In our February e-newsletter our Editor, Chris Cunningham, brings attention to a series of video clips created to encourage boaters to wear their life jackets. Chris points out that perhaps the videos do not go far enough in stressing the need to dress for immersion. Take a look at the videos and give us your thoughts on the subject.

Seems some people in the paddling industry have a cavalier approach to wearing PFDs. The kayak fishing group is shown wearing them only about half the time (national magazine photos). Regarding the general attitude in this article, I have to side with Chris. Personally I feel that individual body type, etc. has a profound affect on one becoming hypothermic. I've capsized in the North Pacific off Kodiak wearing just fleece top/rain pants under a PFD and casually re-entered my boat - and not changing for another hour. I've also seen a person in a complete survivor suit (the orange gumby suit) become hypothermic with 45 seconds of hitting the water. The old kayaking addage "Dress for the water not for the air" is well founded and for good reasons.

The clip is indeed well intentioned and somewhat educational as regards the effects of cold water - but not an especially good info clip for kayakers. But to be fair, it was not positioned as such. A savvy kayaker has many more options in clothing and skills than 9 people wearing sweats plunged into icy water.

The Coast Guard definition of any water temperature under 50 degrees is "arctic".

It is unfortunate that the Coast Guard recently announced that the term 'PFD' will be replaced by 'life jacket'. After years of use of the former by the paddling community the switch will generate some confusion.

There are a lot of nonswimmers who go paddling and put an unrealistic amount of trust in their PFDs when in fact a Type III PFD will not even have enough buoyancy to float them face up. The term "life jacket" is but more false reassurance.

Or, they will buy a stiff, bulky traditional "life jacket" (patterned after the old horse collars) and look bewildered when it rides up or comes off in rescue situations.

Neither bodes well for inexperienced paddlers in northern waters come the spring, aka 'the killing season'..

While I agree that the video did not go far enough...without a mention of dressing for immersion or even a reminder that without signaling equipment (or even with it) there's no guarantee that help WILL come much or less that it will come within the hour it takes for you to pass out. I guess they were going for the basics first...instead of telling boaters they should have on wetsuits (probably dry suits) on those randomly sunny and 75 degree days in Georgia in January because the water temperature is still 42 degrees they figured they may be able to talk them into life jackets. Maybe they were afraid people would write off the whole thing if they asked for too much.

I guess they're saying that there's a better chance of miraculous rescue if you have an hour than if you have a few minutes. This should have been voiced as dressed for immersion>just a pfd>no pfd instead of indicating that all is needed to survive is a pfd but their intentions were admirable and if people follow their advice then some lives will probably be saved.

Two years later, this editorial remains the most succinct and eloquent critique that's been written of the CWBC video and 1-10-1 gimmick. I have nothing against wearing or promoting the use of PFDs - I wear mine every time I paddle - something I've been doing since 1973.  However, I do have a big problem with any message that promotes PFD use at the expense of cold water safety and misleads the public into thinking that the problem of sudden immersion in cold water is less dangerous than it actually is.

Advancing the notion that a person can safely paddle on cold water simply by wearing a PFD is not only dangerous and inaccurate, it's also contrary to every bit of scientific research that's been conducted for the past 50 years.

Moulton Avery
Arlington, VA  

One of the central flaws in the CWBC presentation is clearly illuminated by the statement "I guess they're saying that there's a better chance of miraculous rescue if you have an hour than if you have a few minutes."

How a safety message is interpreted and received by the intended audience is critical to its efficacy. Survival charts are notorious for promoting the wildly inaccurate "you have x amount of time" message, and the CWBC video does nothing to clarify the picture.

Contrary to what is presented in the 1-10-1 concept, you don't "have" one minute to get your breathing under control. You have 1-3 minutes during which your breathing will be totally out of control.

You don't "have" 10 minutes of useful physical activity, you have a desperate race against time in which your physical ability declines dramatically with each passing minute, and the first thing to become numb and useless will be your hands.

As for the 1 hour, it's a theoretical number extrapolated from lab studies of average cooling rates for humans immersed in cold water. In a best-case scenario, everyone who hasn't already drowned is dead from hypothermia at the end of that hour. In reality, if you're physically incapacitated and floating around in your Type 3 PFD, you're very likely going to drown in short order. So you don't really "have" an hour.

A key part of the safety dilemma with kayaking has to do with the basic mental paradigm many paddlers have. Many see it as a basically safe, easy form of recreation...which it is if you paddle in warm, protected waters.

The problem is when this view is transferred to paddling in cold, unprotected waters. In those conditions, the sport would be much more appropriately viewed as akin to technical mountain climbing--with the same level of caution and sobriety.

Illusion, your notion of viewing cold-water paddling as akin to technical mountain climbing fits in perfectly with my idea of likening it (and all open-water/tidewater paddling) to blue-water sailing. Other analogs could apply but all imply the need for having an extensive body of specific knowledge of marine conditions, a properly-equipped craft, physical vigor, the skillset for maintaining on-water integrity and stability, and the wisdom to turn back or stay home. I likened the discipline to being a Jedi. The question is---will the sea kayaking industry ever understand this? Or will buying a sea kayak continue to be one's ticket to fun and "adventure"?

Yeah, it goes beyond sea kayaking. The typical modern person is ill-prepared for most encounters with nature. In his phenomenal book, "Deep Survival", Gonzales appropriately notes how most in modern society are like fish in a fish tank. We swim around carefree, and food magically falls into the tank. Modern society has been constructed to remove most risk and hardship.

We then go out into raw nature, and just don't have the training or background to deal with the extreme forces at work.

I don't think this is something that any one industry can combat...unfortunately. Nevertheless, discussion boards like this can be one small part of helping ourselves to become more familiar with the factors at play, and to learn from the mistakes of others, rather than learning the hard way.

Deep Survival tops my list as most thought-provoking book ever penned abput the wilderness.

Yeah, the goldfish go out into the wild, are tested, and "sleep through the test";
they return home, having learned nothing.

Glad to see there is another "Deep Survival" fan.

It really is an outstanding book; should be required reading for anyone who tackles the raw forces of nature, or anyone who faces struggles in life, or anyone.

I do many solo trips in deep wilderness, and I have found the concepts and paradigms and lessons from this book a wonderful guide. I re-read it before every trip, and it many times I have been in situations out there where one of the ideas from the book has come to mind and clearly kept me from having to learn the hard way.

Great point, Illusion. Nothing beats refreshing the material before each test. I've long been a proponent of studying the mistakes committed by others and the accidents that befall them, and credit publications like the American Alpine Club's annual report Accidents in North American Mountaineering and Charlie Walbridge's excellent River Safety Reports (American Canoe Association) with providing the climbing and paddling communities with information that, when heeded, has saved countless lives over the years.

Deep Survival, in my opinion, takes this process to a higher level by incorporating insights gleaned from research into subjects such as cognition, emotion, decision making, and the dynamics of human behavior in stressful or crisis situations. It's fascinating stuff. To a large degree, risk management and margin-for-error planning are dependent on knowledge of known hazards coupled with the ability to imagine both possible and probable adverse outcomes and subsequently make contingency plans to address them in the event that they occur - a process that is fundamental to safety.

By showing us how emotion can supersede, compromise, or even override cognition, the research and examples cited in Deep Survival argue for greater respect for the power and complexity of natural systems and, more importantly, the subtle fallibility of the human mind in such an unforgiving environment.

I've read Deep Survival cover to cover many times and have found no shortage of lessons to be learned. Ditto many of the excellent sources cited in the Selected Bibliography. Although I was aware of the trap and took specific steps to avoid it on expeditions that I led, Gonzalez was the first person I encountered who specifically pointed out the fact that mountaineering was one of the few - if not the only - sport in which participants celebrated victory at halftime (when they reached the summit) when, in fact, the most difficult and hazardous portion of the journey remained ahead of them (getting down the mountain and living to tell about it).

That's the sort of pithy insight that permeates the book, and it's a major reason that I recommend it so strongly to anyone who is interested in surviving - whether it's in an urban, rural, or wilderness environment.
Moulton Avery

You've all gotten away from the fact that w/o flotation you're screwed sooner. Also, the difference between a PFD and lifejacket is that a PFD will float you, but not necessarily face up whereas a life jacket will float you face up, even unconscious.

As a devout believer that immersion is the greatest enemy to paddlers of all stripes, I am relentless in all of my classes to dress for the water as no one really plans to capsize. In fact, I pointed it out to some renters the other day and I was informed that it was OK, they knew what they were doing. They were experienced sea kayakers...in their wellingtons and rain gear.

So Mark, what are we to do about a flotation device that will float us face up?

Good points, Mark. Virtually every news story I read about paddlers dying after a cold-water capsize describes them as "experienced" or "very experienced". Maybe they were, but that certainly doesn't mean that they were knowledgeable or safety-conscious. The terminology that the U.S. Coast Guard uses to describe buoyancy devices appears to be in a state of flux, with the term "lifejacket" beginning to be used interchangeably with PFD. I agree that any distinction needs to be based on real-world conditions.

In Essentials of Sea Survival, Golden & Tipton note that "To qualify for "life-jacket" classification in the UK, adult life-jackets must have in excess of 34lbs of buoyancy." Lesser devices are termed "Buoyancy Aids". On our side of the pond, the Coast Guard doesn't list a single device with buoyancy in excess of 34lbs. The closest ones are Type 1 Inflatable (33lbs), Type II Inflatable (33lbs, and a Type V - Special Use Device - Inflatable (22lbs to 34lbs).

The Coast Guard's information on "RECREATIONAL BOATING PFD SELECTION" is here: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5214/pfdselection.asp,
and the terminology, while it sheds no light on our life jacket vs PFD discussion, is pretty interesting. In the interest of space, I'll stick to Types I, II & III. Incidentally, no mention is made of supporting the wearer in a face-up position.

TYPE I PFDS / OFF-SHORE LIFE JACKETS:  Best for all waters, open ocean, rough seas, or remote water, where rescue may be slow coming.  Abandon-ship lifejacket for commercial vessels and all vessels carrying passengers for hire:

TYPE II PFDS / NEAR-SHORE BUOYANT VESTS:  For general boating activities.  Good for calm, inland waters, or where there is a good chance for fast rescue.

TYPE III PFDS / FLOTATION AIDS:  For general boating or the specialized activity that is marked on the device such as water skiing, hunting, fishing, canoeing, kayaking and others.  Good for calm, inland waters, or where there is a good chance for fast rescue.  Designed so that wearing it will complement your boating activities.

So we have Lifejackets, Life Jackets, Off-Shore Life Jackets, Near-Shore Buoyant Vests, and Floatation Aids, which leaves plenty of room for confusion. The Coast Guard seems to be aware of this, because they have the following disclaimer at the bottom of their page:

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

One thing I find particularly interesting is the recommended use for Type IIIs: "Good for calm, inland waters, or where there is a good chance for fast rescue."

The Coast Guard also has a Cold Water Survival link on their PFD page:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg5214/pfdselection.asp#DEFINITIONS

That section places all its emphasis on hypothermia, and makes no mention of cold shock, cold water incapacitation, or swimming failure. It also includes a typical survival timetable, which states, for example, that at water temperatures of 40F - 50F, the victim will be exhausted or unconscious in 30 - 60 minutes, and it gives an "expected time of survival" of 1-3 hours. This information is simply unrealistic and misleading and does little or nothing to promote cold water safety.

Among other inaccuracies, this sort of survival timetable treats "exhaustion" and "unconscousness" as if they were synonymous. In fact, exhaustion or physical incapacitation can occur in under ten minutes as a result of the chilling effect of cold on nerves and muscles. Unconsciousness due to hypothermia is a different phenomenon, a function of core temperature decline - specifically cooling of the brain - which takes much longer. Further confusing the issue is the fact that survival times are computed on an entirely different basis - the theoretical temperature at which heart failure would occur.

In terms of survival, the real world paints a much bleaker picture. Although the Coast Guard warns that "if your body temperature goes too low, you may pass out and then drown", cold water drowning very rarely has anything to do with hypothermia, and everything to do with cold shock, physical incapacitation, and swimming failure. With few exceptions, these will occur in under 30 minutes. The sobering truth is that in cold water, unless a person is very fat and can swim, without a buoyancy device they will drown, often immediately. There's a good reason why drowning due to cold shock used to be called "Sudden Disappearance Syndrome".

While this is an excellent argument for always wearing your buoyancy device (whatever type it may be), even one that supports an incapacitated person in a face-up position is very unlikely to prevent that physically helpless person from drowning if waves are present. A Type III may fail to do this even in relatively calm water. What's more, it's entirely possible for a person to lose the use of their hands within a couple of minutes following immersion in cold water. Picture reattaching your sprayskirt, pumping out your boat or, for that matter, paddling, while wearing boxing gloves on your hands. Unprotected cold water immersion is an immediately life-threatening event. That's the reality we should be presenting to all recreational boaters, particularly those in the paddling community.