Number of PFDs in your dinghy

[LittleWing77]

One person = one PFD.

And everyone actually WEARING them.

[sv_pelagia]

Here in Canada, inflatables such as inner tubes, air mattresses etc are considered "water toys" and PFDs are NOT required. Probably the same for the Sevlor.

[sailingabe41ds]

Originally Posted by LittleWing77

One person = one PFD.

And everyone actually WEARING them.

I believe that is the safe and correct thing to do. Now, what I do is if I am in the harbor or in an anchorage/mooring area with lots of boats like Catalina and its calm and I am just going a short distance to shore...no PFD.
In a much less crowded area or if the anchorage is not completely calm, then PFD for all.

Abe

[wrwakefield]

Our vessel is US flagged and therefore subject to USCG inspection anywhere in the world. We have more than enough USCG approved PFDs onboard to meet (exceed) the 1 per person requirement.

Regarding PFDs in our dinghy, we don’t allow anyone entry to our tender unless they are wearing one. No exceptions... (Same with our sea kayaks and SUP.)

Is we ever venture to more tropical waters again, we might need to reconsider stowing the PFDs in the tender instead... Or just wearing the inflatables.

Just another take on the subject.

Cheers! Bill

[Shrew]

One PFD in the dinghy for each person. If you can't swim, we strongly urge you to wear it. Whether you choose to wear one or not is completely up to you.

[WoodenKetch]

In cold waters we usually wear our life jackets when in the dinghy and always have them aboard. In tropical waters we never wear them and usually don't even have them in the dinghy. Just one more thing to be stolen when left on shore. I'm not going to walk around town all day in a lifejacket....

[meirriba]

Originally Posted by OneKoolCat

How many lifejackets you have in your tender?

I am in the USA and my state basically says to do what the federal government says. Everything I find online is “All recreational vessels must carry one wearable life jacket for each person on board”. I would also be interested in how it is in other countries.

Cheers
Peter

In Israel regulations require a PFD for each person in the dinghy.
You need to actually wear it. Not wearing the PFD gets you a fine of about $1,000.
The PFD may be a sports vest type. No need for full jacket.
The above also holds for sailing dinghies like a Laser, beach cat or 470.

[Tudorsailor]

Originally Posted by WoodenKetch

In cold waters we usually wear our life jackets when in the dinghy and always have them aboard. In tropical waters we never wear them and usually don't even have them in the dinghy. Just one more thing to be stolen when left on shore. I'm not going to walk around town all day in a lifejacket....

If I was sailing in UK waters then I'd wear life jacket for all dinghy trips day or night.
In the Med where the water is warm we rarely use lifejackets in the dinghy. If the weather is bad and its night, then we would wear them but even then we'd be the odd ones out amongst all the other yachties.
TS

[jmschmidt]

One per person, even in the dink. But better by another pack or two of PFD's before you return to your tender because you can bet the ones you left in it have been stolen. Or take them with you and wear them to the restaurant or bar you'll be a standout.

Most jurisdictions require that vessels must adhere to both flag state regulations and local regulations. If some don't require any PFD's but you are a US flag vessel then US regs apply.

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Benz

When in the Nanny State (US and parts of Canada), one per person. In the free world (anywhere else), not a single one. None. Never.

I spent more than 20 years as a representative of the "Nanny State" as you like to call it doing search and rescue as a pilot in the Coast Guard. I would ask you to consider, before flippantly throwing out that term, what the impacts of going to a Somalia style "free world" model. Certainly I rescued a few people who were morons, although I wouldn't wish death on any of them as punishment. But lots of folks we rescued just got into bad situations that there was no way they could plan for. Most mariners seem to think that a "Nanny State" providing search and rescue services to prevent unnecessary deaths on the water is beneficial. I'm guessing even you wouldn't turn us away if you were in distress?

Oh, but providing search and rescue service isn't "Nanny State", it's just requiring life jackets be carried in all boats? Again I'd ask you to consider what you're putting me and my crews through when people don't wear life jackets. If we know about where you are, we'll find you (or your body) in a life jacket pretty quickly. No life jacket, you're almost impossible to find and we will have to expose ourselves to dangerous conditions for considerably longer to either find you or meet the standards of an exhaustive search before abandoning it. And then there's the mental impact of pulling a dead child out of the water who wasn't wearing a life jacket and performing CPR on their dead body for 30 minutes it takes to get to the hospital, I know a rescue swimmer who still suffers from PTSD from having to do that several times. Forget about the child themselves, who wasn't old enough to know better. Sure, we get paid big bucks to go put our life on the line and suffer from PTSD, so I guess we should just suck it up in order for you to have the freedom to, what, not take 10 seconds to put a couple life jackets in your dinghy? But the child, what about them?

Can you rail about how much your "freedom" is getting trampled by the "Nanny State"? Sure. Is it considerate or respectful of the people who put their life on the line to protect the freedoms that really matter to you? Maybe not so much? Just asking you to consider it from another viewpoint, that's all.

[Capt Gary]

Originally Posted by Marathon1150

In Canada, its one PFD per person in the vessel, including row boats etc.

Also:

A 20-year study by the Canadian Red Cross found that 50% of boating deaths could have been prevented simply by wearing a life jacket.

68.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I spent more than 20 years as a representative of the "Nanny State" as you like to call it doing search and rescue as a pilot in the Coast Guard. I would ask you to consider, before flippantly throwing out that term, what the impacts of going to a Somalia style "free world" model. Certainly I rescued a few people who were morons, although I wouldn't wish death on any of them as punishment. But lots of folks we rescued just got into bad situations that there was no way they could plan for. Most mariners seem to think that a "Nanny State" providing search and rescue services to prevent unnecessary deaths on the water is beneficial. I'm guessing even you wouldn't turn us away if you were in distress?

Oh, but providing search and rescue service isn't "Nanny State", it's just requiring life jackets be carried in all boats? Again I'd ask you to consider what you're putting me and my crews through when people don't wear life jackets. If we know about where you are, we'll find you (or your body) in a life jacket pretty quickly. No life jacket, you're almost impossible to find and we will have to expose ourselves to dangerous conditions for considerably longer to either find you or meet the standards of an exhaustive search before abandoning it. And then there's the mental impact of pulling a dead child out of the water who wasn't wearing a life jacket and performing CPR on their dead body for 30 minutes it takes to get to the hospital, I know a rescue swimmer who still suffers from PTSD from having to do that several times. Forget about the child themselves, who wasn't old enough to know better. Sure, we get paid big bucks to go put our life on the line and suffer from PTSD, so I guess we should just suck it up in order for you to have the freedom to, what, not take 10 seconds to put a couple life jackets in your dinghy? But the child, what about them?

Can you rail about how much your "freedom" is getting trampled by the "Nanny State"? Sure. Is it considerate or respectful of the people who put their life on the line to protect the freedoms that really matter to you? Maybe not so much? Just asking you to consider it from another viewpoint, that's all.

I'm happy to have my taxes pay for search and rescue services. I would gladly allocate more public money to the CG and other SAR operations. And I believe the mental health of people who have to see terrible things should be looked after as well.
But I object strongly to anyone deciding for me what is safe and what isn't. Trouble is, broad rules designed to keep "everyone" safe have to apply to the lowest common denominator, and once you start on them, there's really no place to stop. No government agency should have the right to tell me what to have in my private boat, any more than they should be able to force me to wear a seat belt in the car. Freedom is dangerous. I love it.
I think there's a balance between absolute freedom and nanny-state-dom, and I for one am willing to pay extra for freedom if it means better SAR services and less intrusion into my rights. Otherwise, the only way to ever actually be safe is to never leave the house.

[Scubaseas]

Originally Posted by Benz

When in the Nanny State (US and parts of Canada), one per person. In the free world (anywhere else), not a single one. None. Never.

Don't go to the pacific coast of Panama in the Santa Catalina area. Local cops use PFD enforcement as their retirement fund.

[BlueH2Obound]

Originally Posted by redneckrob

I spent more than 20 years as a representative of the "Nanny State" as you like to call it doing search and rescue as a pilot in the Coast Guard. I would ask you to consider, before flippantly throwing out that term, what the impacts of going to a Somalia style "free world" model. Certainly I rescued a few people who were morons, although I wouldn't wish death on any of them as punishment. But lots of folks we rescued just got into bad situations that there was no way they could plan for. Most mariners seem to think that a "Nanny State" providing search and rescue services to prevent unnecessary deaths on the water is beneficial. I'm guessing even you wouldn't turn us away if you were in distress?

Oh, but providing search and rescue service isn't "Nanny State", it's just requiring life jackets be carried in all boats? Again I'd ask you to consider what you're putting me and my crews through when people don't wear life jackets. If we know about where you are, we'll find you (or your body) in a life jacket pretty quickly. No life jacket, you're almost impossible to find and we will have to expose ourselves to dangerous conditions for considerably longer to either find you or meet the standards of an exhaustive search before abandoning it. And then there's the mental impact of pulling a dead child out of the water who wasn't wearing a life jacket and performing CPR on their dead body for 30 minutes it takes to get to the hospital, I know a rescue swimmer who still suffers from PTSD from having to do that several times. Forget about the child themselves, who wasn't old enough to know better. Sure, we get paid big bucks to go put our life on the line and suffer from PTSD, so I guess we should just suck it up in order for you to have the freedom to, what, not take 10 seconds to put a couple life jackets in your dinghy? But the child, what about them?

Can you rail about how much your "freedom" is getting trampled by the "Nanny State"? Sure. Is it considerate or respectful of the people who put their life on the line to protect the freedoms that really matter to you? Maybe not so much? Just asking you to consider it from another viewpoint, that's all.

Rob, you're wasting your breath on this one. Some people's minds are already made up. Thanks so much for all you did in the service. From one helo pilot to another.

[Orion Jim]

I never wear one but I do ensure I have one PFD per occupant. I’d rather be reminded to actually be wearing one than be fined for not having one. On the other hand my dog wore his religiously.