Dear Members
The Department of Transport (DoT) is seeking your feedback on proposed changes to safety equipment requirements for recreational vessels in WA. As key stakeholders it is vital windsurfers provide feedback on the proposed changes to the safety equipment requirements as YOU WILL BE IMPACTED by the proposed changes.
If our voice is not heard, we will be ignored.
Windsurfing Western Australia supports some of the proposed measures as they offer a better solution to the current requirements. We acknowledge that these measures are contentious in the windsurfing community and impractical for wave sailing. As there is no chance of the current requirements being reduced we see improvement as the next best option. Windsurfers will always be considered vessels and therefore treated differently to surfers and SUPs.
There are 3 ways to provide feedback
Complete the online feedback form (a guide to answering the questions is provided below)
Contact the DOT policy officer directly
Lisa Patrick
Marine Safety Policy Officer
Department of Transport
safetyequipreview@transport.wa.gov.au
Call them on 08 9435 7901
The following proposals ALL include windsurfers:
Link to Current Requirements - www.transport.wa.gov.au/imarine/kite-and-windsurfing.asp
Link to Survey - www.mysaytransport.wa.gov.au/safetyequipmentreview
Proposal 1 - SUPPORT (no real impact on windsurfing)
Vessel length will not restrict the distance a vessel can operate from shore.
Proposal 2 - SUPPORT
There will be no mandated safety equipment for any vessel in protected waters or within 400 metres of any shore in unprotected waters.
Proposal 3 - DO NOT SUPPORT (THIS IS OUR MAIN CHALLENGE)
It will be mandatory to carry an appropriately sized lifejacket with a minimum buoyancy of Level 100 (Type 1) for each person on board any vessel when operating more than 400 metres offshore in unprotected waters.
Suggested Feedback
There are currently no Type 100 windsurfing specific lifejackets available on the market as compared to the currently required Type 50 lifejackets. In line with the guiding principles, the following feedback is provided
PRACTICALITY
It is impractical to apply a requirement to a user group that they can't achieve in a safe manner. While there are many styles of Type 100 lifejackets on the market they are not suitable for windsurfing. Type 100 lifejackets are not recommended for highspeed/high impact sports such as windsurfing. The cost of replacing the Type 50 lifejackets windsurfers currently use if high.
RESPONSIBILITY
Windsurfers are best placed to determine the safety equipment which offers the most benefit for the condition in which they choose to sail. Windsurfing CANNOT be compared to recreational boating as windsurfer choose to sail in high wind and surf conditions outside the typical safe operating limits for recreational boating.
SIMPLICITY
There is no practical or easy way to comply with the requirements with readily obtainable and easy to maintained lifejackets specific design and suitable for windsurfing.
STANDARDISED
The safety equipment should be as uniform as possible across all vessel types.
EMERGENCY & SURVIVAL
Type 50 lifejackets currently worn before windsurfers offer a wearable, safe and practical means of assistance in an emergency or survival situation.
Proposal 4 - UNSURE or SUPPORT (more applicable to recreational boat owners)
When lifejacket carriage is mandated (Proposal 3), the wearing of a level 100 or higher lifejacket will be required for each person on any size vessel, if they are more than one year old and under the age of 12 years on board.
Proposal 5 - DO NOT SUPPORT
It will be mandatory to carry a Global Positioning System (GPS) enabled emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) on any vessel when operating more than 400 metres from shore in unprotected waters.
Suggested Feedback
Due to the size of EPIRBS currently on the market, PLBs offer a more practical solution as they can fit into a lifejacket pocket.
Proposal 6 - SUPPORT
A GPS enabled personal locating beacon (PLB) may be carried in lieu of an EPIRB provided the PLB is worn by at least one person on board at all times.
Proposal 7 - DO NOT SUPPORT
It will be mandatory to carry two in date hand-held orange smoke flares and two in date red hand-held flares on any vessel when operating more than 400 metres from shore in unprotected waters.
Suggested Feedback
4 smoke flares are very bulky and difficult to secure to a lifejacket. Preference is for electronic night signalling devices
Proposal 8 - SUPPORT
An approved electronic night signalling device may be carried in lieu of flares if a GPS enabled EPIRB or PLB is also carried.
Proposal 9 - UNSURE
It will be mandatory to carry either a HF or VHF marine radio on any vessel when operating more than 4 nautical miles from shore in unprotected waters (27 MHz marine radios to be phased out over a five-year period).
4nm or 8km is a very long way offshore and not a typical distance a windsurfer will sail offshore
Proposal 10 - SUPPORT
It will not be mandatory to carry a fire extinguisher on any vessel.
Proposal 11 - SUPPORT
It will not be mandatory to carry or have fitted a means of removing unwanted water from any vessel.
Proposal 12 - SUPPORT
It will not be mandatory to carry an anchor or line on any vessel.
The DOT's GUIDING PRINCIPLES for their paper are:
RESPONSIBILITY
The onus of responsibility for safety equipment will be predominantly on the skipper, mandating only where necessary.
PRACTICALITY
Safety equipment requirements should be practical, effective and enable operators to comply at a reasonable cost.
SIMPLICITY
The safety equipment that is required should be simple to use, easy to comply with, readily obtainable and easy to maintain.
STANDARDISED
The safety equipment should be as uniform as possible across all vessel types.
EMERGENCY & SURVIVAL
Only safety equipment which directly promotes survival or rescue of people will be mandatory.
Proposals 10, 11 and 12 are for the current requirement to carry this equipment to be REMOVED. At present Windsurfers are given an exemption from the requirements BUT under the new regime, there will be NO exemptions so we need to support Proposals 10, 11 and 12.
Done. This is part of my reply, happy for people to use
Hi Lisa , I wish to voice my concern at some of the proposed changes for windsurfing.
I have windsurfed for 30 years all over Australia and in all types of waters.
Any buoyancy jacket represents an increased risk to our sport due to the conditions that we operate in. You cannot swim after equipment after a crash or submerge under a wave. Bailing out of a jump at height would cause considerable injuries to us.
Any stupid regulation like this would be ignored in the interest of our safety and be a waste of police resources trying to enforce.
We do not operate like yachts even though we are sailing, we are not surfing even though we are in the waves and we can travel at speeds of 80kph but we are not jet skis.
Our sport is Windsurfing and we should have our own regulations.
Thank you
Thankyou
Will be done again and again and again and again until they realise how stupid and unsafe this is because they dont do it anyway probably...
Many thanks
P.S Plse post kitesurfing page and everywhere possible
Ta 
The DoT is hosting some face to face information sessions at the moment. If you want to emphasise how ridiculous these rules are then please head along to your nearest one www.facebook.com/flx/warn/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.transport.wa.gov.au%2Fimarine%2Fsafety-equipment-review.asp&h=AT0nOBoUNADGsChmShZ4dXTdAJVFtFGhCM50WdSNNog4BQp1ijf7LT0zMjCqaEaMxDhAneXZgZlxRwiRhb60dMGQmGvMkfqZ_-YWeqRELl485GwMlfy_iTaGhmSw
I already wrote this response on the kite forum:
Thanks WWA - I've already submitted, in line with your recommendation for 1-9
However, totally disagree with 10, 11, 12.
10 - DO NOT SUPPORT This only applies to inboard engines. Running an inboard engine with no fire extinguisher on-board is crazy
11- DO NOT SUPPORT A bucket or a bailer on a boat is not onerous and can save your life
12 - DO NOT SUPPORT Again, not onerous on a dinghy or anything bigger and can save your life. There have been cases of very small tenders being blown away with a motor failure. People have died.
Your responses will be taken seriously. If you were running a support boat at an offshore break, wouldn't you want these things on board?
Select to expand quoteElmo.. etc
Should have a couple of people turn up with all the gear (or simulations) they want you to carry attached to their bodies just to give a visual image of what they are suggesting.
Yeeah can anyone do that ? Unfortunately (or fortunately
) i am in exmouth&slightly south etc this time of year that not on the list of places or i would for sure.please do.thanx 
We had a great meeting with the Minister for Transport yesterday to highlight our objection the new DoT proposals around life jackets for windsurfing. The DoT agreed to reconsider the proposals in light of our objections and your feedback from the online survey at the end of last year!
Select to expand quoteI morts said..
Picture from a recently erected sign at Lilacs Albany 
Just dumb really. Could it be argued that Lilacs is part of an inlet? I wonder where else these signs will start appearing.
Recreational interests of typical DOT manager:
crocheting
chess
bird watching
... and when these morons feel like a bit of excitement, a lively game of lawn bowls
I think, they know this is a popular spot for kiters and windsurfers, so the notice is there to inform about the requirements for open ocean, not necessarily applicable at Lilacs. It doesn't actually say, that's what you must wear here.
But I could be wrong of course
Basically it comes down to how the Harbour is defined i.e. open water or not. I can't find anything online this morning but there is a map that shows open and enclosed waters in WA. The signage is up to date.
I will request clarification from the DOT regarding Lilacs being open water or not.
Thanks for that WWA 
Maybe mention that the windsurfers that sail in that part of the harbour sail in onshore breezes and there is a natural breakwater in the form of the weedbank that surrounds the sailing area. The whole reason we sail there is that the weedbank makes the water incredibly flat, at lowish tides you cannot actually sail over the weedbank.
I assume that DoT aren't doing these signs on a location-by-location basis. It will no doubt be a State-wide position they are taking.
In that case, we are going to have wear flotation and carry flares / PLB / EPIRB for;
- Lancelin break
- Pt Moore
- Oakajee
and probably many more.
It will be interesting to see if they start to enforce this.
These requirements are nothing new and been in place for around 20 yrs or more and apply throughout ALL locations in WA. The signs are a new initiative.
www.transport.wa.gov.au/imarine/kite-and-windsurfing.asp
Select to expand quoteWindsurfingWA said..
These requirements are nothing new and been in place for around 20 yrs or more and apply throughout ALL locations in WA. The signs are a new initiative.
www.transport.wa.gov.au/imarine/kite-and-windsurfing.asp
Thanks WWA.
The above link has a photo of a kiter but no photo of a windsurfer. Can a windsurfer be shown as a photo.
It might be useful if they recognised there is more buoyancy in a windsurfer's kit than a kiters, absent any life jacket but maybe that is something that you were unable to successfully persuade them of.
Further the following is really amateurish and fails to distinguish between kiters and windsurfers:
Cannot DOT amend this to distinguish between kiters and windsurfers which are quite different and the former is more dangerous than the latter. I fear more regulation is invited to the detriment of windsurfers if this distinction is not made with clarity and further advocacy.
It is interesting that you can paddle your surfboard or SUP to Rottnest and not infringe the rules as I read the website. WA marine laws do not apply to surfboards and stand up paddle boards and I note tow in surfing has exemptions. Why didn't wavesailing to a break offshore attract an exemption of sorts ?
Thanks again.
Select to expand quoteWindsurfingWA said..
Basically it comes down to how the Harbour is defined i.e. open water or not. I can't find anything online this morning but there is a map that shows open and enclosed waters in WA. The signage is up to date.
I will request clarification from the DOT regarding Lilacs being open water or not.
Can you please get clarification from DOT for ALL of Princess Royal Harbour as this will affect wherever people windsurf (or kitesurf) on the Harbour (which is approx 8km long X 4km wide). While you're at it can you please ask about nearby Oyster Harbour too?
.... and do DOT require life jackets and flares for sailing in knee to waist deep water (most of Lilacs) Bloody ridiculous....grrrr, I need a Snickers 
Select to expand quoteStretchy said..
.... and do DOT require life jackets and flares for sailing in knee to waist deep water (most of Lilacs) Bloody ridiculous....grrrr, I need a Snickers
According to current DOT lingo would require life jacket (min level 50S such as NP high hook vest) and flares OR if you've got a PLB then u don't need to carry flares unless you're over 5nm from shore.
Personally can't see it being a problem as ALL of Princess Royal Harbour has been defined as 'smooth waters' by DoT WA!!!
Refer to pdf doc at this link:
www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj_6MvIx5zpAhV4zTgGHYMSBu4QFjAAegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.transport.wa.gov.au%2FmediaFiles%2Fmarine%2FMAC_P_SW_AlbanyPrincessRoyal.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2oBb-rDNof8uF4BzzJd93M
How could the Harbour possibly be classified as 'unprotected waters' when its all 'smooth waters'???
Just had a long chat with DoT Marine Manager in Albany Noel Chambers and he insists that Princess Royal Harbour has been officially classified as 'protected waters' and he is going to follow up with me via email with regards to where this is officially documented. I also discussed the signage installed near the corner of Harding Rd (as per Morts post above) which has also been put up at the nearby kitesurfing launch area and explained that the signage is misleading as it doesn't mention Protected or Unprotected waters like the one below does (signs just indicate 'Distance from the mainland shore') and obviously implies that the Harbour is unprotected water because of where they are positioned on the Harbour foreshore and he has agreed it doesn't appear right and is going to look into it asap (Noel is a really nice guy and a former windsurfer who appears pretty keen to get back into it one day!)
Nice work GaZman, we have been in contact with the team here in fremantle too to get clarification. Will let you know how we go.
The feed back from the DOT is
"Princess Royal Harbour and Oyster Harbour are considered Protected Waters. Vessel entering King George Sound must be carrying the prescribed Safety Equipment."
Whilst this is the LAW, we strongly recommend ALL windsurfers carry as much safety gear as reasonably practicable. For example, if you are sailing in either harbour, a PDF and flares or PLB will not hinder your sailing and come in very handy if you need them.
I've bumped this old thread, because its got a lot of the relevant info as to what to wear.
DOT are currently doing regular visits to Safety Bay to do safety checks. If you sail Safety Bay regularly or intend to visit, make sure you're wearing/have the required safety gear for how far out you intend to sail.
