforcement and I would have to agree that was not done properly because no one I knew was aware of the new guides untl reading about infringement notices being issued. Yes that is a problem that needs addressing, MSQ does appear to have let the boating community down in this respect.
Better go, work awaits :-(

Cheers Lloyd

nonibbles
06-11-2007, 09:41 PM
I am confused. Is this standard law. That is, is there a direct reference to this standard in a legislative act or regulation - which would then make it subordinate legislation and therefore enforceable. Otherwise it is just "a stated way" meaning a guidance statement that directs the user toward safe practice (you can continue to perform the same procedure as you have always done if you can show that it is equally safe or safer). Businesses generally conform as it is seen as good practice. However, many standards have been written with a commercial bias due to poor uptake of superior and therefore more expensive products.
Remember that most Acts of law in Australia is based on Robin's style (format?), that is that it takes into account reasonability and is often necesarily broad to cover many applications. Regulations direct us on how to interpret the Acts and it is here that a standard would normally be referenced as enforceable under the act.
I am no law student however, and can only reflect upon what I have been taught in WH&S Officer's course.
So simply stated, again, if it is not referred to in the Act or Regs it is simply guidance material, an instruction only. Not enforceable. Can only be used as evidence of available information / stated way (and then probably only where an established duty of care exists - anyone here a skipper?:P )

Can anyone clarify which Act or Regulation points to this standard? And what are the penalties for breach of such.

subzero
06-11-2007, 10:07 PM
This information is from the MSQ website.
http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Home/Safety/Lifejackets_personal_flotation_devices/
Yes the Standard was Legislated into the Transport Marine Safety Regulations (TOMSR)

Life jackets must comply with standards
For a life jacket or PFD to comply with a particular standard, certain information required under that standard must be displayed.
Further information can be found in these marine information bulletins.
1 of them is attached in pdf form but the other is to large. Both can be read online at the above link quoted on the MSQ site

Cheers Lloyd

tigermullet
07-11-2007, 05:55 AM
Subzero (Lloyd) is absolutely correct about the legislation, standards etc.

Prior to the publishing on MSQ's website of the standards for PFD's 1, 2, 3 etc., the only way to find out if your lifejackets complied with AS1512 (1996) was to purchase a copy of the standard at a cost of approximately $25 for each of the standards.

Once having purchased a copy it would have been a breach of copyright for anyone to publish the standard on a Forum such as this.

Therefore it has been incumbent on each of us, since 1996, to not only be aware of the legislation but also to purchase a copy of the relevant standard.

Want to know about PFD1? Pay $25 (or thereabouts). If your activities required PFD types 2 and 3 the cost was an additional sum for each.

Fortunately MSQ has now published the standards applicable to each type and, I hope, learned a lesson.

Their prior approach demonstrates that we are at times governed and regulated by the offspring of parents paddling around in the shallow end of the gene pool.;D