Part 4: PFDs, wet weather jackets & PLBs PFD.pdfIS EN 13921:2007, page 5 PPE worn by marine pilots and other occupational groups is aimed at protecting the user from known hazards

AMPA Safety Equipment Project

FORMAL SAFETY ASSESSMENT

Personal Protective Equipmentin Marine Pilot Ladder Transfers

Part 4: PFDs, wet weather jackets & PLBs

prepared by

Fiona WeigallCertified Professional ErgonomistHealth & Safety Matters Pty Ltd

PO Box 707, Gymea, NSW 2227Ph: + 61 2 9501 1650

November 2008

AMPA Safety Equipment Project – Formal Safety Assessment – Part 4: PFDs, wet weather jackets & PLBs

Prepared by Fiona Weigall, © Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd, November 20082

Copyright

© 2008 Health & Safety Matters Pty LtdThis 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 anyuse as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiriesconcerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd, PO Box 707,Gymea NSW 2227, or to [email protected]

Disclaimer

The research conclusions are those of the author and any views expressed are not necessarily those ofAustralian Maritime Safety Authority, Maritime Safety Queensland, Tasmanian Ports Corporation orAustralian Marine Pilots Association.

The information provided in this document can only assist you in the most general way. Health & SafetyMatters Pty Ltd accepts no liability arising from the use of or reliance on the material contained on thisdocument. Before relying on the material, users should carefully make their own assessment as to itsaccuracy, currency, completeness and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain advice relevant totheir particular circumstances.



Acknowledgements

Thanks to the 90 pilots who responded to an online survey in late 2006 concerning laddertransfers 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 whoparticipated in interviews during the preparation of this report, including those from:

x New South Walesx Queenslandx Western Australiax Tasmania &x the ACT

Thanks too to the equipment suppliers and manufacturers in Australia and overseas of:x Wet weather jacketsx PFDs &x PLBs

& thanks for advice and support from:x Captain Chris Haley, Master Mariner &x Alison Bell, Certified Professional Ergonomist

Report Author

Fiona WeigallMasterPubHealth, BAppSc(OT), GradCertAppErg, GradCertAdultEd

Fiona Weigall is a Certified Professional Ergonomist and Branch Secretary of the Human Factorsand Ergonomics Society of Australia (NSW). She is also an Accredited Occupational Therapistwith a clinical background in occupational rehabilitation and injury management including in theareas 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 20years, including with an occupational health and safety regulatory body, WorkCover NSW. Shewas a founding director of Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd in 2000, and has been accepted as aconsultant researcher for the Australian Safety and Compensation Council’s ‘OHS ExpertResearch 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 illnesswithin industry.



Contents

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 6

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

1.2 Project methodology ..........................................................................................................6Formal Safety Assessments ................................................................................................6Assessment of ergonomic principles ....................................................................................7PPE 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.............................................................9Personal Flotation Devices ..................................................................................................9Wet Weather Jackets...........................................................................................................9Personal Locator Beacons ...................................................................................................9

2.2 Policies and procedures for safety equipment use............................................................10Personal Flotation Devices ................................................................................................10Wet Weather Jackets.........................................................................................................11Personal Locator Beacons .................................................................................................11

2.3 Number of pilots using marine equipment ........................................................................12Personal Flotation Devices ................................................................................................12Wet Weather Jackets.........................................................................................................13Personal Locator Beacons .................................................................................................13

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

3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................................. 14Personal Flotation Devices ................................................................................................14Wet Weather Jackets.........................................................................................................14Personal Locator Beacons .................................................................................................15

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

4.1 Likelihood and consequence of problems from PFDs, jackets & PLBs ..............................16Injury and incident data for pilot transfers ...........................................................................16

4.2 Risks posed by safety equipment in the transfer ..............................................................18Personal Flotation Devices ................................................................................................18Wet Weather Jackets.........................................................................................................19Personal Locator Beacons .................................................................................................22

4.3 Benefits of PFDs, jackets & PLBs in the transfer ..............................................................23Personal Flotation Devices ................................................................................................23Wet Weather Jackets.........................................................................................................24



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

4.4 User evaluation & performance testing.............................................................................25Pilots’ reported criteria for selecting PFDs and wet weather jackets ....................................25Review of selected PFDs ...................................................................................................26Performance 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 .............................................................................................40Advice for both wet weather jackets and PFDs ...................................................................40Personal Flotation Devices ................................................................................................41Wet Weather Jackets.........................................................................................................45Personal Locator Beacons .................................................................................................50

6. REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 53



1. INTRODUCTION1.1 Project aims

The aim of the AMPA Safety Equipment Project is to investigate the usability of selected personalprotective equipment (PPE) and marine safety equipment used by marine pilots in Australiaduring the pilot ladder transfer between the pilot vessel and commercial vessels. Thisinvestigation follows a ‘human factors’ and ergonomics approach as it focuses on the applicationand use of equipment in a given context, with consideration for the users, the influence of theenvironment, the organization of the task, work systems, and the interaction with otherequipment.

The results from these investigations will provide practical and evidence-based advice regardingPPE items that reduce risk, increase risk and/or have no effect on pilot safety during the pilotladder transfer. Pilots and their employers can then use this information to contribute towardstheir own assessments in managing and reducing risk in their specific work environments andwith their own pilots.

1.2 Project methodologyFormal Safety Assessments

The methodology used for these reports is based on both the ‘Formal Safety Assessment’ asused by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and on the requirements under Australianlegislation for Risk Assessment and Risk Management.

Both the Formal Safety Assessment and the Risk Management approach have the same keyelements:

Hazard identificationThis involves identifying hazards in tasks. In this project this step includes considering actual orpotential hazards when the equipment is used in the pilot transfer and hazards when theequipment is not used.

Risk assessmentIn this phase the likelihood and consequence of the hazards are assessed and the relativecontribution of the different factors that impact on this risk are evaluated and compared.

Risk controlRisk ‘controls’ or risk mitigation strategies are provided to address the assessed risks. In thesereports the control options have been evaluated by the users to reduce the risk of additionalhazards being introduced and to ensure the advice is sound and acceptable to the users.

Cost Benefit AnalysesThis issue is not often included in Risk Management models however it is included under the IMOFormal Safety Assessment. This step is also a useful part of the process to compare andcontrast the different control options as well as the potential cost of doing nothing.



Assessment of ergonomic principles

The methodology in this report also incorporates the requirements for selecting and comparingitems of PPE as outlined in the European Standard ‘Personal Protective Equipment – ErgonomicPrinciples’ IS EN 13921:2007. As this Standard explains:

“The application of ergonomic principles to PPE allows optimization of the balance between protection andusability.”

IS EN 13921:2007, page 5

PPE worn by marine pilots and other occupational groups is aimed at protecting the user fromknown hazards to their health and safety. However the PPE may also unintentionally create newhazards, as well as failing to properly counter the known hazards. Wearing and operatingdifferent marine safety equipment also has the potential to create hazards or to fail to operate asintentioned. Maintenance methods and testing schedules for all equipment can also influenceusability, 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:x biomechanical interactionx anthropometric characteristics (human sizing and dimensions)x thermal interactionx interaction with the senses – eg vision, hearing, touch

The assessments include an examination of the interaction between the different items of PPEwith each other and with typical functional tasks undertaken by the pilot. For example thisincludes the impact of helmet wearing while wearing a personal flotation device, or glove wearingwhen operating a marine radio.

PPE and equipment selected for review

In consultation with AMPA, a sample of PPE and equipment was selected for review. Therationale 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 (egreport by Weigall presented at Asia-Pacific Marine Pilotage Conference 2006).

Formal safety assessments have been prepared for each of the following items of PPE andequipment:

Part 1 FootwearPart 2 GlovesPart 3 Head ProtectionPart 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 withevidence-based material including data from peer-reviewed scientific journals plus informationbased on consultation with a wide range of users, subject experts, equipment manufacturers andequipment suppliers. The reports also provide user evaluation and performance testing of thePPE and other equipment where possible.



1.3 Using and applying this information and advice

The information from these assessments should contribute to an organisation’s own riskassessments and safety assessments, based on specific pilots and scenarios that are typical tothe pilots’ work. The information in these reports should not replace these important port specificand pilot specific risk assessments.

For this project and the assessments, the use of PPE and marine safety assessment wasrestricted to the pilot ladder transfer task. Task analyses revealed the steps in the pilot boardingand disembarkation as:

Boardingx Donning the relevant PPE (eg PFD, gloves, wet weather jacket)x Walking around the deck of the pilot vessel to the ladderx Reaching up then jumping or stepping onto the lower rungs of the ladderx Climbing up the ladder, grasping and releasing the hands on manropes or side ropesx Walking on the deck/within the commercial vessel

Disembarkingx Walking on the deck/within the commercial vesselx Climbing down the ladder, most commonly sliding the hands down the manropes on the

descent or less commonly holding the ladder’s side-ropesx 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 shortperiods. Theoretically all the PPE could be removed once onboard the ship provided thefootwear used during the transfer was replaced with alternative footwear. The PPE could also beremoved 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 differentlyto those observed for these reports, other hazards may be present, with different risks anddifferent 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. Thepreferred and optimal solution is of course to eliminate or to redesign the task to remove the riskor 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 lawin 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 andrelatively ineffective means of ‘controlling’ the risks associated with this task. However given thatthe most common transfer method and the internationally accepted method of undertaking pilottransfers is to use the pilot ladders, and most ports in Australia use this method, it is relevant thatthe 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. Marinesafety equipment is also important for the pilot as this can reduce the severity of the injury shoulda fall or other accident occur.



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 thebody, 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 ofthe water”

Australian Standard 1512-1996

While the terms PFD and lifejackets are often used synonymously by many maritime authoritiesin Australia and overseas (eg AMSA, Marine Safety Queensland, National Maritime SafetyCommittee and others) the term PFD will be used in this report to be consistent with theterminology in the current Australian Standards relating to these devices.

The Australian Standards define 3 different types of PFDs according to the amount of buoyancyprovided and other features, while other standards (eg European and international and SOLAS)have slightly different requirements. In this study PFDs meeting or exceeding the AustralianStandard for Type 1 PFDs were considered, with a focus on those currently used by the pilotsundertaking transfers at sea using the pilot ladder. It does not investigate lifejackets suited tohelicopter use.

Wet Weather Jackets

The term ‘jackets’ in this report refers to ‘wet weather’ or ‘foul weather’ jackets worn by pilots, andnot to dress jackets or jackets designed specifically for warmth or other functions. These jacketsmay or may not also incorporate a PFD. The jackets most commonly worn by Australian marinepilots were reviewed for this study.


The term Personal Locator Beacon or PLB is used in this report as it appears to be the mostfrequently used term by marine pilots when referring to an Emergency Position Indicating RadioBeacon (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 wherethe emergency device is used:

x EPIRBs – “Satellite emergency position-indicating radio beacon: A device designed orintended for use in the Maritime Mobile-Satellite Service……. to facilitate search andrescue operations”

x PLB - Satellite personal locator beacon: A device designed or intended for use in theLand Mobile-Satellite Service……. to facilitate search and rescue operations”

x ELT - Satellite emergency locator transmitter: A device designed or intended for use inthe Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite Service……. to facilitate search and rescue operations”



As outlined on the AMSA website, orbiting satellites are able to detect distress signals from theseand other radio beacons and the signals are relayed to Australia’s Rescue Coordination Centre(AMSA 2008). For this study a range of 406MHz EPIRBs designed for personal use wereconsidered, as the 121MHz EPIRBs are being phased out and will no longer be detected fromFebruary 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 thatprovide 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 buoyancyfor a person 60kg and over (AS 1512 - 1996), where 10 Newtons is equivalent to 1kg force. Thisis designed to maintain an unconscious person in a floating position with their head above thewater, and this type is generally recommended for offshore use, while the PFD Type 2 and PFDType 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 atSea (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 shipsregistered in Australia and also ships within the territorial seas of Australia provide specificequipment 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 pilotswear “any personal protective equipment required by the pilotage provider’s Safety ManagementSystem”. When pilots are on the pilot boat deck they must wear PFDs and harnesses as outlinedbelow:

8.1 Each pilot and crew member working on deck must be provided with a safety harness that meets therequirements of Australian Standard AS2227.

8.2 Each pilot and crew member working on deck must be provided with an inflatable lifejacket with selfactivating light and whistle that meets the relevant requirements of the International Convention for theSafety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).



The AMSA Marine Orders Part 54 were recently amended to allow inflatable lifejackets other thana SOLAS approved lifejackets provided they conform to any of the following standards:

x Australian Standard AS 1512-1996x International Standards Organization ISO 12402-1x European Standard EN 399-1993, Lifejackets – 275Nx European Standard EN 396-1993, Lifejackets – 150Nx New Zealand Standards NZ 5823:2005 Type 401

This change advised by AMSA is similar to the amendment made to the QLD TransportOperations (Marine Safety) Regulation 2004 (TOMSR 2006) whereby a lifejacket that meets orexceeds the requirements under the Australian Standard for PFD 1 can be accepted as a Type 1lifejacket. Victoria has also recently taken this approach to accepting lifejackets approved underother 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 capableof 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 regardingwhen the PFDs should be worn, as well as general policies regarding the lifejackets’ maintenanceschedule. To ensure that the PFDs are properly cared for as per the manufacturer’s advice mostorganisations kept detailed records of each device, tracking when it was serviced and when anyitems were replaced etc.

Lifejackets worn in helicopters have different requirements as they cannot be left in a self-inflatingmode.

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 issuedto them or that they purchased themselves. No specific policies regarding the jackets’ use wasreported by the interviewed pilots.


The decision to supply pilots with personal EPIRBs appears to have been up to each port andpilot organization. Pilots using boarding grounds in sheltered waterways appear less likely tocarry an EPIRB than those working in locations off the coast, although the provision of EPIRBsdid not consistently match this observation.



An ‘Advisory Note’ from AMSA issued in August last year (Rusling 2007) requires that CoastalPilots must now have a 406MHz EPIRB fitted to their lifejacket. It is not known if this requirementwill 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 marinepilots during the ladder transfer for the last 35 – 40 years (eg Haley 2007). The change to wearPFDs appears to have come about when the devices were developed in an inflatable design, asprior to this they were ‘inherently’ buoyant (ie permanently buoyant) making them a bulky load towear and making any manual tasks difficult to undertake because of restrictions to arm and neckmovements. Dress code for pilots also appears to have been more formal in the past, with manymale pilots reportedly wearing business suits, ties and dress shoes.

According to responses from a survey administered in late 2006, 96.7% of the 90 respondentsreported 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 whythe 2 pilots never wore a PFD and if there were unusual features of the ladder transfer orboarding 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 theywore a Type 2. Pilots reported also wearing “other” types, listing the following responses: CASAapproved; 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 bythe pilot responding.

From interviewing pilots following the survey it confirmed that the most commonly worn PFDs bymarine pilots in Australia are self-inflating, and meeting the Type 1 standard. These can beactivated by two different mechanisms:

x hydrostatic pressure, orx water reactions.

The hydrostatic type fires when it is submerged in at least 10cm of water and the makers claimthis gives better protection from random activation caused by moisture, rain or wave splash whencompared with bobbin type firing system.

Figure 1. Hammar hydrostatic valve inflation mechanism, fromhttp://www.lifejackets.co.uk/Lifejackets-

Automatic_Inflation_Devices.htm, with permission



The 2 different water activated firing systems are illustrated below, and both are activated by abobbin 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 inuse 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 (Tribe2007). (Note, in this survey the term EPIRB rather than PLB was used). Pilots in public portswere significantly more likely to carry an EPIRB than those pilots in private ports (p=0.000), with42% 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 andappropriate piece of personal protective equipment, and see the value that this has in the case ofa fall etc.

The use of wet weather jackets in wet weather is considered sensible when required. In fine andwarm 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 thoseworking offshore or in heavy weather conditions most interested in having them. Some pilotsworking in sheltered waterways appeared satisfied that they had not been issued with one.



3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

The three items being investigated in this study are all designed to reduce risk to health andsafety and to reduce the pilot’s exposure to the elements. However as part of this review, theitems and evidence surrounding each item’s use is being considered as ‘safety’ devices cancreate unforeseen or unexpected hazards for the user.

Potential or actual hazards in the use of PFDs, wet weather jackets and PLBs when used in thepilot transfer or in a rescue situation of the pilot are described below.


Entrapment in the cabinAccording 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 outlinedbelow:

This entrapment described above can occur if water enters the cabin on a pilot vessel should itbecome swamped by waves, has an accident or is sinking. If the lifejacket inflates this makesescape from the cabin more difficult, and this is why helicopters do not allow water activatedinflatable PFDs.

Unplanned inflationA pilot reported that the inflatable PFDs also had the potential to be activated in error, and thatthis had happened to a pilot when the pilot was transferring on the pilot ladder. Climbing in aninflated PFD is much harder due to the restriction on the arms and the reduced visibility to thefeet.

Inadequate or ill-fitting buoyancyAnother potential hazard is if the PFD lacks sufficient buoyancy for the pilot. Pilots currently carrya number of work, safety and personal items in their pockets as well as often carrying bags (egwith laptops and other equipment) and wearing leather boots, so the total clothing and luggageweight 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 andmoving, 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 theirproblems with their outer jackets, and a study into firefighters appeared most relevant given theladder climbing task. In this study (Malley et al 1999) the following problems were identified:



x heavy jackets placing strain on the upper armsx jacket design resulting in mechanical resistance to arm movements (such as reaching

when climbing)x 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 designwith regards breathability etc

Each of the above factors is also relevant to the pilot’s task. Climbing the ladder and transferringbetween vessels requires rapid and coordinated movements, and any restriction can result in anerror. The effort required to move the body can lead to cumulative fatigue after climbing laddersand 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 andpersonal items stored in the jacket pockets.

With the marine pilot’s task, the jacket’s impact upon and relationship with any personal flotationdevice also requires consideration.

Poor jacket fit can also reduce safety by making the user clumsy and awkward, and women areparticularly at risk given that most jackets are designed in men’s sizes (Ontario Women’sDirectorate 2006)


There were no hazards to the pilot identified with the operation of a PLB, though pilots oftenreport that they seem to be carrying a lot of items that make their jacket heavy, requiringadditional physical effort and fatigue when undertaking a ladder transfer at sea.



4. RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Likelihood and consequence of problems from PFDs, jackets& PLBsInjury and incident data for pilot transfers

There is no central register of pilot accidents or incidents in Australia from which to properlyassess 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 mayhave reduced the victim’s time in the water and so increased their likelihood of survival. Forexample the case of the pilot who fell from the ladder in Oregon in early 2006 and was notlocated for more than 24hours, and by this stage he was deceased. His body had drifted morethan 100 miles from where he had fallen. It is understood that no PLB was in use (The DailyAstorian 2006).

An Australian example is the death of a deckhand who fell overboard from a pilot vessel in theTorres Strait in 2004 and was lost at sea. The findings from the recent inquest found reasonscontributing to his death included failure to wear a PFD (QLD Courts 2008), and it appears hewas also not wearing a PLB.

As well as risk of sudden death by drowning, the longer a person is in the water and the colderthe water temperature, the more chance of developing hypothermia, as illustrated in Figure 4below. According to some studies, people ‘past middle age’ are more at risk than youngerpeople, and this would account for most Australian pilots, given the average age of pilots fromapproximately 52 years (from a study in NSW, Weigall & Simpson 2005) to 55.8 years for GreatBarrier Reef Pilots (Ferguson et al 2005).

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



As well as water temperature and duration of immersion, other factors affecting survival times inwater are:

x build – including body mass to surface area and body fatx clothing type and quantityx posture and activity levelx weather conditions, such as wind and wavesx the areas of the body which are exposed.

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

Water Temperature Survival Time0 Deg C 45 minutes9.5 deg C 2 to 3 hours11 deg C 4 hours14 deg C 6 hours18 deg C 10 hours

Figure 5. Estimated survival times

A review of water temperatures around Australia in January (summer) and July (winter) illustratesthe variation between states and seasons, with water temperatures of 18 degrees and less beingtypical around the lower half of the continent in winter (ie south of latitude 25 degrees), and alongthe southern coast and extending around the southern corner of WA and the entire coast ofVictoria and much of SA in winter. Tasmanian waters are clearly the coldest, with temperaturesless 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



4.2 Risks posed by safety equipment in the transferPersonal Flotation Devices

Bulky stylesUndertaking the ladder transfer with a fully inflated jacket or with an ‘inherently’ or permanentlybuoyant jacket would be difficult as these designs are typically bulky with a large collar and couldrestrict the pilot’s downward vision as well as potentially affecting their neck and shoulder rangeof movement. Current pilots believe that prior to the development of inflatable life jackets nopilots wore PFDs as they were too cumbersome.

As previously noted, the auto-inflating models worn by pilots reportedly can inflate unexpectedlyshould they become wet, including on the pilot ladder.

Carrying luggage over the PFDThe impact of luggage or radios etc carried around the neck or worn on the back may affect theinflating device but this has not been tested. In the discussions with pilots no one reported havingtrialled their PFD and their luggage in the water to assess how well it supported them and themanner in which it supported them.

Floating positionA PFD Type 1 should hold the wearer in a ‘safe floating position’, with the body inclined back, andwith the mouth, nose and chin out of the water. While all PFDs meeting the standard should floatthe person, a PFD supplier reports that different peoples’ bodies can float differently. Theyexplain that apart from the weight of adults other factors that determine the upward lift are:

x Body fat;x Lung size;x The type & weight of clothing & the items in the pockets;x Water condition;x 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 bedesigned 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:

x “the PFD does not become displaced to the extent that it fails to comply with the requirements of Clause2.2.2; ” (regarding ability to float the subject) and

x “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 & supportAnother 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



were of a very tall and large build, with high Body Mass Indexes. As the standard sizing in thePFDs 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 Sydneyto Hobart Yacht Race was their tendency to be pushed up the sailor’s body in the water, and notproperly supporting the torso. This was particularly the case when a person jumped or fell intothe water or was being dragged in the water by their harness or other rescue device, and thisresulted in the PFD becoming ‘displaced’ and failing to provide suitable support. It is assumedthat pilots’ PFDs could equally be forced up their body should they fall or if they are draggedalong 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 acombination of elasticised material and/or webbing, and appear to be fastened in different waysto the jackets, such as sewn into the webbed belt that is inserted around the jacket to the steel Dring attachment point. However again, no one interviewed for this project knew how their jacketwould respond to a fall or jump from a height of 5-10 metres (as opposed to the 1m as requiredby the AS 1512). Practice in ‘man overboard’ type drills may be able to identify any furtherpotential problems with the pilots’ PFDs.

Training in care of the PFDThe amount and type of training provided to marine pilots regarding the care of their PFD appearsto be very variable. The areas of PFD inspection, maintenance and storage are critical and canseriously affect their usability, particularly for inflating models. As the European Marine PilotAssociation outlines on their website (EMPA 2008):

“The greatest requirements are on equipment that relies entirely on manual or automatic gas inflation asdamage to the inflation chamber(s), inflation mechanism or gas cylinder could result in total failure to providebuoyancy.”

If pilots or pilot organizations are not following the recommended service schedule or failing tocorrectly 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 intothe boot of the car, the device can deteriorate more rapidly than if hung in a dry and ventilatedplace.

Damage to PFDsOne pilot reported an incident where a colleague inflated his jacket just prior to a service and oneof the air chambers had become dislodged from its usual position and moved into the jacket ’ssleeve. Upon inflation the chambers were filled asymmetrically with the largest volume being in asleeve. In this case the air chambers were positioned in the wet weather jacket using press studswhich had somehow become undone.

According to the pilot who witnessed this it would also be easy to incorrectly insert the chambersas the location of the press studs for properly locating the air chamber was not straightforwardand 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:



x bulky and heavy, restricting easy movementx too hot in summerx collar blocks visionx leaks at seamsx lacks pockets andx lacks accessories, such as signaling devices.

Restricted movementsMany of these jacket design factors can impact on the pilot’s ability to safely climb the ladder, aswell as climb the stairs to and from the bridge. Any restriction of movement caused by the jacketcould contribute to shoulder and arm fatigue and may even affect the speed of the movementwhen reaching ladders and ropes etc. A jacket to mid thigh length or longer could also impact onthe ease of hip movements when lifting the knees up. Should the pilot fall into the water, thejacket may also affect ability to move and swim.

Jacket weightA large number of pilots who were informally surveyed reported neck pain, and while the ladderclimb demands neck movements in the extreme ranges, some pilots also wondered if the weightand cut of the jacket and/or PFD and harness around their neck may also be contributing to thisdiscomfort. One theory is that the weight of the hood is pulling on the jacket collar and increasingthe 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 itemssuch as a PDA or notebook, eyewear, mobile phone, radio, torch etc. The weights ranged from3.5 to 7kg, and almost all of these pilots also carried a small bag. A brief review of jackets for thisproject suggested the situation had not changed.

Thermal discomfortWhen 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 (egBridger 2003).

If the jacket fabric has a high resistance to the body’s water vapour this can impact on comfortand the resultant risk of reduced concentration and fatigue etc as lack of sweat evaporation andair 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 theirpilotage or their shift they may not be able to get dry or warm during the entire shift .

Restricted visionA wide or tall collar on a jacket and/or a jacket with an attached hood could easily restrict thepilot’s vision to the ladder steps and to the pilot boat below them, placing them at increased riskof miss-stepping or making other errors. Any collars that impinge on the following visual fields asmeasured from a static head position may reduce vision in the climbing task*:

x 110 degrees to the left and rightx 40 degrees vertically upwards at the centrex 70 degrees downwards from the centre



*Note. Visual fields vary between individuals, and these measures are based on the maximumfield of visions to design to as recommended by the relevant standard (EN 13921:2007).

Jacket profile/external shapeAnother potential risk with some jacket designs is the outer shape, with the potential for externallylocated fastenings becoming entangled or caught on a moving rope or heaving line etc during thetransfer, or restricting access through different accommodation ladder landings and gun-port orside-opening doors, especially if the jacket’s pockets are full of bulky items.

Poor fitJacket sizing can also be a problem when users are not a ‘Medium’ or ‘Large’ size for each partof their body, and this is common as body measurements are not closely correlated (Zehner2008). For example a pilot may have a relatively large girth, but be of small stature. This canresult in the jacket being too long, and potentially interfering with hip and knee movements, aswell as the sleeve length restricting the hands. Alternatively a tall but very lean pilot will be forcedto wear an ‘Extra Large’ sized jacket that will be bulky and loose fitting around their waist andchest which could interfere with ladder climbing.

There are not as many wet weather jackets designed for females as for males, and females oftenhave to compromise and use the ‘Small’ male jackets. Also as jackets may be worn with varyingamounts of clothing underneath, jackets will often tend to be relatively loose and bulky when wornover summer clothes.

There clearly cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ in this important item as the wrong size and fit willimpair performance. Figure 7 highlights the wide variation in sizes in people, and the differentshapes 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)



Jacket colourFrom reviewing wet weather jackets available to both recreational and commercial mariners thereare many that are made in colours that would easily blend in with the water, including jackets ingrey, blue, dark green and white shades. Each of these colours would be difficult to see in anemergency situation.

Figure 8. Mariner® jacket – low visibility colour

Floating positionNone of the pilots that were interviewed could comment on their floating position in their wetweather jacket with integrated PFD as compared with just a PFD as they had never been in thewater with their jacket.


Those pilots that currently have an EPIRB/PLB commonly still have the 121.5MHz so will need toupdate these for the changes in frequencies due in February 2009.

The only potential known risk with PLBs may be:x 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 PLBobserved was positioned in a chest pocket, and had a long flexible ‘aerial’ designed to fit aroundthe collar of the pilot’s wet weather jacket so that the signal could be transmitted. It is assumedaerials on the newer 406 transmitters could also be designed in this manner to facilitatetransmissions?



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 recentstudy (NMSC 2006), and a boating report found that twice as many PFD wearers surviving ascompared to non-PFD wearers (NMSC 2008). These studies point to a range of conditions thatincrease risk of drowning, including:

Environmental conditionsx high swell or breaking waves situationsx strong currents and tidal flowsx wind or severe weather conditionsx restricted visibility eg at nightx cold water and/or air temperatures &x bar crossings

Area of operationx remote/isolated areasx distance from shorex offshore/open waters

Propensity to take risksx complacency of experienced boaters and “sense of invincibility”x risk taking is a source of fun and excitement for the individualx 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 theabove 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 workand the risks inherent in their work. This evidence makes it clear that PFDs are relevant and ofgreat benefit to pilots and their ladder transfer task.

A pilot wearing a PFD with the equivalent or greater buoyancy as required than an AustralianStandard 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, anadult 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 LesseningPosture (known as H.E.L.P.) to reduce heat loss from their body. Immersion in cold water causesthe body to lose heat up to 25 times faster than normal (NSW Maritime 2007).



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 ‘calmto moderate’ seas.

In addition to supporting the pilot, the PFD should increase their visibility. The standards specifythe required PFD colour, with 8 colours permitted in Australia (AS 1512-1996): 4 shades ofyellow, international orange, scarlet and 2 fluorescent colours (orange-red and yellow). Thesecolours 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 forprotection from wind, rain and seaspray. From interviews with Sydney Pilots (Weigall & Simpson2005) 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 anadditional reason for jacket wearing.

There is a wide range of wet weather jackets available to pilots in Australia, with a variety ofdifferent accessories such as strobes, lights, whistles etc. In some cases the signals requiremanual operation, while others are automatically operated upon entry to the water. Given that apilot may be unconscious when they enter the water, the jackets of most benefit would haveautomatically operating devices, provided any additional weight of the device does not itself posea 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 isactivated the PLB is detected and processed in the following manner:

PLB Non-GPS fitted -



x The Geo-Stationary satellite detects the HEX ID (unique registered ID code) within minutes.x 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 casescenario may take 5 hours.

To commence possible rescue activities and to resolve the ambiguity of the two 5 km radius areas, on initialreceipt of the Geo-Stationary satellite signal the RCC staff will ring the contact numbers that had been listedwith the PLB registration form to ascertain information that may assist with the search.

PLB GPS fitted -x 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, withthe NMSC attributing the reduction in fatalities to crew on fishing vessels in part to theimplementation of EPIRBs (Flapan 2008).

4.4 User evaluation & performance testingPilots’ reported criteria for selecting PFDs and wet weather jackets

Meetings with two groups of pilots were arranged to gain their feedback and experiences withPFDs and wet weather jackets, and to seek advice on which features were most important. Thetotal number of pilots providing advice was 14, from two pilot employers, so while their commentsand 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 wereimportant and desirable to have in the PFDs and jackets as well as designs that they consideredwere not important or not desirable. The survey provided design options to comment on as wellas space for the pilots to provide suggestions for additional features.

PFDs

The design features of PFDs that these pilots rated as most important werex Auto-inflatingx An inbuilt harnessx Reflective tapex Fitted with a strong point / D ringx Ease of donningx Not bulky around the neckx Provision of a strobex Comfortable to wear – in and out of the waterx Provision of a whistlex Provision of a crutch strapx Provision of other signaling aids (pilots listed: PLB, dye marker)x Provision for radio transmissionx Fully tested to right a person in water

There were conflicting views regarding the value of crutch straps, strong points/D rings, and thedesire to easily check the gas cylinder, but otherwise the views were fairly consistent.



Wet weather jackets

The design features rated as most important or desirable with all wet weather jackets (includingthose with integrated PFDs) were:x Waterproof fabricx Lifting harnessx High visibility colourx Reflective tapex Ease of arm movementsx Provision of a strobex Provision of a whistlex Good vision when hood is onx Breathable fabricx Provision of fixed lightx Location of pocketsx Wrist seals

Features that were rated as not being important were: zip-out sleeves (with some pilots rating thisas 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 thesurveyed pilots, plus one jacket with 2 different PFDs worn by the others. There were somecomplaints about the fabric used in the integrated jackets with pilots reporting problems withleaking and also that the jacket was bulky and heavy. Some of the respondents had only usedthis brand so were unable to make comparisons with other brands. Three pilots reported thattheir experience with the stand alone jacket had been positive, and the pilots recommended theseas a good lightweight jacket, despite some models lacking pockets. No other brands werereported by these pilots.

General comments provided by pilots included advice that Velcro tended to catch on clothing anddamage it so should be avoided as a fastening where possible. While some pilots prefer to havea 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 designfeatures 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 arecurrently already commonly used by pilots in Australia, and the other brand is widely used withinthe 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 andmake comments and provide feedback during the meetings. The following table provides asummary of the pilots’ written and reported comments on these PFDs plus the author’scomments.



Table1. Comments on provided PFDs (plus illustrations where available)

Positive features Negative features

High vis colour for outer shellDark colour of outer shell

Strong point

Fiddly buckle mechanism & lack of strong point

Soft, flat, washable fleece at collar

PFDs that lack accessories such as strobes, lightsetc

Pocket for viewing CO2 cylinder

No reflective tape when un-inflated position (rearview)

Strong point and easy to release clipSide view – small female. This high cut style maynot suit a larger busted woman as strap may cutunder the breasts.



Positive features Negative features

Fluoro high vis colour

PFDs that are heavy to wear

Lifting becket on rear of PFD

PFDs with bulk around the neck, restricting neckmovements

Large areas of retro-reflective tape

Belt secures PFD to waist

Harnesses fitted



As most of the pilots in the two groups had never worn their PFDs or wet weather jackets in waterthey 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 andface would be turned to allow their nose and mouth to be above the water; and if the jacketswould stay in position on their torsos and so provide the necessary support. The pilots agreedthat water trials with existing and new PFDs and wet weather jackets would provide useful dataand would assist them with decision-making for future purchases.

Performance testing in water

MethodologyPilots from the same two employers were invited to participate in trials of PFDs and wet weatherjackets with integrated PFDs at a swimming pool. The methodology for this test closely followedthe testing methods as used in the relevant Australian Standard (AS 1512-1996) except for thefollowing differences:x The standard only require 5 people in the trials – we used 6 peoplex The standard requires the 5 people are a minimum weight of 40kg – our group ranged from

50 -115kgx The standard requires the subject to jump or fall from a height of 1m – our group jumped from

3mx The standard only requires subjects to wear swimming costumes – our group were generally

fully clothed

Other methodology used in this pool trial was:x Pilots were asked to volunteer their time and to bring their existing PFDs/ wet weather jacketsx A diving pool 5 metres deep was booked for the assessmentsx The pool had platforms at the following heights: 1m, 3m, 5m, 7.5m & 10mx A pool lifeguard was contracted to closely supervise the group at the diving poolx A safety briefing on the assessed risks and the risk mitigation strategies was provided prior to

the exercisex 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:x They could enter the water whichever way they liked – eg using the steps, side of pool or

diving platformsx 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 thejackets riding up their torso and possibly straining the neck

x If entering the pool from a height, participants should step from the platform rather than jumpin order to keep their body oriented vertically for the easiest entry into the water

x Pilots could wear whatever clothing they preferred, and were encouraged to undertake thetrials in all or some of their usual pilot clothing and footwear

x Once in the water all subjects were asked to try to float face down to provide an additionalcheck 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 ontheir jacket so that they could just fit a few fingers between their torso and fastening as the PFDsupplier present at the trial reported that they were otherwise too loose. The pilots reported thatthey would not usually fasten the jackets this tightly.

The volunteers were 5 male marine pilots and 1 female non pilot, and their self-reportedmeasurements are provided in Table 2.



Table 2. Physical characteristics of the subjects

Subjects: Range Mean Median

Age 38 – 57 years 48.5 years 48 yearsWeight 50 – 115 kg 89 kg 90 kgHeight 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 thejackets failed to support the face out of the water but held the person in a face down position (3trials). The integrated jackets that held the face out of the water tended to hold the body in anupright posture rather than slightly reclined posture, and this appeared partly to be the result ofthe air bladders feeling spongy and not fully inflated. This may also be caused by the position ofthe inflated chambers? It is not known if the air chambers had moved to incorrect locations or ifthis was some other design problem.

The trials also showed that all jackets will ride up the torso and fail to properly support the bodyunless some form of strap around the legs or crutch is used. One PFD ended up around thepilot’s neck, and failed to support his head out of the water, despite each jacket being held downwhen entering the water. The pilots who trialled straps reported the most comfortable option wasa double thigh strap, fitted securely around the top of the legs. When no strap was used thePFDs and jackets were pushed up the torso and ended up close to the neck, often placinguncomfortable pressure on the neck.

Another problem that occurred in 2 trials was when a part of the PFD’s Velcro fastening failed toopen, resulting in the PFD becoming twisted over the shoulders. In each case the subject wasfloated with her face exposed, but as one PFD became entangled with its strap this caused thePFD 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 jacketsthat are all currently in use by pilots at these two employers. The participants’ consistent advicearising from these trials was:

x Trial all gear prior to purchasex Always wear a strap to secure the PFD or jacket down against the torso, or the jacket will

ride upx 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 alsoconsistently the fastest to right the body

The illustrations below are from the user trials conducted at the Sydney Aquatic Centre at the endof September 2008.



Figure 10. Pilot fully clothed, testing a jacket from 3m Figure 11. A range of jackets and PFDs used in thetrials

Details regarding each of the trials at the pool are outlined on the following pages in Table 3.

Table 3. PFD / Jacket performance in water

Clothing worn ‘Crutch’ strap? Comments & observationsTrialNo.

Jacket type&subjectnumber

Nostrap

Single Leg Inflated SymmetricalNose,mouth andchin out,with bodyreclinedbackwards

Correctlocation ofPFDon body

Other / Ilustrations

1 Brand AintegratedPFD(Subject 1)

Long pants, longsleeved shirt

- Yes,worn

- No - - - “No inflation. CO2 cylinder fell out.Jacket last serviced July 2008~. Likeswimming fully dressed. Not reassuredto use this jacket”

~(ie 2.5mths ago)


Long sleeved top,bathers

- Yes,worn

- Yes Yes Yes OK, but … “Zip impinged on neck and I felt lack ofbuoyancy. Did not like it.”


Long pants, longsleeved top, boots

- Yes,worn

- Yes Yes No No “Jacket rode up. Poorly supported. Hadto work to stay on my back. Don’t use(this jacket).”

Formal Safety Assessment - Safety Equipment Project – PFDs, Jackets & PLBs

Prepared by Fiona Weigall, © Health & Safety Matters Pty Ltd, November 2008 33



Nostrap





Long pants, shortsleeved shirt

- Yes,worn

- Yes,butlimpchambers

Yes No Yes “Would not turn my head out of thewater. Then manually inflated it andwould still not turn me over. Suggestalternative. I am not at all happy withthis jacket”

5 Brand A vest(Subject 3)


None - - Manualmodel- yes

Yes Yes No “Poorly supported. Don’t use this one.”

Felt he would slide out given the widearm holes and lack of fastenings (egcrutch strap) to keep it in position.

6 Brand B(Subject 1)

Long pants, longsleeved shirt

None - - Yes,butslow

Yes Yes Yes “Given other PDFs from (the samebrand) did not work well it is not reliable.Inflation much slower than for (Brand D)”





Nostrap





Long sleeved top,bathers

None - - Yes No No No “Waist strap ended up under neck,choking me. Uncomfortable. Ifunconscious head would not be clear ofwater. Do not use without a crutch strap”





Nostrap






None - - Yes Yes Slow No, jacketrode up

“Neck too tight – difficult to breathe.Slow to turn onto back when face downin water”

9 Brand C(Subject 6)

Long pants, longsleeved top,sandshoes

None - - Partly No Yes No “One side of the collar of the jacket failedto inflate as the Velcro fastening did notrelease, and the rear strap was pushedto this side. Although I floated with myhead out, it was very tight anduncomfortable over the left side of mychest”.





Nostrap




10 Brand DVest(Subject 3)


None - - Yes,fast

Yes Yes No, jacketrode up

“Well supported but needs crotch strap”

11 Brand DVest(Subject 3)


- - Yes,worn

Yes Yes Yes Yes “Held the head back and high out of thewater. Twin crotch straps kept jacketdown and caused no discomfort incrotch. Use this type adapted to specificrequirements”*





Nostrap




12 Brand Dvest(Subject 4)

Long pants, shortsleeved shirt

- - Yes,worn

Yes Yes Yes Yes “Good inflation, supported at correctangle and comfortable. Good high visfor use in terminals, and breathablemesh. Recommend it”



- - Yes,worn

Yes,veryfast

Yes Yes Yes “Very comfortable, good buoyancy. Verygood equipment, better than my BrandB”


Long pants, longsleeved top,sandshoes

- - Yes,worn

Yes,butpart ofneckwasslowtoinflate

Yes Yes Yes “A small section of the neck Velcro didnot release for a few minutes so thissection did not immediately inflate.

Despite this the jacket was still verybuoyant and easily kept me upright.Unable to float face down at all”.

* Pilot recommends: radio pocket, MSIC pocket, EPIRB pocket, strobe pocket.

The user evaluations and performance testing indicates that to be effective PFDs should have thefollowing features:x must be worn with a strap between the legs to hold the device down and in the correct

positionx leg straps are much more comfortable than a single crutch strapx the CO2 cylinder must suit the chambers for correct inflationx the jacket must be securely fastened around the torsox 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 firstconducting a water trial, and also conducting routine checks. In addition the AS 1512 is not wellsuited to the pilots’ requirements given they are likely to fall from a height of well over 1 metre, sotesting 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 pluscosts for the various accessories and CO2 cylinders etc, and there are many different brands andmodels. By adding special pockets, labeling, strobe, fixed light and other aids the price of arelatively expensive PFD may be closer to $800, however this is dependent on the numberpurchased etc.

A PFD manufacturer explained that the PFD lifespan varies according to its use and storage andgeneral care, however estimated that the first item to fail would be the air bladder, afterapproximately 5 years of use. The table below therefore compares 3 different scenarios, with oneyear representing an unlikely situation (just 1 year of use), and 5 years representing careful useof the PFD.

Table 4. Cost per wear of $230 vs $800 PFDs

Years PFD No. of jobs per pilotin this period*

Cost per job or ‘costper wear’(PFD cost A$230)

Cost per job or ‘costper wear’(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 isan average of jobs undertaken by an unlimited pilot per year. Other ports should substitute their own figuresfor comparison.

These costs and the earlier evidence regarding risks suggest that even at $1.00 per use, alifejacket 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, andthe PFD should either meet or exceed the current requirements for a Type 1. However as theuser trials highlighted, the PFD must be carefully selected. This includes:x data from the manufacturer regarding their water trialsx pre – purchase checksx a water trial – to see that the PFD will correctly inflate and will also hold the pilot’s body in the

required position.x ongoing maintenance and checks

Pilots should also ensure that they are always carrying the required safety accessories, either ontheir wet weather jacket, or on their PFD when the wet weather jacket is not worn. This includeshaving 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, andevidence regarding potential difficulties in locating a pilot who has fallen overboard, pilot vesselsand the pilots require systems to aid rapid recovery. The only system reviewed in this report isthe use of PLBs, and these clearly have benefits for the pilots. With the advances in technologyproviding combined PLB and GPS capabilities, there appears to be a good case for most if not allpilots 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 totheir 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 morerelated to weather conditions, high seas and heavy swells rather than remoteness? In any casethe decision to supply a pilot with a PLB should be based on the risk as assessed for their ownsituation, 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 theindividual pilots to monitor the equipment for any wear and tear etc and places the responsibilityon 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 responsibilityfor correct maintenance and storage is not taken, and faults are not identified or reported. Atminimum it would seem reasonable that each pilot has their own wet weather jackets due tosizing issues, and their own PFD due to the issues with maintenance and serviceability as well ascorrect fitting.



5.2 Suggested selection criteriaAdvice for both wet weather jackets and PFDs

Minimum requirements for all jackets and PFDsThe pool trials undertaken as part of this study highlight the importance of testing gear prior topurchase and ensuring a comprehensive maintenance program is undertaken. The trials andother data also demonstrate that jackets with integrated PFDs and the stand-alone PFDs require:x crutch/thigh straps for locating the floatation on the torso correctlyx secure fastenings around the torsox strong lifting points (eg harnesses/lifting beckets)x inflation suited to the air chamber designx 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 aPFD fails to correctly inflate and turn the body, no retro-reflective tape is seen. This jacket only has small stripson the shoulders.

Minimum requirements for accessoriesIf the PFD is worn without a wet weather jacket, then the PFD should provide the features andaccessories 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 deemedto be useful for the pilot in their ladder transfer task. At present the typical jackets appear toprovide a fixed light, strobe light and a pocket for the pilot’s radio.

Location of emergency marine safety devicesIdeally the positioning of devices such as PLBs, strobes, fixed lights, whistles and any otherdevices are located in the same or similar position on both the wet weather jackets worn by thepilot and on their PFDs, so that they only have to remember that the PLB for example is in theirtop 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 wetweather jackets used by pilots so that if pilots move between different employers they do nothave to re-learn the locations of the items and can automatically and instinctively know where tofind 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, especiallyin an emergency situation.

Having some consistency in the jackets may also assist in manufacturing and in reducing theircost. At present some pilot organisations have pockets and other accessories custom–made tosuit their requirements, however where only a small order is required, custom-made gear isgenerally 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 ofclimbing the pilot ladder should have the additional features that allow safer boat transfers:

x crotch or thigh straps to secure the PFD to the torsox 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)

x buoyancy of 150N or greater (as recommended by AMSA)x automatic inflation, with manual back up systemx allow full range of movement in the neck, shoulders, elbows, hips and kneesx come in a range of sizes to allow proper fitt ing, including for womenx simple fastenings that can be undertaken with a gloved hand if gloves are worn by the

pilotx as lightweight as possiblex 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 waterwhen the person is being floated)

x no protruding parts that could become entangled in the ropes or heaving lines etcx suited to the wet weather jacket when worn togetherx 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 andinjuries suffered during the Sydney to Hobart yacht race in the summer of 1998/1999. Thisinquiry found that sailors who were not using crutch straps with their PFDs would oftenexperience the PFD riding up their torso to their neck and failing to provide suitable support. As aresult of these findings Yachting Australia now requires people in yacht races to wear PFDs witha crotch strap. These straps can generally be retro-fitted using a simple clip-on device availablefor costs of between $3 - $10.

In addition to the yachting association recommending crotch straps EMPA (2008) also advisespilots that:

…”If a coat incorporates a lifejacket it should be fitted with a belt and a crotch strap to prevent it riding upin the water.”

Figure 14. Crotch strap fitted to aninflatable PFD (Secumar 2008)

Figure 15. Leg straps fitted to a SOSMarine jacket (SOS Marine 2008)

Routine maintenance checks

In addition to allowing ladder climbing, other design features that would assist safety and be ofbenefit to pilots include PFDs that are easy to check:

x if a full gas cartridge is correctly insertedx if there is an activating pill in the inflation devicex if the device is generally in good working order

The PFD should also be easy to manually inflate should the automatic method fail. According toone PFD supplier, he encourages pilots to buy brands where the CO2 cylinder is easy to check tosee if it is screwed in correctly, rather than those located within the buoyancy chamber. Themethod of cylinder attachment also differs. In the past they have been screw fit, but a new modelhas 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 orcorrect 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 withstrategies such as:

x inflation chambers with 2 separate layers, should one become puncturedx 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 body in wateras 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 pilottraining 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 waterx Wear the PFD according to the instructions given;x 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 meanthat all of them will float you in a safe position. It is important to look at the design of the PFD andthe type of fabric used.

x Relax your body to allow the PFD to perform;x 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 toget a new PFD that can meet the above requirements or one with more buoyancy and a betterdesign”.

(Safety Marine Australia Pty Ltd 2008)

Another major supplier of lifejackets and PFDs provides this advice to people purchasinginflatable PFDs:“Maintenance and checks

In order for an automatic inflator to work, three conditions must be met:



x Firstly the CO2 cylinder must be correctly inserted and tightened. (This is a daily check in all manuals)x 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.)

x Lastly a bobbin pill must be inserted into the inflator as per the manufacturers’ instructions. Bobbinsshould 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 andwork-related gear (eg gloves, paperwork, torch, radio, binoculars, pens, mobile phone, readingglasses, sunscreen, PDA etc). Where the pilot has long passages/pilotage areas they generallyhave a separate bag carried onboard the vessel via a heaving line. However it is still common forother 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 formaritime pilots other than deep-sea pilots’ provides for training in safe embarking and disembarkingprocedures 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 & storage

One of the considerations when selecting PPE that requires servicing is where and how it can beserviced. Suppliers and manufacturers have different servicing requirements, with somerequiring the PFD to be serviced with them only or the warranty is voided, while others are moreflexible and allow for other ‘authorised’ agents to undertake the work. The recent requirementsfor Coastal Pilots also require either the manufacturer or their authorised agent undertakes thework.

Servicing PFDs is reportedly a problem in many smaller cities in Australia as they do not haveeither the PFDs’ manufacturer or any authorised agents in the city. As the PFDs have CO2canisters they are difficult to transport (with restricted access to air transport) and may be awayfrom the pilot for a few weeks. These requirements also make it more complex with pilotorganisations that cover large areas, such as in coastal Queensland and in Western Australia.

As one company is Tasmanian based there is always the problem with the canisters. To managethis new CO2 canisters are not fitted during the service, but a member/s of the pilot organisationhas the role of fitting these. It is not known what training or instruction or supervision has beenprovided to this person or persons. Other companies provide self-servicing kits for a cost ofapproximately $50 (eg Hutchwilco), however given the recent requirements from AMSA, this doesnot appear to be permitted for Coastal Pilots. Each state will also have their own laws regardingservicing 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, plustesting for leaks in the air chambers.

To assist in PFD selection the NMSC has a National Register of Compliant Equipment that is aregister of products that have been approved as complying with the requirements of sections ofthe Uniform Shipping Laws (USL) Code/Standard for Commercial Vessels. However at presentthe register only has two PFD suppliers listed.

Accessories

As well as having a PFD, some jurisdictions place additional requirements on pilots regarding theaids and marine safety devices they carry with the PFD, as outlined below in the ‘Advisory Noteto Coastal Pilots’ (Rusling 2007). This requires that the pilots’ PFDs must be fitted with thefollowing aids:

Wet Weather Jackets

From the evidence gathered and reviewed to date, when purchasing a jacket the importantfeatures to be considered that can enhance a pilot’s climbing ability and safety with the transferinclude:

Fabricx waterproofx as lightweight as possiblex low water vapour resistance (‘breathable’), especially for use in warm climates provide

ventilatory flow through the jacketx easy to clean

Colourx high visibility, plus retro-reflective tape in large areas

Construction / Cutx have a streamlined outer shapex allow full range of movement at the shoulder, neck, hips and kneesx 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, 70degrees downwards from the centre)

x have various detachable internal linings to suit different weathers



x pockets and other containers shaped and suited to carry specific safety items and personalitems (eg PLB, radio, glasses etc)

Sizex suited and fitted to each user’s torso shape, girth, and arm lengthx including for women

Fasteningsx easy to fasten with gloved hand (where relevant)x secure around the wristsx allow wrists and hands to be free of large cuffs etc when climbingx do not create pressure points on the body due to their position, hardness, bulk, adjustment

etcx 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 pilotservice has reportedly used a model with sip off sleeves which has had problems with leaking atthe zip area.

For pilots working in areas with cool waters, it is assumed they would wear additional clothing orother aids or equipment to provide them with protection. For example, in an AMSA Marine Orderships 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:

x Musto - Gore-Texx Burke – PB 20, PB 10 (Performance Breathable)x Henri Lloyd – TP2 Alpha

Each of these fabrics reportedly has membranes that allow perspiration and condensation vapourto 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 fabricwill leak.

While the ladder climb itself is of very short duration, to reach the bridge pilots may have to climbup 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 resourcesneeded 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 sametime are also becoming less likely to have lifts installed.

Some pilots reported having purchased jackets from bushwalking suppliers, selecting fabricsreporting to be breathable. In this case the pilot should ensure the fabric is suited to the marineenvironment 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. Theplacement and size and access to the jackets’ pockets may affect the pilot’s ability to both ascendand descend the ladder. Typical pockets are located on the front of the jackets at the level of thehip and upper thigh. When stiff or heavy items are placed in these pockets this can impact on hipflexion 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 thebridge, 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. Whilethis design has reportedly improved hip movements, there is now no comfortable location for thehands to be warmed as the pockets are too far to the rear for comfort. Another potential problemwith this pocket location is that it makes the pilots’ outer shape much wider at the hips, and maytherefore affect their ability to climb through narrow spaces as well as changing their assumedsize 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 ashaving lightweight wet weather pants where appropriate.

When designing pockets the following ergonomic design factors should be considered:x 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-handedx 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/flapsx items that are only used on board the ship can be stored in the inside or harder to access

pocketsx the loads of items in the pockets should be equally distributed across the bodyx for female jackets the chest pockets should suit the female formx weights should be carried on the torso in preference to adding loads to the neck areax include pockets suited to hand warming, positioned at the level of the lower abdomenx include a clear pocket for identification cards such as access cardsx 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 reflectivematerials 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 longstrips 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 materialdoes not restrict arm movements or increase the risk of the jacket developing leaks along thestitching lines or make the jacket significantly heavier etc. PFD Type 1s require at least 100cmsquared of tape that is visible above the water (AS 1512-1996) and jackets should have at leastthe same requirements.

In Australia tape can be bought in roles from boat supply shops for $10/metre. The suppliersclaim 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 recommendedthat 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, scarletand 2 fluorescent colours (orange-red and yellow)

Sleeve and shoulder designs

The sleeve designs do reportedly affect the pilots’ climbing ability, with the articulated sleevesbeing superior to the standard straight, tubular style sleeves. A pilot explained that the maindifference was noted when he reached up to the ladder and held the ropes. The fabric across theshoulders and the shoulder stitching also affected the shoulder movement.

Some models provide special fabric and stitching around the most dynamic body areas such asthe elbows and shoulders. For example one model has ‘articulated elbow panels’ where the cutof the elbow is designed to suit the elbow when it is in a slightly flexed posture, and the stitchingand fabric in this area appear designed to facilitate this with minimal resistance (eg see Figure18).

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 shouldersthat has ‘an elasticity of 30%, so provides the least restrictive, most breathable fabric for foulweather gear’ (Musto 2008 as noted in Whitworths’ catalogue 2008). Musto also claim to havejackets with “active ergonomic articulation in the sleeve”, related to the fabric and the sleevedesign.

Cuff/wrist fastenings

Jackets come with either velcro fastenings or elastic at the wrist or a combination, depending on ifthere is a separate inner cuff. Pilots have reported that a firm fastening around the wrist reducesthe amount of water that runs from their hands and down their arms when they have their armselevated to climb the ladder, as well as reducing the wind. A ‘double cuff’ with velcro fasteningsappear to be the best of the two methods here as the velcro allows for a range of adjustmentsand 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 toprefer one ‘cut’ of jacket over another. It is also reasonable to assume that female pilots willprefer a jacket designed for the female form. From a review of websites and catalogues, only alimited 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 shortfront section, to just hip height, but extends over the buttocks to the thigh – as illustrated in Figure17.



Figure 17. Musto BR1 Channel Jacket, fromwww.whitworths.com.au

Figure 18. Jacket with elbow panel designedfor 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-downmenus on their website to select the following:

x base colour of the coatx base fabric (including high viz, fire retardant etc)x top/yoke colour (ie shoulders and top of torso and back)x Accessories such as Retroflective Tape - Armbands & Shoulderbandsx SOLAS Water Switched Lightx Strobex Reflective name badge

Ability to clean the jackets

A number of pilots reported being frustrated that their jackets became easily soiled and markedon the ladders, manropes, wires on gangways and from other structures. They reported that thejackets 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 theability to clean the jacket was that many pilots place importance on reaching the bridge and theship’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 theseare harder to clean as manufacturers warn of avoiding ‘harsh detergents or solvents’ to cleanthem for risk of damaging the fabric.

Jacket accessories

Strobes

At present there are both manual and water activated strobes. While these have traditionallybeen designed for use in emergency situations many pilots are reportedly now operating themwhen they are working in darkness and in poor weather when they are walking on the pilot deckand climbing the ladder.



The location of the strobe in these cases has created some debate amongst pilots. Some pilotshave the strobe positioned on the front of their jacket, while others find the strobe in this positionnegatively impacts on their night and peripheral vision and the flashes make seeing the ladderand their surroundings more difficult. Other pilots find the strobe can be kept deep inside apocket to reduce the brightness and level of illumination while still creating a visual signal throughthe 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 orto the side of the pilot’s visual field so that it can be clearly displayed but not be too close to thepilot’s eyes.

Some preliminary trials were conducted by one pilot organisation to compare the benefits of fixedversus strobe lights. Results suggest that a fixed light is easier to home in on, while a strobe lightis most useful for seeing more approximately where the general location of the person is.

Figure 19.This strobe is currently in use by someNSW pilots. (See Firefly3 SOLAS WaterbugStrobe Light at www.seasafe.co.uk)

Figure 20.Aquaspec AQ98, the smallest approvedlifejacket light in the world (Seewww.seasafe.co.uk)


PLBs and other electronic devices are not within the author’s areas of expertise, so only generalcomments and suggestions can be provided.

According to the literature and Standards on PLBs and from talking to specialists in this area, ifPLBs are to be used to assist in locating personnel in the water the models that appear mostsuited to the pilot’s climbing task have the following features:

x 406MHz, plus 121.5MHz for homingx small, suited to fit securely into a pocketx lightweightx easy to activate with a gloved hand (where gloves are used)x simple to test and change batteriesx & where possible, also water activated.

The 121.5MHz can be used to “home in” on the pilot, provided with both pilots and the pilot boatcrews are trained in its use. Pilot boats should therefore have an appropriate Direction Finder toreceive 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 LocatorBeacons (PLBs). This includes the requirements under COSPAS-SARSAT specifications and theIMO 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 service agent.It must also include a homing transmitter capable of operating on frequency 121.5MHz for aminimum period of 24 hours.

AMSA provide a list of the PLBs that are currently ‘approved’ and meet the requirements underthe relevant Australian Standards, and these are included in the following table.

Table 5. Approved 406 MHz PLBs (Persona l Loca to r Beacons) ( www.amsa .gov . au )

BRAND MODELS

PLB 100 GyPSI 406 (GPS)PLB 200/ PLB 201Aquafix/Terrafix/Aerofix(GPS Capable)

PLB 300 Res-Q-Fix

MT410/MT410G

406 XS, XS2 & XS-2 GPS XS-3

FASTFIND/FASTFIND PLUS

FASTFIND MAX

For example, the GME model in the AMSA approved list has the following design featuresaccording 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 detectionaccuracy.

Featuresx Fitted with NON-HAZMAT long life batteriesx Digital 406 MHz, 5 Watt transmission plus 121.5 MHz homing signalx 7 year battery lifex COSPAS-SARSAT worldwide operationx 7 year warrantyx National & International approvalsx Typical accuracy <5kmx Sealed waterproof design (exceeds IP67)x High visibility strobe lightx Retention strap and fully buoyant design reduces risk of lossx Unique patented technology- no warm up periodx Complete with protective carry pouchx Featherweight, compact and robust constructionx 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 locatorbeacons (PLBs)

AS/NZS 4280.2:2003/Amdt 2:2006, 406 MHz satellite distress beacons - Personal locatorbeacons (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 ProtectiveEquipment (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 CityFirefighters, 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 thecompulsory 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 personalcommunications (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 PortsCorporation & Sydney Pilot Service, unpublished report.

Zehner G, 2008, US Airforce Anthropometry, 44 th Annual Human Factors & Ergonomics Societyof Australia Conference.

Documents

Part 4: PFDs, wet weather jackets & PLBs PFD.pdfIS EN 13921:2007, page 5 PPE worn by marine pilots and other occupational groups is aimed at protecting the user from known hazards