Ok. It has been well over a year since a protest in a Junior event in California over a CE-approved PFD resulted in a sternly-worded warning to a sailor in lieu of disqualification. For those of you who mightn't have heard, there was a US qualifying event for the ISAF Youth Worlds at ABYC. At the beginning of the event, one little girl said to another that if she was going to wear her CE-approved PFD, she would be protested - the US prescription regarding USCG-approved PFDs was in effect and the wording had been added to the SIs as well. The little girl replied that if there were a protest filed, half the fleet would get tossed - CE vests are everywhere. In the end, the little girl in the CE vest won, the other girl (in second place) protested (only the winner), and the Protest Committee was involved... they issued a warning to the winner. She went on to the ISAF event... where her CE vest is legal.

There was a lot of speculation following this protest that the CE vests were doomed - several companies make them and sell them in the US, where retailers are enjoying brisk sales. But the usage didn't stop... in fact, it seems to have continued to grow. Browse through the photos of just about any regatta and you'll see them... in most of the dinghy and high-performance fleets, they are nearly the standard. Comfortable, low profile, cool...

I have one, too. I got it mid-season last year. Because the NAF-18 Championship is an international event, I suggested to the protest committee (which included some of the same judges as the Youth event described above) that the event be conducted under a US Prescription that allows for the use of non-USCG PFDs. So for the lead-up to the Championship, I wore a CE vest. I love it. It rocks. I used to strip my PFD off when I hit the beach... now I forget it is on.

But not every event is eligible to have the Prescription on PFDs applied... in fact, nearly all events are local or regional or national... few events qualify as "international." And few Organizers are prepared or willing to change the SIs to accommodate CE vests. Yet there are a ton of them out there - many more in the Moth, Laser, 29er and other fleets than our own, so it is not just a multihull problem.

I now carry both my USCG and my CE... I walk around the beach and look to see what others are using. If I see a bunch of CEs, I slip mine on and don't talk about it. For something like the Alter Cup, I'm not even packing the CE... to get tossed over a PFD infraction at that level would be awful. But I'll get to compete on the same boat at the Worlds later this year and my CE vest is not only legal, but over half the fleet will probably have the same style and color. Still, this whole thing has been bugging me a lot - those within US SAILING say there is no way in hell that the Prescription requiring USCG-approved PFDs will ever be dropped... efforts to even coordinate with Canadian standards have been a disaster. The US is the only place a CE vest isn't legal... is it a safety issue? Is it a governmental issue? Is it a liability issue? For certain, it is a rule issue. One that I too am now guilty of ignoring. But I was raised that using the excuse of "everyone's doing it" doesn't cut it. And not everyone's doing it, I know... but a lot of us are.

Seriously - what do you guys think?

John,

I don't see where our opinions would matter here. The prescription is clear it can't be dropped in the U.S., except for the situations you've already identified.

What's your end game?

John,

Since we pretty much all agree that getting the USCG requirement dropped is unlikely, please refresh us on the legality, according to the rules, of having an approved USCG PFD on board, but actually wearing the CE.

It is my understanding that only the throwable device need be "on deck within easy access". Couldn't the USCG PFD's be below, or in a storage compartment? I know that is easier on a dinghy, but what about rolled tightly and inserted through an inspection port on a cat?

If the USCG approval process wasn't completely retarded like apparently it is - then I'd be in favor of using the USCG-only prescription. However - to say that Lotus jackets are non-USCG because they took the previous design and changed the embroidery on it and therefore lost their USCG approval - is stupid and reflects the ham-fisted, bureaucratic, red-tape heaven that is governmental regulations.

Likewise, the approval process is quite costly AND is quite lengthy. By the time a USCG approval is given, the jacket is obsolete.

I've been wearing a CE vest for at least a year now and I never had a problem with it supporting my 235lbs butt even when there was a 75oz full camelpak bladder in the back pocket.

The INTENT of the rule (IMO) governing the use of floatation devices is to make sure that someone doesn't show up with some sytrofoam tied to their arms with fishing line and claim that they have adequate safety measures. I don't think it was meant to exclude a whole 75% of the marketed, safe life jackets out there today.

I probably have an unpopular view on this. Since this is an international forum, I will state in advance that my views apply only to sailing in the US. Laws dictate that onboard your boat there must be at least 1 USCG approved flotation device for each person on board (I hae been on board boats on more than one occasion that have been stopped by the CG to check). If an OA is going to permit competitors to wear CE vests, it does not preclude the skippers responsibitly to make sure his boat is compliant with the laws. I feel that the OA is opening itself up to some very dangerous legal ramifications IF a tragic event were to happen during an event where they (the OA) stated that CE devices were acceptable.

Just getting it off my chest, Dave. I'm honestly curious what other people think... this topic got mashed up on SA over a year ago, but I never saw anything constructive come out of it. The atmosphere here is more suited to productive dialog - perhaps someone can think of an approach that you and I haven't.

I'm on the fence on the whole thing, despite a lot of thought on the matter. Maybe I'm just looking to get swayed one way or the other. Is it Friday yet?

I know what you're referring to John and I had the same concerns with crews wearing them in the GT300 (SI's require Coast Guard Approved PFD's). Unfortunately (or fortunately) after the skipper's meeting, I'm no longer a Race Officer, I'm a racer. One person who was wearing one (a close female friend) chose that model because of comfort (like you pointed out). At my urging a few weeks before, we took a swim out in the surf with her wearing it. I wanted to see how well it kept her afloat in a totally relaxed position (like if you were exhausted). I was comfortable with it, so I didn't harp on her about it anymore. I left if as a matter of choice for her and if someone protested, it was out of my hands. I guess my bottom line question was, "are they totally safe?" I feel that they are. I'm kind of a boner about safety too. I would like to see the wording get changed to be able to use them "legally". If their more comfortable, I think a crew member may be able to swim faster to catch a capsized boat or pull themselves on board easier. In the mean time, I wouldn't protest someone for using one.

Karl's right - for the F18 Championship, I knew I was running the risk of getting a ticket from the Harbor Patrol... just because the rule might get changed in the SIs for an international event in the US, the Coasties don't care.

Okay fair enough, so the end game is to change the prescription or drop it. Is that possible given what Karl has posted and what I suspect is driving the prescription?

Pardon the silly question, but aside from the rules involved, what is the difference between a CE and USCG approved PFD? A quick search didn't clarify it for me. Is it the difference between a "bouyancy aid" and a USCG certified one?

p.s. anyone ever have any problems posting using chrome? I had to go the explorer to post anything

Oh and for the record... I don't care what you wear as long and you're not showcasing the junk.

The Coast Guard are not the bad guys here. Bureaucracy is a pita for sure, but anyone who puts his butt on the line for someone else is not the villain.

Has anyone called the CG and asked them if there is anything that can be done? My guess is they have better things to do than run around checking pfds.

Hi Jack -

This issue has gotten so much play that US SAILING built a web page just for you.

Check it out.

The Harbor Patrol has given tickets here in Long Beach to power-boaters who's PFDs were stowed in the cabin or in the bench storage in the ****. For them, it didn't meet the standard. I expect that stuffing the orange vests in the hulls of a cat could get you a ticket, but would probably save you a trip to the room.

CE is the rest of the worlds equivalent to tested and approved. The USCG does their own testing(I believe) and an absurd amount of money is charged for each model and color PFD to be certified.
Mike Krantz should chime in here, he's been on the frontlines of this issue for awhile.
My question is why can't the prescription for racing be changed to USCG or CE and leave the operator up to being law compliant.

I never said they were. I'm willing to bet that Robi or anyone like him weren't the ones behind writing the USCG approval process and procedures. In fact, I'm willing to bet it was a nameless, faceless bureaucrat or *gasp* a committee of bureaucrats who have to justify their paychecks by coming up with onerous, ridiculous rules and procedures just because they can.

I'm not after the Coast Guard, either - love 'em. Maybe the more stringent standard is due to liability in a litigious society. Maybe it is just the American spirit of "that's not good enough, let's make it better." Sometimes that can be a good thing... you can see the mountains in LA because the state government decided the national emission standards "weren't good enough."

I can also point to a line of unemployed people because people thought regulations weren't "good enough".

Different topic for a different day.

But you have a point about the lawyers of our society.

according to the Coast Guard site -http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5214/pfdselection.asp#recreational

Note: The Coast Guard is working with the PFD community to revise the classification and labeling of PFDs. When completed, this information will be updated and hopefully be somewhat easier to understand. ....

Isn't there some rule that requires a throw able on board as well?

Would that be this subsection of the CG regulation?:

(b) No person may use a recreational vessel 16 feet or more in length unless one Type IV PFD is on board in addition to the total number of PFDs required in paragraph (a) of this section.

Thanks John.

From reading that, it seems that what I suggest would pass the test of USSailing, so not a valid protest.

I don't see anything in the CG regs saying the jackets can't be stowed.

I would think that those power boat folks would have strong grounds to successfully defend their tickets.

My friend and sometimes crew, Jerry Richards is the national sails rep for Gill products. He has expounded on many occaisions how difficult and expensive it is for a manufacturer to get the approval, and , as someone stated, if you change something, you need a new test for approval. This is all on the mfgs nickel and that is very expensive. Unless there is hope of selling large numbers, it just isn't worth it. They sell plenty of the "bootleg" ECs and just let the sailors work it out.