Part 4: PFDS, Wet Weather Jackets & PLBS: Ampa Safety Equipment Project

AMPA Safety Equipment Project
FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT

Personal Protective Equipment
in Marine Pilot Ladder Transfers
Part 4: PFDs, wet weather jackets & PLBs
prepared by
Fiona Weigall
Certified Professional Ergonomist
Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd
PO Box 707, Gymea, NSW 2227
Ph: + 61 2 9501 1650
November 2008
AMPA Safety Equipment Project – Formal Safety Assessment – Part 4: PFDs, wet weather jackets & PLBs
Copyright
© 2008 Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd

This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only
(retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any
use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries
concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd, PO Box 707,
Gymea NSW 2227, or to f.weigall@optusnet.com.au
Disclaimer
The research conclusions are those of the author and any views expressed are not necessarily those of
Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Maritime Safety Queensland, Tasmanian Ports Corporation or
Australian Marine Pilots Association.
The information provided in this document can only assist you in the most general way. Health & Safety
Matters Pty Ltd accepts no liability arising from the use of or reliance on the material contained on this
document. Before relying on the material, users should carefully make their own assessment as to its
accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain advice relevant to
their particular circumstances.
2
Prepared by Fiona Weigall, © Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd, November 2008
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the 90 pilots who responded to an online survey in late 2006 concerning ladder
transfers and their use of various personal protective equipment.
Special thanks to the pilots who voluntarily participated in equipment trials for this report.
Thanks also to pilots and pilot managers and OHS managers and maritime authorities who
participated in interviews during the preparation of this report, including those from:
New South Wales
Queensland
Western Australia
Tasmania &
the ACT
Thanks too to the equipment suppliers and manufacturers in Australia and overseas of:
Wet weather jackets
PFDs &
PLBs
& thanks for advice and support from:

Captain Chris Haley, Master Mariner &
Alison Bell, Certified Professional Ergonomist
Report Author
Fiona Weigall
MasterPubHealth, BAppSc(OT), GradCertAppErg, GradCertAdultEd
Fiona Weigall is a Certified Professional Ergonomist and Branch Secretary of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society of Australia (NSW). She is also an Accredited Occupational Therapist
with a clinical background in occupational rehabilitation and injury management including in the
areas of traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, musculoskeletal and cumulative trauma disorders.
Fiona has advised on human factors and ergonomics in the public and private sectors for 20
years, including with an occupational health and safety regulatory body, WorkCover NSW. She
was a founding director of Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd in 2000, and has been accepted as a
consultant researcher for the Australian Safety and Compensation Council’s ‘OHS Expert
Research Panel’ since 2004.
Fiona and her associates specialise in applying ergonomic principles to develop tailored,
evidence-based solutions that enhance human performance and reduce risk of injury and illness
within industry.
3
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Project aims.......................................................................................................................6
1.2 Project methodology .......................................................................................................... 6

Formal Safety Assessments ................................................................................................6
Assessment of ergonomic principles .................................................................................... 7
PPE and equipment selected for review ............................................................................... 7
1.3 Using and applying this information and advice..................................................................8
1.4 Personal Protective Equipment as a ‘control’...................................................................... 8
2. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................9
2.1 Descriptions of marine safety equipment reviewed.............................................................9

Personal Flotation Devices ..................................................................................................9
Wet Weather Jackets...........................................................................................................9
Personal Locator Beacons ...................................................................................................9
2.2 Policies and procedures for safety equipment use............................................................10

Personal Flotation Devices ................................................................................................10
Wet Weather Jackets.........................................................................................................11
Per sonal Locator Beacons .................................................................................................11
2.3 Number of pilots using marine equipment ........................................................................12

Personal Locator Beacons .................................................................................................13
2.4 Pilots’ beliefs regarding PFDs, jackets & PLBs.................................................................13
3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................................. 14

4. RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 16
4.1 Likelihood and consequence of problems from PFDs, jackets & PLBs ..............................16
Injury and incident data for pilot transfers ...........................................................................16
4.2 Risks posed by safety equipment in the transfer ..............................................................18

4.3 Benefits of PFDs, jackets & PLBs in the transfer ..............................................................23

4
4.4 User evaluation & performance testing.............................................................................25

Pilots’ reported criteria for selecting PFDs and wet weather jackets ....................................25
Review of selected PFDs ...................................................................................................26
Performance testing in water .............................................................................................29
4.5 Cost benefits ...................................................................................................................38
5. RISK CONTROL ................................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Provision of PFDs, jackets & PLBs...................................................................................39
5.2 Suggested selection criteria .............................................................................................40

Advice for both wet weather jackets and PFDs ...................................................................40
6. REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 53
5
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project aims
The aim of the AMPA Safety Equipment Project is to investigate the usability of selected personal
protective equipment (PPE) and marine safety equipment used by marine pilots in Australia
during the pilot ladder transfer between the pilot vessel and commercial vessels. This
investigation follows a ‘human factors’ and ergonomics approach as it focuses on the application
and use of equipment in a given context, with consideration for the users, the influence of the
environment, the organization of the task, work systems, and the interaction with other
equipment.
The results from these investigations will provide practical and evidence-based advice regarding
PPE items that reduce risk, increase risk and/or have no effect on pilot safety during the pilot
ladder transfer. Pilots and their employers can then use this information to contribute towards
their own assessments in managing and reducing risk in their specific work environments and
with their own pilots.
1.2 Project methodology

Formal Safety Assessments
The methodology used for these reports is based on both the ‘Formal Safety Assessment’ as
used by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and on the requirements under Australian
legislation for Risk Assessment and Risk Management.
Both the Formal Safety Assessment and the Risk Management approach have the same key
elements:
Hazard identification
This involves identifying hazards in tasks. In this project this step includes considering actual or
potential hazards when the equipment is used in the pilot transfer and hazards when the
equipment is not used.
Risk assessment
In this phase the likelihood and consequence of the hazards are assessed and the relative
contribution of the different factors that impact on this risk are evaluated and compared.
Risk control
Risk ‘controls’ or risk mitigation strategies are provided to address the assessed risks. In these
reports the control options have been evaluated by the users to reduce the risk of additional
hazards being introduced and to ensure the advice is sound and acceptable to the users.
Cost Benefit Analyses

This issue is not often included in Risk Management models however it is included under the IMO
Formal Safety Assessment. This step is also a useful part of the process to compare and
contrast the different control options as well as the potential cost of doing nothing.
6
Assessment of ergonomic principles
The methodology in this report also incorporates the requirements for selecting and comparing
items of PPE as outlined in the European Standard ‘Personal Protective Equipment – Ergonomic
Principles’ IS EN 13921:2007. As this Standard explains:
“The application of ergonomic principles to PPE allows optimization of the balance between protection and
usability.”
IS EN 13921:2007, page 5
PPE worn by marine pilots and other occupational groups is aimed at protecting the user from
known hazards to their health and safety. However the PPE may also unintentionally create new
hazards, as well as failing to properly counter the known hazards. Wearing and operating
different marine safety equipment also has the potential to create hazards or to fail to operate as
intentioned. Maintenance methods and testing schedules for all equipment can also influence
usability, and may serve to reduce or increase risk for the pilot.
These reports explore the ergonomic issues of the interaction of the PPE with the pilot’s body,
including:
biomechanical interaction
anthropometric characteristics (human sizing and dimensions)
thermal interaction
interaction with the senses – eg vision, hearing, touch
The assessments include an examination of the interaction between the different items of PPE
with each other and with typical functional tasks undertaken by the pilot. For example this
includes the impact of helmet wearing while wearing a personal flotation device, or glove wearing
when operating a marine radio.
PPE and equipment selected for review
In consultation with AMPA, a sample of PPE and equipment was selected for review. The
rationale for this selection was as the PPE or equipment is commonly used by pilots in Australia,
and/or has recently been proposed as being of potential benefit in the pilot ladder transfer (eg
report by Weigall presented at Asia-Pacific Marine Pilotage Conference 2006).
Formal safety assessments have been prepared for each of the following items of PPE and
equipment:
Part 1 Footwear
Part 2 Gloves
Part 3 Head Protection
Part 4 Personal Flotation Devices, Wet Weather Jackets and
Personal Locator Beacons
The project has been broken up into four chapters or ‘parts’, with each part providing a stand-
alone report on the topic. The reports follow a similar format, and provide the reader with
evidence-based material including data from peer-reviewed scientific journals plus information
based on consultation with a wide range of users, subject experts, equipment manufacturers and
equipment suppliers. The reports also provide user evaluation and performance testing of the
PPE and other equipment where possible.
7
1.3 Using and applying this information and advice

The information from these assessments should contribute to an organisation’s own risk
assessments and safety assessments, based on specific pilots and scenarios that are typical to
the pilots’ work. The information in these reports should not replace these important port specific
and pilot specific risk assessments.
For this project and the assessments, the use of PPE and marine safety assessment was
restricted to the pilot ladder transfer task. Task analyses revealed the steps in the pilot boarding
and disembarkation as:
Boarding
Donning the relevant PPE (eg PFD, gloves, wet weather jacket)
Walking around the deck of the pilot vessel to the ladder
Reaching up then jumping or stepping onto the lower rungs of the ladder
Climbing up the ladder, grasping and releasing the hands on manropes or side ropes
Walking on the deck/within the commercial vessel
Disembarking
Walking on the deck/within the commercial vessel
Climbing down the ladder, most commonly sliding the hands down the manropes on the
descent or less commonly holding the ladder’s side-ropes
Jumping or stepping backwards off the ladder onto the pilot vessel
For this project it was therefore assumed that the pilot’s complete PPE is used for relatively short
periods. Theoretically all the PPE could be removed once onboard the ship provided the
footwear used during the transfer was replaced with alternative footwear. The PPE could also be
removed once safely within the cabin of the pilot vessel.
If the above task analyses are not relevant to a pilot or if the ladder transfers are done differently
to those observed for these reports, other hazards may be present, with different risks and
different control options.
1.4 Personal Protective Equipment as a ‘control’

PPE is routinely used in situations where a risk to health and safety has been identified. The
preferred and optimal solution is of course to eliminate or to redesign the task to remove the risk
or to minimize the risk. PPE should only be used when the task has been improved as much as
‘reasonably practicable’ by other means. This hierarchical approach to risk control is also the law
in each occupational health and safety (OHS) jurisdiction in Australia.
The use of PPE to reduce risks in the ladder transfer task is considered a very low level and
relatively ineffective means of ‘controlling’ the risks associated with this task. However given that
the most common transfer method and the internationally accepted method of undertaking pilot
transfers is to use the pilot ladders, and most ports in Australia use this method, it is relevant that
the pilots be provided with the most appropriate PPE to minimise risks wherever possible.
This PPE should be well suited to the task, the work environment and each specific user. Marine
safety equipment is also important for the pilot as this can reduce the severity of the injury should
a fall or other accident occur.
8
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Descriptions of marine safety equipment reviewed
Personal Flotation Devices
The abbreviation ‘PFD’ refers to a personal flotation device, otherwise known as a lifejacket.
According to the Australian Standard (AS 1512) a PFD is a buoyancy aid which is worn on the
body, and is capable of maintaining an unconscious wearer in a safe floating position.
‘Safe floating position’ is defined as:
“A position in which the body is inclined backwards from the vertical with the nose, mouth and chin cleat of
the water”
Australian Standard 1512-1996
While the terms PFD and lifejackets are often used synonymously by many maritime authorities
in Australia and overseas (eg AMSA, Marine Safety Queensland, National Maritime Safety
Committee and others) the term PFD will be used in this report to be consistent with the
terminology in the current Australian Standards relating to these devices.
The Australian Standards define 3 different types of PFDs according to the amount of buoyancy
provided and other features, while other standards (eg European and international and SOLAS)
have slightly different requirements. In this study PFDs meeting or exceeding the Australian
Standard for Type 1 PFDs were considered, with a focus on those currently used by the pilots
undertaking transfers at sea using the pilot ladder. It does not investigate lifejackets suited to
helicopter use.
Wet Weather Jackets
The term ‘jackets’ in this report refers to ‘wet weather’ or ‘foul weather’ jackets worn by pilots, and
not to dress jackets or jackets designed specifically for warmth or other functions. These jackets
may or may not also incorporate a PFD. The jackets most commonly worn by Australian marine
pilots were reviewed for this study.
The term Personal Locator Beacon or PLB is used in this report as it appears to be the most
frequently used term by marine pilots when referring to an Emergency Position Indicating Radio
Beacon (EPIRB) that is carried on the person as opposed to being fitted into a vessel.
Interestingly the AS/NZS (AS/NZS 4280.2: 2003) uses the following definitions to describe where
the emergency device is used:
EPIRBs – “Satellite emergency position-indicating radio beacon: A device designed or
intended for use in the Maritime Mobile-Satellite Service……. to facilitate search and
rescue operations”
PLB - Satellite personal locator beacon: A device designed or intended for use in the
Land Mobile-Satellite Service……. to facilitate search and rescue operations”
ELT - Satellite emergency locator transmitter: A device designed or intended for use in
the Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite Service……. to facilitate search and rescue operations”
9
As outlined on the AMSA website, orbiting satellites are able to detect distress signals from these
and other radio beacons and the signals are relayed to Australia’s Rescue Coordination Centre
(AMSA 2008). For this study a range of 406MH z EPIRBs designed for personal use were
considered, as the 121MHz EPIRBs are being phased out and will no longer be detected from
February 2009.
2.2 Policies and procedures for safety equipment use

There are a large number of government bodies in Australia at both state and national levels that
provide advice and information regarding PFDs for commercial and/or recreational use.
The Australian Standard for a PFD Type 1 provides a minimum of 87 Newtons (N) of buoyancy
for a person 60kg and over (AS 1512 - 1996), where 10 Newtons is equivalent to 1kg force. This
is designed to maintain an unconscious person in a floating position with their head above the
water, and this type is generally recommended for offshore use, while the PFD Type 2 and PFD
Type 3 are for use on sheltered waters and provide less support. The PFD Type 2 (AS1499-
1996) requires only 53N buoyancy for a person 60kg and over.
On commercial vessels, the PFD must meet the International Convention for the Safety of Life at
Sea (SOLAS) requirements, and these provide for more buoyancy than the PFD Type 1.
The Code of Safe Working Practice for Seafarers (AMSA 1999) requires that:
“persons working over the side should wear life jackets or other suitable flotation devices”
(Part 15.1.6)
The AMSA Marine Orders Part 25 – Life-saving equipment (2006a) requires that all ships
registered in Australia and also ships within the territorial seas of Australia provide specific
equipment according to the vessel type and tonnage. This includes the provision of:
…“a life jacket for each person the ship is certified to carry”.
The AMSA Marine Orders Part 54 (AMSA 2006b) affecting QLD coastal pilots require that pilots
wear “any personal protective equipment required by the pilotage provider’s Safety Management
System”. When pilots are on the pilot boat deck they must wear PFDs and harnesses as outlined
below:
8.1 Each pilot and crew member working on deck must be provided with a safety harness that meets the
requirements of Australian Standard AS2227.
8.2 Each pilot and crew member working on deck must be provided with an inflatable lifejacket with self
activating light and whistle that meets the relevant requirements of the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
10
The AMSA Marine Orders Part 54 were recently amended to allow inflatable lifejackets other than
a SOLAS approved lifejackets provided they conform to any of the following standards:
Australian Standard AS 1512-1996
International Standards Organization ISO 12402-1
European Standard EN 399-1993, Lifejackets – 275N
European Standard EN 396-1993, Lifejackets – 150N
New Zealand Standards NZ 5823:2005 Type 401
This change advised by AMSA is similar to the amendment made to the QLD Transport
Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 2004 (TOMSR 2006) whereby a lifejacket that meets or
exceeds the requirements under the Australian Standard for PFD 1 can be accepted as a Type 1
lifejacket. Victoria has also recently taken this approach to accepting lifejackets approved under
other Standards (Marine Safety Victoria 2008).
With regards to the design of the PFD, the European Marine Pilots Association (EMPA 2007)
advises that:
“Lifejackets may be incorporated into the pilot coat or worn externally. In either case they should be capable
of both automatic and manual CO2 gas inflation, with an easily accessible oral top-up inflation tube.
Lifejackets or Lifejacket/Coat Combinations should additionally be equipped with:

- A splash guard
- One saltwater activated steady light
- One saltwater activated strobe light with manual on/off switch
- One whistle
- One personal locator beacon, for use with pilot cutter or SAR direction finding equipment.”
Of the pilot organisations surveyed they all had some form of policy and/or procedure regarding
when the PFDs should be worn, as well as general policies regarding the lifejackets’ maintenance
schedule. To ensure that the PFDs are properly cared for as per the manufacturer’s advice most
organisations kept detailed records of each device, tracking when it was serviced and when any
items were replaced etc.
Lifejackets worn in helicopters have different requirements as they cannot be left in a self-inflating
mode.
Wet Weather Jackets
According to personnel at AMPA a wet weather jacket is a standard item issued to marine pilots
(eg Haley 2008), and it is assumed that all pilots in Australia have a jacket that was either issued
to them or that they purchased themselves. No specific policies regarding the jackets’ use was
reported by the interviewed pilots.
The decision to supply pilots with personal EPIRBs appears to have been up to each port and
pilot organization. Pilots using boarding grounds in sheltered waterways appear less likely to
carry an EPIRB than those working in locations off the coast, although the provision of EPIRBs
did not consistently match this observation.
11
An ‘Advisory Note’ from AMSA issued in August last year (Rusling 2007) requires that Coastal
Pilots must now have a 406MHz EPIRB fitted to their lifejacket. It is not known if this requirement
will be extended to other pilots in Australia in the future.
2.3 Number of pilots using marine equipment

Retired and senior pilots estimate that PFDs have only been worn routinely by Australian marine
pilots during the ladder transfer for the last 35 – 40 years (eg Haley 2007). The change to wear
PFDs appears to have come about when the devices were developed in an inflatable design, as
prior to this they were ‘inherently’ buoyant (ie permanently buoyant) making them a bulky load to
wear and making any manual tasks difficult to undertake because of restrictions to arm and neck
movements. Dress code for pilots also appears to have been more formal in the past, with many
male pilots reportedly wearing business suits, ties and dress shoes.
According to responses from a survey administered in late 2006, 96.7% of the 90 respondents
reported they “always” wore a PFD during the transfer (Tribe 2007). Only 2.2% (2 pilots) reported
“never” wearing a PFD, and 1.1% (1 pilot) reported they “mostly” wore one. It is not known why
the 2 pilots never wore a PFD and if there were unusual features of the ladder transfer or
boarding ground that made the use of a lifejacket unnecessary or problematic.
The most common type worn was reportedly a Type 1 (75.6%) with a further 15% reporting they
wore a Type 2. Pilots reported also wearing “other” types, listing the following responses: CASA
approved; Military Standard; Secumar Auto-inflating and Helicopter approved. Some of these
‘other’ responses are likely to be Type 1 but this definition may not be known and understood by
the pilot responding.
From interviewing pilots following the survey it confirmed that the most commonly worn PFDs by
marine pilots in Australia are self-inflating, and meeting the Type 1 standard. These can be
activated by two different mechanisms:
hydrostatic pressure, or
water reactions.
The hydrostatic type fires when it is submerged in at least 10cm of water and the makers claim
this gives better protection from random activation caused by moisture, rain or wave splash when
compared with bobbin type firing system.
Figure 1. Hammar hydrostatic valve inflation mechanism, from

http://www.lifejackets.co.uk/Lifejackets-
Automatic_Inflation_Devices.htm, with permission
12
The 2 different water activated firing systems are illustrated below, and both are activated by a
bobbin that reacts with water, allowing the mechanism to fire.
Figure 2. Halkey Roberts Automatic Inflator Figure3. United Moulders Inflator
Wet Weather Jackets
Interviews with a sample of pilots in one organization demonstrated the wide range of designs in
use when pilots can select a jacket of their choice (Weigall & Simpson 2005).
In the recent survey to pilots, 28% of the Australian Pilots reported carrying an EPIRB (Tribe
2007). (Note, in this survey the term EPIRB rather than PLB was used). Pilots in public ports
were significantly more likely to carry an EPIRB than those pilots in private ports (p=0.000), with
42% of the pilots at public ports stating they ‘always’ carried an EPIRB as compared with only 2%
of pilots at private ports.
2.4 Pilots’ beliefs regarding PFDs, jackets & PLBs

The surveys and interviews indicate that most pilots accept wearing a PFD as a standard and
appropriate piece of personal protective equipment, and see the value that this has in the case of
a fall etc.
The use of wet weather jackets in wet weather is considered sensible when required. In fine and
warm or hot weather the wet weather jacket is less frequently worn, and a separate PFD is worn.
Based on the interviews, EPIRBs or PLBs appear to be seen as an advantage, with those
working offshore or in heavy weather conditions most interested in having them. Some pilots
working in sheltered waterways appeared satisfied that they had not been issued with one.
13
3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
The three items being investigated in this study are all designed to reduce risk to health and
safety and to reduce the pilot’s exposure to the elements. However as part of this review, the
items and evidence surrounding each item’s use is being considered as ‘safety’ devices can
create unforeseen or unexpected hazards for the user.
Potential or actual hazards in the use of PFDs, wet weather jackets and PLBs when used in the
pilot transfer or in a rescue situation of the pilot are described below.
Entrapment in the cabin

According to a discussion paper prepared on behalf of the National Maritime Safety Committee
(NMSC 2006) there are situations where wearing a PFD is potentially hazardous, as outlined
below:
This entrapment described above can occur if water enters the cabin on a pilot vessel should it
become swamped by waves, has an accident or is sinking. If the lifejacket inflates this makes
escape from the cabin more difficult, and this is why helicopters do not allow water activated
inflatable PFDs.
Unplanned inflation
A pilot reported that the inflatable PFDs also had the potential to be activated in error, and that
this had happened to a pilot when the pilot was transferring on the pilot ladder. Climbing in an
inflated PFD is much harder due to the restriction on the arms and the reduced visibility to the
feet.
Inadequate or ill-fitting buoyancy

Another potential hazard is if the PFD lacks sufficient buoyancy for the pilot. Pilots currently carry
a number of work, safety and personal items in their pockets as well as often carrying bags (eg
with laptops and other equipment) and wearing leather boots, so the total clothing and luggage
weight needs to be taken into account, as well as its location on the body.
Incorrect fitting of the PFD can also affect safety when inflated, with those too loose riding up and
moving, and those too tight creating pressure on the chest and torso when inflated.
Wet Weather Jackets
A brief review of the ergonomics literature located studies of some occupational groups and their
problems with their outer jackets, and a study into firefighters appeared most relevant given the
ladder climbing task. In this study (Malley et al 1999) the following problems were identified:
14
heavy jackets placing strain on the upper arms

jacket design resulting in mechanical resistance to arm movements (such as reaching
when climbing)
heat stress or thermal discomfort from the combination of the physical demands and
energy expended with the climbing task and the impact of the jacket material and design
with regards breathability etc
Each of the above factors is also relevant to the pilot’s task. Climbing the ladder and transferring
between vessels requires rapid and coordinated movements, and any restriction can result in an
error. The effort required to move the body can lead to cumulative fatigue after climbing ladders
and then the stairs to the bridge when wearing a heavy or bulky jacket. The weight of the pilots’
jacket will also be markedly increased from its empty weight as it holds a range of equipment and
personal items stored in the jacket pockets.
With the marine pilot’s task, the jacket’s impact upon and relationship with any personal flotation
device also requires consideration.
Poor jacket fit can also reduce safety by making the user clumsy and awkward, and women are
particularly at risk given that most jackets are designed in men’s sizes (Ontario Women’s
Directorate 2006)
There were no hazards to the pilot identified with the operation of a PLB, though pilots often
report that they seem to be carrying a lot of items that make their jacket heavy, requiring
additional physical effort and fatigue when undertaking a ladder transfer at sea.
15
4. RISK ASSESSMENT
4.1 Likelihood and consequence of problems from PFDs, jackets

& PLBs
Injury and incident data for pilot transfers
There is no central register of pilot accidents or incidents in Australia from which to properly
assess any trends relating to problems with PFD, jacket or PLB use.
However a number of pilot and other fatalities in recent years illustrate how use of a PLB may
have reduced the victim’s time in the water and so increased their likelihood of survival. For
example the case of the pilot who fell from the ladder in Oregon in early 2006 and was not
located for more than 24hours, and by this stage he was deceased. His body had drifted more
than 100 miles from where he had fallen. It is understood that no PLB was in use (The Daily
Astorian 2006).
An Australian example is the death of a deckhand who fell overboard from a pilot vessel in the
Torres Strait in 2004 and was lost at sea. The findings from the recent inquest found reasons
contributing to his death included failure to wear a PFD (QLD Courts 2008), and it appears he
was also not wearing a PLB.
As well as risk of sudden death by drowning, the longer a person is in the water and the colder
the water temperature, the more chance of developing hypothermia, as illustrated in Figure 4
below. According to some studies, people ‘past middle age’ are more at risk than younger
people, and this would account for most Australian pilots, given the average age of pilots from
approximately 52 years (from a study in NSW, Weigall & Simpson 2005) to 55.8 years for Great
Barrier Reef Pilots (Ferguson et al 2005).
Figure 4. Predicted survival times in water (Flight Safety Australia, 1999)
16
As well as water temperature and duration of immersion, other factors affecting survival times in
water are:
build – including body mass to surface area and body fat
clothing type and quantity
posture and activity level
weather conditions, such as wind and waves
the areas of the body which are exposed.
Figure 5 below illustrates survival time of a person of ‘average build’.
Water Temperature Survival Time

0 Deg C 45 minutes
9.5 deg C 2 to 3 hours
11 deg C 4 hours
14 deg C 6 hours
18 deg C 10 hours
Figure 5. Estimated survival times
A review of water temperatures around Australia in January (summer) and July (winter) illustrates
the variation between states and seasons, with water temperatures of 18 degrees and less being
typical around the lower half of the continent in winter (ie south of latitude 25 degrees), and along
the southern coast and extending around the southern corner of WA and the entire coast of
Victoria and much of SA in winter. Tasmanian waters are clearly the coldest, with temperatures
less than 14 degrees in some areas (BOM 2008).
1 January 2008 I July 2008
Figure 6. Sea surface temperatures as recorded for the BOM 2008
17
4.2 Risks posed by safety equipment in the transfer

Bulky styles
Undertaking the ladder transfer with a fully inflated jacket or with an ‘inherently’ or permanently
buoyant jacket would be difficult as these designs are typically bulky with a large collar and could
restrict the pilot’s downward vision as well as potentially affecting their neck and shoulder range
of movement. Current pilots believe that prior to the development of inflatable life jackets no
pilots wore PFDs as they were too cumbersome.
As previously noted, the auto-inflating models worn by pilots reportedly can inflate unexpectedly
should they become wet, including on the pilot ladder.
Carrying luggage over the PFD

The impact of luggage or radios etc carried around the neck or worn on the back may affect the
inflating device but this has not been tested. In the discussions with pilots no one reported having
trialled their PFD and their luggage in the water to assess how well it supported them and the
manner in which it supported them.
Floating position
A PFD Type 1 should hold the wearer in a ‘safe floating position’, with the body inclined back, and
with the mouth, nose and chin out of the water. While all PFDs meeting the standard should float
the person, a PFD supplier reports that different peoples’ bodies can float differently. They
explain that apart from the weight of adults other factors that determine the upward lift are:
Body fat;
Lung size;
The type & weight of clothing & the items in the pockets;
Water condition;
A person's physical condition.
(Safety Marine Australia Pty Ltd website 2008)
From reviewing the Australian Standards for PFD Type 1 (AS 1512-1996) this device need not be
designed to suit falls from a height, as it must only:
“……..withstand the impact resulting from the wearer jumping or falling from a height of 1m into the water”
This requirement is so that:
“the PFD does not become displaced to the extent that it fails to comply with the requirements of Clause
2.2.2; ” (regarding ability to float the subject) and
“all fastening devices remain closed”
It is not known how well a PFD Type 1 would withstand a pilot falling from a height above 1metre.
Fit & support

Another issue is correct fit. The inflatable PFDs reviewed for this study were all “one size fits all”
however one supplier reported that he had recently tried to fit PFDs for a population of males who
18
were of a very tall and large build, with high Body Mass Indexes. As the standard sizing in the
PFDs were too small for this group the manufacturer custom-made larger sizes for them.
A problem that was identified with lifejackets in the review of the rescues in the 1998/99 Sydney
to Hobart Yacht Race was their tendency to be pushed up the sailor’s body in the water, and not
properly supporting the torso. This was particularly the case when a person jumped or fell into
the water or was being dragged in the water by their harness or other rescue device, and this
resulted in the PFD becoming ‘displaced’ and failing to provide suitable support. It is assumed
that pilots’ PFDs could equally be forced up their body should they fall or if they are dragged
along in the water.
Some of the PFDs and wet weather jackets worn by pilots currently include a crotch strap,
however interviews highlighted that pilots rarely use them. These straps are made from a
combination of elasticised material and/or webbing, and appear to be fastened in different ways
to the jackets, such as sewn into the webbed belt that is inserted around the jacket to the steel D
ring attachment point. However again, no one interviewed for this project knew how their jacket
would respond to a fall or jump from a height of 5-10 metres (as opposed to the 1m as required
by the AS 1512). Practice in ‘man overboard’ type drills may be able to identify any further
potential problems with the pilots’ PFDs.
Training in care of the PFD

The amount and type of training provided to marine pilots regarding the care of their PFD appears
to be very variable. The areas of PFD inspection, maintenance and storage are critical and can
seriously affect their usability, particularly for inflating models. As the European Marine Pilot
Association outlines on their website (EMPA 2008):
“The greatest requirements are on equipment that relies entirely on manual or automatic gas inflation as
damage to the inflation chamber(s), inflation mechanism or gas cylinder could result in total failure to provide
buoyancy.”
If pilots or pilot organizations are not following the recommended service schedule or failing to
correctly store the PFDs the pilots may have a false sense of security and be at risk of drowning.
For example if wet PFDs are kept in unventilated locations for long periods, such as thrown into
the boot of the car, the device can deteriorate more rapidly than if hung in a dry and ventilated
place.
Damage to PFDs
One pilot reported an incident where a colleague inflated his jacket just prior to a service and one
of the air chambers had become dislodged from its usual position and moved into the jacket ’s
sleeve. Upon inflation the chambers were filled asymmetrically with the largest volume being in a
sleeve. In this case the air chambers were positioned in the wet weather jacket using press studs
which had somehow become undone.
According to the pilot who witnessed this it would also be easy to incorrectly insert the chambers
as the location of the press studs for properly locating the air chamber was not straightforward
and could be fastened incorrectly, especially if undertaken in a hurry.
Wet Weather Jackets
Pilots have reported the following problems with some of the wet weather jackets they wear:
19
bulky and heavy, restricting easy movement

too hot in summer
collar blocks vision
leaks at seams
lacks pockets and
lacks accessories, such as signaling devices.
Restricted movements
Many of these jacket design factors can impact on the pilot’s ability to safely climb the ladder, as
well as climb the stairs to and from the bridge. Any restriction of movement caused by the jacket
could contribute to shoulder and arm fatigue and may even affect the speed of the movement
when reaching ladders and ropes etc. A jacket to mid thigh length or longer could also impact on
the ease of hip movements when lifting the knees up. Should the pilot fall into the water, the
jacket may also affect ability to move and swim.
Jacket weight
A large number of pilots who were informally surveyed reported neck pain, and while the ladder
climb demands neck movements in the extreme ranges, some pilots also wondered if the weight
and cut of the jacket and/or PFD and harness around their neck may also be contributing to this
discomfort. One theory is that the weight of the hood is pulling on the jacket collar and increasing
the strain over the neck area.
In an earlier survey (Weigall & Simpson 2005), a sample of 9 jackets worn by pilots was weighed.
These jackets included integrated PFDs and also held the usual accessories and personal items
such as a PDA or notebook, eyewear, mobile phone, radio, torch etc. The weights ranged from
3.5 to 7kg, and almost all of these pilots also carried a small bag. A brief review of jackets for this
project suggested the situation had not changed.
Thermal discomfort
When people feel either uncomfortably hot or uncomfortably cold they have ‘Thermal Discomfort’
and this has been found to have a negative effect on people’s concentration and stress levels (eg
Bridger 2003).
If the jacket fabric has a high resistance to the body’s water vapour this can impact on comfort
and the resultant risk of reduced concentration and fatigue etc as lack of sweat evaporation and
air flow across the skin contributes to over-heating. While the ladder climb is relatively rapid,
there is also the long climb to the bridge, with one pilot reporting a recent climb of 10 storeys.
If the jacket is not waterproof and the pilot becomes wet and cold at the beginning of their
pilotage or their shift they may not be able to get dry or warm during the entire shift .
Restricted vision
A wide or tall collar on a jacket and/or a jacket with an attached hood could easily restrict the
pilot’s vision to the ladder steps and to the pilot boat below them, placing them at increased risk
of miss-stepping or making other errors. Any collars that impinge on the following visual fields as
measured from a static head position may reduce vision in the climbing task*:
110 degrees to the left and right
40 degrees vertically upwards at the centre
70 degrees downwards from the centre
20
*Note. Visual fields vary between individuals, and these measures are based on the maximum
field of visions to design to as recommended by the relevant standard (EN 13921:2007).
Jacket profile/external shape

Another potential risk with some jacket designs is the outer shape, with the potential for externally
located fastenings becoming entangled or caught on a moving rope or heaving line etc during the
transfer, or restricting access through different accommodation ladder landings and gun-port or
side-opening doors, especially if the jacket’s pockets are full of bulky items.
Poor fit
Jacket sizing can also be a problem when users are not a ‘Medium’ or ‘Large’ size for each part
of their body, and this is common as body measurements are not closely correlated (Zehner
2008). For example a pilot may have a relatively large girth, but be of small stature. This can
result in the jacket being too long, and potentially interfering with hip and knee movements, as
well as the sleeve length restricting the hands. Alternatively a tall but very lean pilot will be forced
to wear an ‘Extra Large’ sized jacket that will be bulky and loose fitting around their waist and
chest which could interfere with ladder climbing.
There are not as many wet weather jackets designed for females as for males, and females often
have to compromise and use the ‘Small’ male jackets. Also as jackets may be worn with varying
amounts of clothing underneath, jackets will often tend to be relatively loose and bulky when worn
over summer clothes.
There clearly cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ in this important item as the wrong size and fit will
impair performance. Figure 7 highlights the wide variation in sizes in people, and the different
shapes and sizes that jackets should be available in.
Figure 7. Examples of male body variations as compared with one petite female (Diffrient et al 1974)
21
Jacket colour
From reviewing wet weather jackets available to both recreational and commercial mariners there
are many that are made in colours that would easily blend in with the water, including jackets in
grey, blue, dark green and white shades. Each of these colours would be difficult to see in an
emergency situation.
Figure 8. Mariner® jacket – low visibility colour
Floating position
None of the pilots that were interviewed could comment on their floating position in their wet
weather jacket with integrated PFD as compared with just a PFD as they had never been in the
water with their jacket.
Those pilots that currently have an EPIRB/PLB commonly still have the 121.5MHz so will need to
update these for the changes in frequencies due in February 2009.
The only potential known risk with PLBs may be:

if they are inadvertently activated such as with water entering the pocket.
The design of the PLBs aerial/transmitter can also be an issue, as ideally the aerial is positioned
“…(vertically… etc) to achieve the best possible signal/transmission.” One 121.5MHz PLB
observed was positioned in a chest pocket, and had a long flexible ‘aerial’ designed to fit around
the collar of the pilot’s wet weather jacket so that the signal could be transmitted. It is assumed
aerials on the newer 406 transmitters could also be designed in this manner to facilitate
transmissions?
22
4.3 Benefits of PFDs, jackets & PLBs in the transfer

Increased survival rates with PFDs

“PFDs dramatically improve the chances of survival when in the water” according to a recent
study (NMSC 2006), and a boating report found that twice as many PFD wearers surviving as
compared to non-PFD wearers (NMSC 2008). These studies point to a range of conditions that
increase risk of drowning, including:
Environmental conditions
high swell or breaking waves situations
strong currents and tidal flows
wind or severe weather conditions
restricted visibility eg at night
cold water and/or air temperatures &
bar crossings
Area of operation
remote/isolated areas
distance from shore
offshore/open waters
Propensity to take risks

complacency of experienced boaters and “sense of invincibility”
risk taking is a source of fun and excitement for the individual
sub-groups where their occupation or community makes them have less regard for the
weather
Australian pilots often work under the environmental conditions that have been identified in the
above study, as well as many pilots operating in remote areas, and often a long way from shore.
The issue regarding risk-taking may also be a factor for some pilots given the nature of their work
and the risks inherent in their work. This evidence makes it clear that PFDs are relevant and of
great benefit to pilots and their ladder transfer task.
A pilot wearing a PFD with the equivalent or greater buoyancy as required than an Australian
Standard Type 1 should be able to float with their head above water, even when unconscious,
with a 150N jacket providing approximately 15kg of upward lift. According to PFD suppliers, an
adult generally requires between 3.5 – 5.5kg of buoyancy to keep their head above water.
If conscious, the PFD allows the pilot to adopt the recommended ‘Heat Escape Lessening
Posture (known as H.E.L.P.) to reduce heat loss from their body. Immersion in cold water causes
the body to lose heat up to 25 times faster than normal (NSW Maritime 2007).
23
Figure 9. The H.E.L.P. posture (Waterways Authority NSW 2002)
While some pilots may be tempted to avoid using a PFD when the conditions are calm and fine,
the NMSC study of boating fatalities (2008) revealed that 77% of the incidents occurred in ‘calm
to moderate’ seas.
In addition to supporting the pilot, the PFD should increase their visibility. The standards specify
the required PFD colour, with 8 colours permitted in Australia (AS 1512-1996): 4 shades of
yellow, international orange, scarlet and 2 fluorescent colours (orange-red and yellow). These
colours have been found to be most readily identified from a distance and in the water.
Wet Weather Jackets
As marine pilots work in all weather conditions, the primary reason to wear the jacket is for
protection from wind, rain and seaspray. From interviews with Sydney Pilots (Weigall & Simpson
2005) a secondary use of jackets was to act as storage to carry the required, radio, eyewear,
mobile phones etc. Where the PFD is incorporated into the design of the jacket this is an
additional reason for jacket wearing.
There is a wide range of wet weather jackets available to pilots in Australia, with a variety of
different accessories such as strobes, lights, whistles etc. In some cases the signals require
manual operation, while others are automatically operated upon entry to the water. Given that a
pilot may be unconscious when they enter the water, the jackets of most benefit would have
automatically operating devices, provided any additional weight of the dev ice does not itself pose
a problem.
As with the PFDs, a high visibility jacket will assist others in locating the pilot.
According to current advice from AMSA Emergency Response Personnel (AMSA 2008b):
“There are two different satellite systems involved with the detection of PLB's:
One is a Geo-Stationary satellite and the other a Polar Orbiting satellite. When a 406MHz beacon is
activated the PLB is detected and processed in the following manner:
PLB Non-GPS fitted -
24
The Geo-Stationary satellite detects the HEX ID (unique registered ID code) within minutes.
The Polar Orbiting satellite calculates possible positions which will be within 2 circular areas of
approximately 5 km radius. This calculation takes on average 90 minutes, but in a worse case
scenario may take 5 hours.
To commence possible rescue activities and to resolve the ambiguity of the two 5 km radius areas, on initial
receipt of the Geo-Stationary satellite signal the RCC staff will ring the contact numbers that had been listed
with the PLB registration form to ascertain information that may assist with the search.
PLB GPS fitted -

The Geo-Stationary satellite detects the HEX ID, and a single position is calculated with an
accuracy of 120 metres within minutes.”
PLBs and EPIRBs have not surprisingly had a positive impact within the maritime industry, with
the NMSC attributing the reduction in fatalities to crew on fishing vessels in part to the
implementation of EPIRBs (Flapan 2008).
4.4 User evaluation & performance testing

Pilots’ reported criteria for selecting PFDs and wet weather jackets
Meetings with two groups of pilots were arranged to gain their feedback and experiences with
PFDs and wet weather jackets, and to seek advice on which features were most important. The
total number of pilots providing advice was 14, from two pilot employers, so while their comments
and experiences are useful they are not representative of all pilots or experiences at all ports.
The pilots completed written surveys regarding the design features they considered were
important and desirable to have in the PFDs and jackets as well as designs that they considered
were not important or not desirable. The survey provided design options to comment on as well
as space for the pilots to provide suggestions for additional features.
PFDs
The design features of PFDs that these pilots rated as most important were
Auto-inflating
An inbuilt harness
Reflective tape
Fitted with a strong point / D ring
Ease of donning
Not bulky around the neck
Provision of a strobe
Comfortable to wear – in and out of the water
Provision of a whistle
Provision of a crutch strap
Provision of other signaling aids (pilots listed: PLB, dye marker)
Provision for radio transmission
Fully tested to right a person in water
There were conflicting views regarding the value of crutch straps, strong points/D rings, and the
desire to easily check the gas cylinder, but otherwise the views were fairly consistent.
25
Wet weather jackets
The design features rated as most important or desirable with all wet weather jackets (including
those with integrated PFDs) were:
Waterproof fabric
Lifting harness
High visibility colour
Reflective tape
Ease of arm movements
Provision of a strobe
Provision of a whistle
Good vision when hood is on
Breathable fabric
Provision of fixed light
Location of pockets
Wrist seals
Features that were rated as not being important were : zip-out sleeves (with some pilots rating this
as being undesirable); crutch straps; and ease of checking the gas cylinder.
There was one commonly used wet weather jackets with an integrated PFD worn by most of the
surveyed pilots, plus one jacket with 2 different PFDs worn by the others. There were some
complaints about the fabric used in the integrated jackets with pilots reporting problems with
leaking and also that the jacket was bulky and heavy. Some of the respondents had only used
this brand so were unable to make comparisons with other brands. Three pilots reported that
their experience with the stand alone jacket had been positive, and the pilots recommended these
as a good lightweight jacket, despite some models lacking pockets. No other brands were
reported by these pilots.
General comments provided by pilots included advice that Velcro tended to catch on clothing and
damage it so should be avoided as a fastening where possible. While some pilots prefer to have
a wet weather jacket with the PFD integrated, others prefer the two to be separate.
Review of selected PFDs
A selection of PFDs was taken to the same two groups of pilots to demonstrate some design
features and to seek their input on the various options. The PFDs shown to pilots were all stand-
alone (ie not integrated into wet weather gear). The PFDs were selected as two of the brands are
currently already commonly used by pilots in Australia, and the other brand is widely used within
the Australian navy, customs and other large marine-based organizations in Australia.
Pilots were requested to look at each jacket, read the technical specifications, try them on and
make comments and provide feedback during the meetings. The following table provides a
summary of the pilots’ written and reported comments on these PFDs plus the author’s
comments.
26
Table1. Comments on provided PFDs (plu s illustrations where available)
Positive features Negative features
High vis colour for outer shell

Dark colour of outer shell
Fiddly buckle mechanism & lack of strong point
Strong point
PFDs that lack accessories such as strobes, lights

etc
Soft, flat, washable fleece at collar
Pocket for viewing CO2 cylinder

No reflective tape when un-inflated position (rear
view)
Side view – small female. This high cut style may

Strong point and easy to release clip not suit a larger busted woman as strap may cut
under the breasts.
27
Positive features Negative features
PFDs that are heavy to wear
Fluoro high vis colour
PFDs with bulk around the neck, restricting neck

movements
Lifting becket on rear of PFD
Large areas of retro-reflective tape
Belt secures PFD to waist
Harnesses fitted
28
As most of the pilots in the two groups had never worn their PFDs or wet weather jackets in water
they were unable to comment on how well their jackets worked. The pilots were not sure about:
how their body would be oriented in the water; the speed of their jacket inflation; if their torso and
face would be turned to allow their nose and mouth to be above the water; and if the jackets
would stay in position on their torsos and so provide the necessary support. The pilots agreed
that water trials with existing and new PFDs and wet weather jackets would provide useful data
and would assist them with decision-making for future purchases.
Performance testing in water
Methodology
Pilots from the same two employers were invited to participate in trials of PFDs and wet weather
jackets with integrated PFDs at a swimming pool. The methodology for this test closely followed
the testing methods as used in the relevant Australian Standard (AS 1512-1996) except for the
following differences:
The standard only require 5 people in the trials – we used 6 people
The standard requires the 5 people are a minimum weight of 40kg – our group ranged from
50 -115kg
The standard requires the subject to jump or fall from a height of 1m – our group jumped from
3m
The standard only requires subjects to wear swimming costumes – our group were generally
fully clothed
Other methodology used in this pool trial was:

Pilots were asked to volunteer their time and to bring their existing PFDs/ wet weather jackets
A diving pool 5 metres deep was booked for the assessments
The pool had platforms at the following heights: 1m, 3m, 5m, 7.5m & 10m
A pool lifeguard was contracted to closely supervise the group at the diving pool
A safety briefing on the assessed risks and the risk mitigation strategies was provided prior to
the exercise
Participants were filmed as they entered the water (with their permission) to assess the
response of the PFDs
The only instructions and advice given to the subjects were as follows:
They could enter the water whichever way they liked – eg using the steps, side of pool or
diving platforms
If entering the pool from a height, they should cross their arms over their chests to assist in
holding the jacket down as this would reduce the potential risk of injury or discomfort from the
jackets riding up their torso and possibly straining the neck
If entering the pool from a height, participants should step from the platform rather than jump
in order to keep their body oriented vertically for the easiest entry into the water
Pilots could wear whatever clothing they preferred, and were encouraged to undertake the
trials in all or some of their usual pilot clothing and footwear
Once in the water all subjects were asked to try to float face down to provide an additional
check of their device to turn them over and expose their nose and mouth
Prior to entering the water many participants were directed to tighten the fastening mechanism on
their jacket so that they could just fit a few fingers between their torso and fastening as the PFD
supplier present at the trial reported that they were otherwise too loose. The pilots reported that
they would not usually fasten the jackets this tightly.
The volunteers were 5 male marine pilots and 1 female non pilot, and their self-reported
measurements are provided in Table 2.
29
Table 2. Physical characteristics of the subjects
Subjects: Range Mean Median
Age 38 – 57 years 48.5 years 48 years

Weight 50 – 115 kg 89 kg 90 kg
Height 170 – 192 cm 181 cm 188 cm
Results
All subjects elected to enter the water from the 3 metre diving platform.
The tasks and user feedback are provided in the table on the following pages.
The most concerning trials were when the jacket failed to inflate at all (1 trial), and when the
jackets failed to support the face out of the water but held the person in a face down position (3
trials). The integrated jackets that held the face out of the water tended to hold the body in an
upright posture rather than slightly reclined posture, and this appeared partly to be the result of
the air bladders feeling spongy and not fully inflated. This may also be caused by t he position of
the inflated chambers? It is not known if the air chambers had moved to incorrect locations or if
this was some other design problem.
The trials also showed that all jackets will ride up the torso and fail to properly support the body
unless some form of strap around the legs or crutch is used. One PFD ended up around the
pilot’s neck, and failed to support his head out of the water, despite each jacket being held down
when entering the water. The pilots who trialled straps reported the most comfortable option was
a double thigh strap, fitted securely around the top of the legs. When no strap was used the
PFDs and jackets were pushed up the torso and ended up close to the neck, often placing
uncomfortable pressure on the neck.
Another problem that occurred in 2 trials was when a part of the PFD’s Velcro fastening failed to
open, resulting in the PFD becoming twisted over the shoulders. In each case the subject was
floated with her face exposed, but as one PFD became entangled with its strap this caused the
PFD to twist as well as causing pressure and discomfort on the subject’s chest and neck.
Recommendations from the trials
Participants in the trials were very concerned at their equipment failures and problems,
particularly as all the problems occurred in PFDs and/or those integrated with wet weather jackets
that are all currently in use by pilots at these two employers. The participants’ consistent advice
arising from these trials was:
Trial all gear prior to purchase
Always wear a strap to secure the PFD or jacket down against the torso, or the jacket will
ride up
Further investigate the models as used in the navy and other maritime areas as these all
worked well and held the participant’s with the face fully exposed, and were also
consistently the fastest to right the body
The illustrations below are from the user trials conducted at the Sydney Aquatic Centre at the end
of September 2008.
30
Figure 10. Pilot fully clothed, testing a jacket from 3m Figure 11. A range of jackets and PFDs used in the
trials
Details regarding each of the trials at the pool are outlined on the following pages in Table 3.
31
Table 3. PFD / Jacket performance in water
Clothing worn ‘Crutch’ strap? Comments & observations

Jacket type
Trial Nose,
No. & No Single Leg Inflated Symmetrical mouth and Correct Other / Ilustrations
subject strap chin out, location of
number with body PFD on body
reclined
backwards
1 Brand A Long pants, long - Yes, - No - - - “No inflation. CO2 cylinder fell out.
worn Jacket last serviced July 2008~. Like
integrated sleeved shirt
PFD swimming fully dressed. Not reassured
(Subject 1) to use this jacket”
~(ie 2.5mths ago)
2 Brand A Long sleeved top, - Yes, - Yes Yes Yes OK, but … “Zip impinged on neck and I felt lack of
worn buoyancy. Did not like it.”
integrated bathers
PFD
(Subject 2)
3 Brand A Long pants, long - Yes, - Yes Yes No No “Jacket rode up. Poorly supported. Had
worn to work to stay on my back. Don’t use
integrated sleeved top, boots
PFD (this jacket).”
(Subject 3)
Formal Safety Assessment - Safety Equipment Project – PFDs, Jackets & PLBs

Jacket type
Trial Nose,
reclined
backwards
4 Brand A Long pants, short - Yes, - Yes, Yes No Yes “Would not turn my head out of the
worn water. Then manually inflated it and
integrated sleeved shirt but
PFD limp would still not turn me over. Suggest
(Subject 4) cham alternative. I am not at all happy with
this jacket”
bers
5 Brand A vest Long pants, long None - - Manu Yes Yes No “Poorly supported. Don’t use this one.”
(Subject 3) sleeved top, boots al
model Felt he would slide out given the wide
arm holes and lack of fastenings (eg
- yes
crutch strap) to keep it in position.
6 Brand B Long pants, long None - - Yes, Yes Yes Yes “Given other PDFs from (the same
(Subject 1) sleeved shirt but brand) did not work well it is not reliable.
slow Inflation much slower than for (Brand D)”
Prepared by Fiona Weigall, © Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd, November 2008 33

Jacket type
Trial Nose,
reclined
backwards
7 Brand B Long sleeved top, None - - Yes No No No “Waist strap ended up under neck,
(Subject 2) bathers choking me. Uncomfortable. If
unconscious head would not be clear of
water. Do not use without a crutch strap”

Jacket type
Trial Nose,
reclined
backwards
8 Brand B Long pants, long None - - Yes Yes Slow No, jacket “Neck too tight – difficult to breathe.
(Subject 5) sleeved top, boots rode up Slow to turn onto back when face down
in water”
9 Brand C Long pants, long None - - Partly No Yes No “One side of the collar of the jacket failed
(Subject 6) sleeved top, to inflate as the Velcro fastening did not
sandshoes release, and the rear strap was pushed
to this side. Although I floated with my
head out, it was very tight and
uncomfortable over the left side of my
chest”.

Jacket type
Trial Nose,
reclined
backwards
10 Brand D Long pants, long None - - Yes, Yes Yes No, jacket “Well supported but needs crotch strap”
Vest sleeved top, boots fast rode up
(Subject 3)
11 Brand D Long pants, long - - Ye Yes Yes Yes Yes “Held the head back and high out of the
s, water. Twin crotch straps kept jacket
Vest sleeved top, boots
wo down and caused no discomfort in
(Subject 3) rn
crotch. Use this type adapted to specific
requirements”*

Jacket type
Trial Nose,
reclined
backwards
12 Brand D Long pants, short - - Ye Yes Yes Yes Yes “Good inflation, supported at correct
s, angle and comfortable. Good high vis
vest sleeved shirt
wo for use in terminals, and breathable
(Subject 4) rn
mesh. Recommend it”
13 Brand D Long pants, long - - Ye Yes, Yes Yes Yes “Very comfortable, good buoyancy. Very
s, good equipment, better than my Brand
vest sleeved top, boots very
wo B”
(Subject 5) rn fast
14 Brand D Long pants, long - -Yes, Yes
Ye Yes Yes “A small section of the neck Velcro did
vest sleeved top, but s, not release for a few minutes so this
wo section did not immediately inflate.
(Subject 6) sandshoes part of rn
neck
Despite this the jacket was still very
was
buoyant and easily kept me upright.
slow Unable to float face down at all”.
to
inflate
* Pilot recommends: radio pocket, MSIC pocket, EPIRB pocket, strobe pocket.
The user evaluations and performance testing indicates that to be effective PFDs should have the
following features:
must be worn with a strap between the legs to hold the device down and in the correct
position
leg straps are much more comfortable than a single crutch strap
the CO2 cylinder must suit the chambers for correct inflation
the jacket must be securely fastened around the torso
too much Velcro around the PFD cover can prevent the jacket from opening and inflating
This trial has also shown that pilots must not assume their gear is effective without first
conducting a water trial, and also co nducting routine checks. In addition the AS 1512 is not well
suited to the pilots’ requirements given they are likely to fall from a height of well over 1 metre, so
testing should be more stringent.
4.5 Cost benefits

There is clear evidence of the value of PFDs in reducing fatalities at sea.
The costs of most self inflating jackets currently used by pilots range from $230 to $620 plus
costs for the various accessories and CO2 cylinders etc, and there are many different brands and
models. By adding s pecial pockets, labeling, strobe, fixed light and other aids the price of a
relatively expensive PFD may be closer to $800, however this is dependent on the number
purchased etc.
A PFD manufacturer explained that the PFD lifespan varies according to its use and storage and
general care, however estimated that the first item to fail would be the air bladder, after
approximately 5 years of use. The table below therefore compares 3 different scenarios, with one
year representing an unlikely situation (just 1 year of use), and 5 years representing careful use
of the PFD.
Table 4. Cost per wear of $230 vs $800 PFDs
Years PFD No. of jobs per pilot Cost per job or ‘cost Cost per job or ‘cost
in this period* per wear’ per wear’
(PFD cost A$230) (PFD cost A$800)
1 year 325 jobs $0.70 $2.46
2 years 650 jobs $0.35 $1.23
5 years 1625 jobs $0.14 $0.49
*Number of jobs per year is based on data from an earlier study into pilot activity at 2 ports in NSW, and is
an average of jobs undertaken by an unlimited pilot per year. Other ports should substitute their own figures
for comparison.
These costs and the earlier evidence regarding risks suggest that even at $1.00 per use, a
lifejacket provides one of the best forms of insurance for the pilot should they fall from the ladder.
5. RISK CONTROL
5.1 Provision of PFDs, jackets & PLBs

The data reviewed for this report confirms that all marine pilots should routinely wear a PFD, and
the PFD should either meet or exceed the current requirements for a Type 1. However as the
user trials highlighted, the PFD must be carefully selected. This includes:
data from the manufacturer regarding their water trials
pre – purchase checks
a water trial – to see that the PFD will correctly inflate and will also hold the pilot’s body in the
required position.
ongoing maintenance and checks
Pilots should also ensure that they are always carrying the required safety accessories, either on
their wet weather jacket, or on their PFD when the wet weather jacket is not worn. This includes
having any equipment considered to be effective in assisting with a rapid rescue, such as strobes,
whistles etc as well as having reflective markings.
Given the evidence of pilot fatalities where the bodies were not located until it was too late , and
evidence regarding potential difficulties in locating a pilot who has fallen overboard, pilot vessels
and the pilots require systems to aid rapid recovery. The only system reviewed in this report is
the use of PLBs, and these clearly have benefits for the pilots. With the advances in technology
providing combined PLB and GPS capabilities, there appears to be a good case for most if not all
pilots to use PLBs, and ideally with a GPS device, during the transfers between vessels at sea.
AMSA has recently recommended that all ‘Coastal Pilots’ must have a 406MHz EPIRB fitted to
their PFD. While coastal Pilots can be a long way offshore and in relatively remote areas,
harbour pilots also face risks. Perhaps the harbour pilots ’ risks with the ladder transfer are more
related to weather conditions, high seas and heavy swells rather than remoteness? In any case
the decision to supply a pilot with a PLB should be based on the risk as assessed for their own
situation, including the specific conditions at each port or pilotage area.
Ideally each pilot would have their own set of equipment – PFD, jacket and PLB. This allows the
individual pilots to monitor the equipment for any wear and tear etc and places the responsibility
on individuals to care for their equipment as they are personally relying on it for their safety.
There is a foreseeable risk with equipment that is shared between pilots, where the responsibility
for correct maintenance and storage is not taken, and faults are not identified or reported. At
minimum it would seem reasonable that each pilot has their own wet weather jackets due to
sizing issues, and their own PFD due to the issues with maintenance and serviceability as well as
correct fitting.
5.2 Suggested selection criteria

Advice for both wet weather jackets and PFDs
Minimum requirements for all jackets and PFDs

The pool trials undertaken as part of this study highlight the importance of testing gear prior to
purchase and ensuring a comprehensive maintenance program is undertaken . The trials and
other data also demonstrate that jackets with integrated PFDs and the stand-alone PFDs require:
crutch/thigh straps for locating the floatation on the torso correctly
secure fastenings around the torso
strong lifting points (eg harnesses/lifting beckets)
inflation suited to the air chamber design
a suitable amount of retro-reflective tape, with an emphasis on parts likely to be floating
above the water (as illustrated in Figure 12)
Figure 12. Rear view of a pilot floating face down when his jacket did not right him. This illustrates that when a
PFD fails to correctly inflate and turn the body, no retro-reflective tape is seen. This jacket only has small strips
on the shoulders.
Minimum requirements for accessories

If the PFD is worn without a wet weather jacket, then the PFD should provide the features and
accessories as fitted onto or within the wet weather jackets (ie PLB, strobe, fixed light, whistle,
reflective tapes etc)
Different jackets have different accessories, and there should be a minimum list of aids deemed
to be useful for the pilot in their ladder transfer task. At present the typical jackets appear to
provide a fixed light, strobe light and a pocket for the pilot’s radio.
Location of emergency marine safety devices

Ideally the positioning of devices such as PLBs, strobes, fixed lights, whistles and any other
devices are located in the same or similar position on both the wet weather jackets worn by the
pilot and on their PFDs, so that they only have to remember that the PLB for example is in their
top right pocket or that the fixed light is on the top left side of their jacket, by the collar etc.
In addition it would be best if the locations of these aids were in the same location for all wet
weather jackets used by pilots so that if pilots move between different employers they do not
have to re-learn the locations of the items and can automatically and instinctively know where to
find them. This reduces the problems as seen when cars have controls on different sides of the
steering wheel and errors are made, slowing the person’s ability to accurately respond, especially
in an emergency situation.
Having some consistency in the jackets may also assist in manufacturing and in reducing their
cost. At present some pilot organisations have pockets and other accessories custom–made to
suit their requirements, however where only a small order is required, custom-made gear is
generally not a feasible option.
As well as providing suitable protection in the water and having signaling methods (eg whistle,
strobe, light etc) and other aids that assist in locating the pilot, a PFD suited to the task of
climbing the pilot ladder should have the additional features that allow safer boat transfers:
crotch or thigh straps to secure the PFD to the torso

harness with an attachment point for rescue and for use on the pilot boat track (or as is
now a requirement for Coastal Pilots, a ‘stainless steel ring or similar attachment’ –
Rusling 2007)
buoyancy of 150N or greater (as recommended by AMSA)
automatic inflation, with manual back up system
allow full range of movement in the neck, shoulders, elbows, hips and knees
come in a range of sizes to allow proper fitting, including for women
simple fastenings that can be undertaken with a gloved hand if gloves are worn by the
pilot
as lightweight as possible
high visibility covering and fitted with reflective material as per AS1512 (ie must have at
least 100cm squared of retro-reflective tape in various patches visible above the water
when the person is being floated)
no protruding parts that could become entangled in the ropes or heaving lines etc
suited to the wet weather jacket when worn together
a system that can be easily checked for maintenance
Figure 13. PFDs with different amounts of retro-reflective tape
Some of the recommended design factors for PFDs are outlined below.
Crotch straps
The pool trials conducted in this study confirm the findings of the inquiry into the fatalities and
injuries suffered during the Sydney to Hobart yacht race in the summer of 1998/1999. This
inquiry found that sailors who were not using crutch straps with their PFDs would often
experience the PFD riding up their torso to their neck and failing to provide suitable support. As a
result of these findings Yachting Australia now requires people in yacht races to wear PFDs with
a crotch strap. These straps can generally be retro-fitted using a simple clip-on device available
for costs of between $3 - $10.
In addition to the yachting association recommending crotch straps EMPA (2008) also advises
pilots that:
…”If a coat incorporates a lifejacket it should be fitted with a belt and a crotch strap to prevent it riding up
in the water.”
Figure 14. Crotch strap fitted to an Figure 15. Leg straps fitted to a SOS
inflatable PFD (Secumar 2008) Marine jacket (SOS Marine 2008)
Routine maintenance checks
In addition to allowing ladder climbing, other design features that would assist safety and be of
benefit to pilots include PFDs that are easy to check:
if a full gas cartridge is correctly inserted
if there is an activating pill in the inflation device
if the device is generally in good working order
The PFD should also be easy to manually inflate should the automatic method fail. According to
one PFD supplier, he encourages pilots to buy brands where the CO2 cylinder is easy to check to
see if it is screwed in correctly, rather than those located within the buoyancy chamber. The
method of cylinder attachment also differs. In the past they have been screw fit, but a new model
has a bayonet fitting for the cylinder. For example with the ‘window’ option on one PFD model,
there is also a picture-gram displaying either a red or green image to signify either incorrect or
correct fitting. Refer to the Secumar PFD as illustrated below (Secumar 2008).
Figure 16. Secumar lifejacket showing window to view inflation mechanism
Some new model lifejackets aim to reduce the risk of any problems to the inflation chambers with
strategies such as:
inflation chambers with 2 separate layers, should one become punctured
an additional cover over the PFD to further protect it from external damage
(eg Secumar Survival Duo Protect 2008)
There are also new designs that claim to be faster and more effective in righting the bo dy in water
as a result of new air chambers incorporated into the lifejacket design (eg Secumar 2008).
The automatically inflating lifejackets require special care and storage, so the issue of pilot
training in this device is essential to ensure it is working properly between the routine servicing.
One PFD supplier suggests the following tests:
“Test the PFD in water

Wear the PFD according to the instructions given;
Test it in water to ascertain how it performs because an approved PFD does not mean it will
perform well for you. All PFDs will provide the Upward Lift to float an adult but that does not mean
that all of them will float you in a safe position. It is important to look at the design of the PFD and
the type of fabric used.
Relax your body to allow the PFD to perform;
Make sure that your PFD offers you maximum performance in water in that it keeps your chin
above water & you can breathe easily. If your mouth is not well above the water, then you have to
get a new PFD that can meet the above requirements or one with more buoyancy and a better
design”.
(Safety Marine Australia Pty Ltd 2008)
Another major supplier of lifejackets and PFDs provides this advice to people purchasing
inflatable PFDs:
“Maintenance and checks
In order for an automatic inflator to work, three conditions must be met:
Firstly the CO2 cylinder must be correctly inserted and tightened. (This is a daily check in all manuals)
Secondly the CO2 cylinder must be full and of the correct type. (All CO2 cylinders are not the same,
there are instances where certain CO2 canisters with the correct thread will not fire on certain inflators,
always check with your supplier, your life may depend upon it.)
Lastly a bobbin pill must be inserted into the inflator as per the manufacturers’ instructions. Bobbins
should be replaced according to age and use.
All lifejacket inflators need regular daily checks. See your user guide for details”.
(http://www.lifejackets.co.uk)
Interaction with pilot bags/luggage
Many pilots now require notebook computers and their accessories, as well as their personal and
work-related gear (eg gloves, paperwork, torch, radio, binoculars, pens, mobile phone, reading
glasses, sunscreen, PDA etc). Where the pilot has long passages/pilotage areas they generally
have a separate bag carried onboard the vessel via a heaving line. However it is still common for
other pilots to carry a range of baggage on their person, including backpacks, shoulder bags and
‘bumbags’ around their waist, despite advice from EMPA, including:
IMO Resolution A.960 ‘Recommendations on Training and Certification and operational procedures for
maritime pilots other than deep-sea pilots’ provides for training in safe embarking and disembarking
procedures and personal safety training.
”EMPA recommends and encourage all pilots to observe the following:
1. Pilots should always wear their lifejacket and protective clothing correctly.
2. Never wear a bag or portable radio over your neck or arm while embarking or disembarking.”
PFD maintenance, servicing & stora ge
One of the considerations when selecting PPE that requires servicing is where and how it can be
serviced. Suppliers and manufacturers have different servicing requirements, with some
requiring the PFD to be serviced with them only or the warranty is voided, while others are more
flexible and allow for other ‘authorised’ agents to undertake the work. The recent requirements
for Coastal Pilots also require either the manufacturer or their authorised agent undertakes the
work.
Servicing PFDs is reportedly a problem in many smaller cities in Australia as they do not have
either the PFDs’ manufacturer or any authorised agents in the city. As the PFDs have CO2
canisters they are difficult to transport (with restricted access to air transport) and may be away
from the pilot for a few weeks. These requirements also make it more complex with pilot
organisations that cover large areas, such as in coastal Queensland and in Western Australia.
As one company is Tasmanian based there is always the problem wit h the canisters. To manage
this new CO2 canisters are not fitted during the service, but a member/s of the pilot organisation
has the role of fitting these. It is not known what training or instruction or supervision has been
provided to this person or persons. Other companies provide self-servicing kits for a cost of
approximately $50 (eg Hutchwilco), however given the recent requirements from AMSA, this does
not appear to be permitted for Coastal Pilots. Each state will also have their own laws regarding
servicing requirements.
This maintenance program undertaken by the pilots themselves should include careful storage,
and checks should include a visual assessment of the air chamber or bladder location, plus
testing for leaks in the air chambers.
To assist in PFD selection the NMSC has a National Register of Compliant Equipment that is a
register of products that have been approved as complying with the requirements of sections of
the Uniform Shipping Laws (USL) Code/Standard for Commercial Vessels. However at present
the register only has two PFD suppliers listed.
Accessories
As well as having a PFD, some jurisdictions place additional requirements on pilots regarding the
aids and marine safety devices they carry with the PFD, as outlined below in the ‘Advisory Note
to Coastal Pilots’ (Rusling 2007). This requires that the pilots’ PFDs must be fitted with the
following aids:
Wet Weather Jackets
From the evidence gathered and reviewed to date, when purchasing a jacket the important
features to be considered that can enhance a pilot’s climbing ability and safety with the transfer
include:
Fabric
waterproof
as lightweight as possible
low water vapour resistance (‘breathable’), especially for use in warm climates provide
ventilatory flow through the jacket
easy to clean
Colour
high visibility, plus retro-reflective tape in large areas
Construction / Cut
have a streamlined outer shape
allow full range of movement at the shoulder, neck, hips and knees
allow good vision when collar is up and hood is on (eg the maximum visual fields as taken
from a static head are: 110 degrees to left and right, 40 degrees upwards at the centre, 70
degrees downwards from the centre)
have various detachable internal linings to suit different weathers
pockets and other containers shaped and suited to carry specific safety items and personal
items (eg PLB, radio, glasses etc)
Size
suited and fitted to each user’s torso shape, girth, and arm length
including for women
Fastenings
easy to fasten with gloved hand (where relevant)
secure around the wrists
allow wrists and hands to be free of large cuffs etc when climbing
do not create pressure points on the body due to their position, hardness, bulk, adjustment
etc
that do not catch body or facial hair due to their design or adjustment etc
Some of these features are described below.
Adjustments for different weather conditions
Some jackets offer a model with removable sleeves, attached to the jacket with a zip. One pilot
service has reportedly used a model with sip off sleeves which has had problems with leaking at
the zip area.
For pilots working in areas with cool waters, it is assumed they would wear additional clothing or
other aids or equipment to provide them with protection. For example, in an AMSA Marine Order
ships that operate in latitudes south of 35 degrees should carry extra aids.
Breathability
Each manufacturer of wet weather jacket claims to have various special ‘breathable’ materials,
and these are marketed under various names, such as:
Musto - Gore-Tex
Burke – PB 20, PB 10 (Performance Breathable)
Henri Lloyd – TP2 Alpha
Each of these fabrics reportedly has membranes that allow perspiration and condensation vapour
to transfer through the fabric while preventing rain and sea water from entering the fabric.
However some pilots report that when they have been in torrential rain for a long period the fabric
will leak.
While the ladder climb itself is of very short duration, to reach the bridge pilots may have to climb
up to about 10 flights of stairs. Most pilots find wearing the jacket is the easiest way to carry it,
and they cannot leave it below at deck level as the pockets contain various aids and resources
needed at the bridge. When climbing 10 storeys in any weather people become hot and perspire,
so if this perspiration cannot be easily removed the pilot becomes hot , wet and uncomfortable.
Pilots claim that ships are becoming taller (with a longer distance to the bridge) and at the same
time are also becoming less likely to have lifts installed.
Some pilots reported having purchased jackets from bushwalking suppliers, selecting fabrics
reporting to be breathable. In this case the pilot should ensure the fabric is suited to the marine
environment as some fabrics state they will not work with salt water.
Pockets
Most pilots rely on their jackets to carry their safety accessories as well as personal items. The
placement and size and access to the jackets’ pockets may affect the pilot’s ability to both ascend
and descend the ladder. Typical pockets are located on the front of the jackets at the level of the
hip and upper thigh. When stiff or heavy items are placed in these pockets this can impact on hip
flexion that is required for climbing, and this weight can also exacerbate fatigue in the hip flexors.
Given the ladder climb combined with the need to climb up to 5 – 7 flights of stairs to reach the
bridge, the use of these pockets for storage can prove cumbersome.
One pilot service identified this problem and had pockets made on the sides of the jacket. While
this design has reportedly improved hip movements, there is now no comfortable location for the
hands to be warmed as the pockets are too far to the rear for comfort. Another potential problem
with this pocket location is that it makes the pilots’ outer shape much wider at the hips, and may
therefore affect their ability to climb through narrow spaces as well as changing their assumed
size when predicting how much space they need in restricted spaces and narrow doorways.
Ideally all loads carried in the wet weather jackets are both compact and lightweight, such as
having lightweight wet weather pants where appropriate.
When designing pockets the following ergonomic design factors should be considered:
items that must be reached most frequently should be in easy to access places such as
an external pocket on the left side of the chest, given most people are right-handed
pockets should allow a snug but not tight fit for items that must be moved in and out of
them, or the pockets should have easy to open tags/flaps
items that are only used on board the ship can be stored in the inside or harder to access
pockets
the loads of items in the pockets should be equally distributed across the body
for female jackets the chest pockets should suit the female form
weights should be carried on the torso in preference to adding loads to the neck area
include pockets suited to hand warming, positioned at the level of the lower abdomen
include a clear pocket for identification cards such as access cards
provide the pilot’s name and/or organisation on the front of the jacket for easy
identification
Reflectivity
All pilot wet weather jackets observed for this study had various types and quantities of reflective
materials sewn onto the fabric. The patterns and shapes of the reflective materials also varied,
with some only having small patches of tape on the shoulders, as compared with those with long
strips sewn on each side of the jacket including the hood and sleeves.
Jackets should have the maximum amount of reflective tape, provided the use of this material
does not restrict arm movements or increase the risk of the jacket developing leaks along the
stitching lines or make the jacket significantly heavier etc. PFD Type 1s require at least 100cm
squared of tape that is visible above the water (AS 1512-1996) and jackets should have at least
the same requirements.
In Australia tape can be bought in roles from boat supply shops for $10/metre. The suppliers
claim the tape is ‘SOLAS grade’ and will increase the detection range of lifesaving devices by 8 –
10 times compared with unmarked equipment. While the tape is adhesive, it is recommended
that the tape is stitched to fabrics and on uneven surfaces.
Colours
Jackets should be the same ‘high visibility’ colours as approved by the AS 1512 for PFD Type 1s.
This includes: 4 shades of yellow (canary, wattle, vivid and golden), international orange, scarlet
and 2 fluorescent colours (orange-red and yellow)
Sleeve and shoulder designs
The sleeve designs do reportedly affect the pilots’ climbing ability, with the articulated sleeves
being superior to the standard straight, tubular style sleeves. A pilot explained that the main
difference was noted when he reached up to the ladder and held the ropes. The fabric across the
shoulders and the shoulder stitching also affected the shoulder movement.
Some models provide special fabric and stitching around the most dynamic body areas such as
the elbows and shoulders. For example one model has ‘articulated elbow panels’ where the cut
of the elbow is designed to suit the elbow when it is in a slightly flexed posture, and the stitching
and fabric in this area appear designed to facilitate this with minimal resistance (eg see Figure
18).
Some jackets claim to enhance arm movements by having special fabrics sewn into the jackets.
For example Musto describe a ‘stretch Gore-tex’ membrane that is placed across the shoulders
that has ‘an elasticity of 30%, so provides the least restrictive, most breathable fabric for foul
weather gear’ (Musto 2008 as noted in Whitworths’ catalogue 2008). Musto also claim to have
jackets with “active ergonomic articulation in the sleeve”, related to the fabric and the sleeve
design.
Cuff/wrist fastenings
Jackets come with either velcro fastenings or elastic at the wrist or a combination, depending on if
there is a separate inner cuff. Pilots have reported that a firm fastening around the wrist reduces
the amount of water that runs from their hands and down their arms when they have their arms
elevated to climb the ladder, as well as reducing the wind. A ‘double cuff’ with velcro fastenings
appear to be the best of the two methods here as the velcro allows for a range of adjustments
and suits different wrist and arm dimensions while also ensuring a barrier from wind and water.
Jacket cut & shape
Given the wide range of sizes in any normal population such as pilots, different pilots are likely to
prefer one ‘cut’ of jacket over another. It is also reasonable to assume that female pilots will
prefer a jacket designed for the female form. From a review of websites and catalogues, only a
limited number and variety of wet weather jackets are designed for women.
One jacket design reported by one pilot to perhaps be a good combination has a relatively short
front section, to just hip height, but extends over the buttocks to the thigh – as illustrated in Figure
17.
Figure 17. Musto BR1 Channel Jacket, from Figure 18. Jacket with elbow panel designed
www.whitworths.com.au for easier elbow flexion
Some manufacturers provide different cuts to their jackets, including a ‘Slimline model’.
Some manufacturers encourage potential buyers to ‘build a coat’ by selecting from drop-down
menus on their website to select the following:
base colour of the coat
base fabric (including high viz, fire retardant etc)
top/yoke colour (ie shoulders and top of torso and back)
Accessories such as Retroflective Tape - Armbands & Shoulderbands
SOLAS Water Switched Light
Strobe
Reflective name badge
Ability to clean the jackets
A number of pilots reported being frustrated that their jack ets became easily soiled and marked
on the ladders, manropes, wires on gangways and from other structures. They reported that the
jackets were difficult to clean, and even the 8 or 12 monthly service did not clean most marks.
These markings are typically dark or black, so the high visibility colour is slightly reduced in area,
and reflective markings are also slightly diminished in effectiveness. Another issue related to the
ability to clean the jacket was that many pilots place importance on reaching the bridge and the
ship’s master looking neat and tidy, including with clean clothes.
Where the PFD is worn over the jacket, pilots like the PFD to also look clean and tidy, but these
are harder to clean as manufacturers warn of avoiding ‘harsh detergents or solvents’ to clean
them for risk of damaging the fabric.
Jacket accessories
Strobes
At present there are both manual and water activated strobes. While these have traditionally
been designed for use in emergency situations many pilots are reportedly now operating them
when they are working in darkness and in poor weather when they are walking on the pilot deck
and climbing the ladder.
The location of the strobe in these cases has created some debate amongst pilots. Some pilots
have the strobe positioned on the front of their jacket, while others find the strobe in this position
negatively impacts on their night and peripheral vision and the flashes make seeing the ladder
and their surroundings more difficult. Other pilots find the strobe can be kept deep inside a
pocket to reduce the brightness and level of illumination while still creating a visual signal through
the jacket fabric that is clear enough for the pilot boat crew and others nearby to locate them.
There has also apparently been some discussion about placing the strobe somewhere behind or
to the side of the pilot’s visual field so that it can be clearly displayed but not be too close to the
pilot’s eyes.
Some preliminary trials were conducted by one pilot organisation to compare the benefits of fixed
versus strobe lights. Results suggest that a fixed light is easier to home in on, while a strobe light
is most useful for seeing more approximately where the general location of the person is.
Figure 19. Figure 20.

This strobe is currently in use by some Aquaspec AQ98, the smallest approved
NSW pilots. (See Firefly3 SOLAS Waterbug lifejacket light in the world (See
Strobe Light at www.seasafe.co.uk) www.seasafe.co.uk)
PLBs and other electronic devices are not within the author’s areas of expertise, so only general
comments and suggestions can be provided.
According to the literature and Standards on PLBs and from talking to specialists in this area, if
PLBs are to be used to assist in locating personnel in the water t he models that appear most
suited to the pilot’s climbing task have the following features:
406MHz, plus 121.5MHz for homing
small, suited to fit securely into a pocket
lightweight
easy to activate with a gloved hand (where gloves are used)
simple to test and change batteries
& where possible, also water activated.
The 121.5MHz can be used to “home in” on the pilot, provided with both pilots and the pilot boat
crews are trained in its use. Pilot boats should therefore have an appropriate Direction Finder to
receive the frequency and to assist them in homing in on any rescue situation.
PLBs should meet the AS/NZS 4380.2: 2003 (Ref AS/NZS 2003 Part 2: – Personal Locator
Beacons (PLBs ). This includes the requirements under COSPAS-SARSAT specifications and the
IMO Resolution A.694(17). The device should provide manual activation, deactivation and self-
testing as under the AS/NZS, and must have the battery replaced by an authorized ser vice agent.
It must also include a homing transmitter capable of operating on frequency 121.5MHz for a
minimum period of 24 hours.
AMSA provide a list of the PLBs that are currently ‘approved’ and meet the requirements under
the relevant Australian Standards, and these are included in the following table.
Table 5. Approved 4 0 6 M H z P L B s ( P e r s o n a l L o c a t o r B e a c o n s ) ( w w w . a m s a . g o v . a u )
BRAND MODELS
PLB 100 GyPSI 406 (GPS)PLB 200/ PLB 201PLB 300 Res-Q-Fix
Aquafix/
Terrafix/Aerofix
(GPS Capable)
MT410/MT410G
406 XS, XS2 & XS-2 GPS XS-3
FASTFIND/ FASTFIND MAX

FASTFIND PLUS
For example, the GME model in the AMSA approved list has the following design features
according to their technical specifications as listed on their website ( www.gme.com.au)
MT410G, featuring an integrated 16-channel GPS receiver for sub -100 m satellite detection
accuracy.
Features
Fitted with NON-HAZMAT long life batteries
Digital 406 MHz, 5 Watt transmission plus 121.5 MHz homing signal
7 year battery life
COSPAS-SARSAT worldwide operation
7 year warranty
National & International approvals
Typical accuracy <5km
Sealed waterproof design (exceeds IP67)
High visibility strobe light
Retention strap and fully buoyant design reduces risk of loss
Unique patented technology- no warm up period
Complete with protective carry pouch
Featherweight, compact and robust construction
Specs: 410G: 250 grams, 135 x 71 x 38mm. Note, this is not a buoyant unit must be upright with antenna
vertical for best operations.
6. REFERENCES
Standards
AS 1512-1996, Personal flotation devices - Type 1
AS 1512-1996/Amdt 1-2005, Personal flotation devices - Type 1
AS/NZS 4280.2:2003, 406 MHz satellite distress beacons - Personal locator beacons (PLBs)
AS/NZS 4280.2:2003/Amdt 1:2005, 406 MHz satellite distress beacons - Personal locator
beacons (PLBs)
AS/NZS 4280.2:2003/Amdt 2:2006, 406 MHz satellite distress beacons - Personal locator
beacons (PLBs)
DR 06150 - Personal flotation devices - Part 1: General requirements
DR 06151 - Personal flotation devices - Part 3: Test methods
European Standard 13921, 2007, Personal protective equipment – Ergonomic principles
General references
AMSA 2008a, website re EPIRBS & PLBs
AMSA 2008b, Email advice from Emergency Response Personnel as reported by Roger Rusling
AMSA, 1999, Code of Safe Working Practice for Seafarers
AMSA, 2006a, Marine Orders Part 25
AMSA, 2006b, Marine Orders Part 54
Bridger R, 2003, Introduction to ergonomics, Taylor & Francis, UK
Diffrient N, Tilley A, Bardagjy J, 1974, Humanscale 1/2/3, MIT Press
European Maritime Pilots’ Association, 2008, Recommendations on Personal Protective

Equipment (PPE) and Clothing for the Marine Pilot, from website: http://www.empa-
pilots.org/recommedations/recom22.htm
Bureau of Meterology Australia, 2008, website
Ferguson S, Lamond N & Dawson D, 2005, Great Barrier Reef Coastal Pilots Fatigue Study,
prepared for AMSA.
Flapan M 2008 on website:

http://www.nmsc.gov.au/documents/Ausmarine%20East%202003%20Fishing%20Vessels.pdf
Flight Safety Australia, 1999, Hypothermia and survival
Haley C, 2007 & 2008, personal communications
Malley K, Goldstein A, Aldrich T, Kelly K, Weiden M, Coplan N, Karwa M & Prezant D, 1999,
Effects of Fire Fighting Uniform Design Changes on Exercise Duration in New York City
Firefighters, The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol 41, No 12, 1104 –
1115
Marine Safety Victoria, 2008, website
NSW Maritime, 2007, ‘You’re the skipper, you’re responsible’ brochure
NMSC, 2006, National principles to guide in assessing risks to determine policy on the
compulsory wearing or PFDs
NMSC, 2008, The Boating Fatalities in Australia 1999 – 2004 Report
Ontario Women’s Directorate, 2006, Personal Protective Equipment for Women
RFD, 2008, website, catalogues and personal communications (Jason Browne)
Rusling R, 2007, Advisory note to Coastal Pilots
Safety Marine Australia Pty Ltd, 2008, website 2008
Secumar, 2008, from: http://www.secumar.com/secumar/e/php/produkte.85.html and personal

communications (Graham Murray)
SOS Marine, 2008, website and sales material and personal communications (Ron Smith)
Stormy Seas, 2008, website, brochures and personal communications
The Daily Astorian, 2006, Bar pilot falls as he switches vessels
Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Regulation 2004, 2006, QLD government
Tribe Research, 2007, Marine Pilots Survey, unpublished report analyzing survey results,
prepared for AMPA
Waterways NSW, 2000, Safe Boating Handbook
Weigall F, 2006, Recommendations arising from a risk assessment of pilot ladder transfers, Asia -
Pacific Marine Pilotage Conference
Weigall F & Simpson K 2005, A risk assessment of the pilot ladder transfer task, Sydney Ports
Corporation & Sydney Pilot Service, unpublished report.
th
Zehner G, 2008, US Airforce Anthropometry, 44 Annual Human Factors & Ergonomics Society
of Australia Conference.

Part 4: PFDS, Wet Weather Jackets & PLBS: Ampa Safety Equipment Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part 4: PFDS, Wet Weather Jackets & PLBS: Ampa Safety Equipment Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMPA Safety Equipment Project

FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT

Part 4: PFDs, wet weather jackets & PLBs

© 2008 Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd

& thanks for advice and support from:

1.1 Project aims.......................................................................................................................6

1.2 Project methodology .......................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Using and applying this information and advice..................................................................8

1.4 Personal Protective Equipment as a ‘control’...................................................................... 8

2.1 Descriptions of marine safety equipment reviewed.............................................................9

2.2 Policies and procedures for safety equipment use............................................................10

2.3 Number of pilots using marine equipment ........................................................................12

2.4 Pilots’ beliefs regarding PFDs, jackets & PLBs.................................................................13

3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................................. 14

4. RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 16

4.2 Risks posed by safety equipment in the transfer ..............................................................18

4.3 Benefits of PFDs, jackets & PLBs in the transfer ..............................................................23

Personal Locator Beacons .................................................................................................24

4.4 User evaluation & performance testing.............................................................................25

4.5 Cost benefits ...................................................................................................................38

5. RISK CONTROL ................................................................................................................... 39

5.1 Provision of PFDs, jackets & PLBs...................................................................................39

5.2 Suggested selection criteria .............................................................................................40

1.2 Project methodology

Cost Benefit Analyses

Assessment of ergonomic principles

PPE and equipment selected for review

1.3 Using and applying this information and advice

1.4 Personal Protective Equipment as a ‘control’

‘Safe floating position’ is defined as:

Wet Weather Jackets

Personal Locator Beacons

2.2 Policies and procedures for safety equipment use

Lifejackets or Lifejacket/Coat Combinations should additionally be equipped with:

Wet Weather Jackets

Personal Locator Beacons

2.3 Number of pilots using marine equipment

Figure 1. Hammar hydrostatic valve inflation mechanism, from

Figure 2. Halkey Roberts Automatic Inflator Figure3. United Moulders Inflator

Wet Weather Jackets

Personal Locator Beacons

2.4 Pilots’ beliefs regarding PFDs, jackets & PLBs

Personal Flotation Devices

Entrapment in the cabin

Inadequate or ill-fitting buoyancy

Wet Weather Jackets

heavy jackets placing strain on the upper arms

Personal Locator Beacons

4.1 Likelihood and consequence of problems from PFDs, jackets

Figure 4. Predicted survival times in water (Flight Safety Australia, 1999)

Figure 5 below illustrates survival time of a person of ‘average build’.

Water Temperature Survival Time

Figure 5. Estimated survival times

1 January 2008 I July 2008

Figure 6. Sea surface temperatures as recorded for the BOM 2008

4.2 Risks posed by safety equipment in the transfer

Carrying luggage over the PFD

This requirement is so that:

Fit & support

Training in care of the PFD

Wet Weather Jackets

bulky and heavy, restricting easy movement

Jacket profile/external shape