Sponsored by:

INDEX
Introduction
Objectives
Objectivity
Location
Weather
Support Vessels
Participants
Rafts Tested
Differences in Raft Construction/Equipment/Specifications
Deployment/Inflation
Boarding
Drogue Deployment
Canopies
Viewing Ports/Visibility/Ventilation
Floor Design
Familiarization
Air Holding Ability/Repairability
Survival Kits
Personal Volume/Floor Space
Water Shipped While At Sea/Bailing
Lifejackets
Seasickness
EPIRB's
GPS
Flares
Raft Pick-Up
Conclusions
Participants

 

Although originally planned to be part of the test on June 22nd, the Switlik Coastal Raft and Rescue Platform did not arrive in time to be used in the test. As a result, a second test date was scheduled on July 4th. The results of this test have been incorporated into the original test, noted where appropriate the differences that the weather made on any comparisons. Although the delay in testing the Switlik was regrettable, the same volunteers took part in each test and recorded their impressions similarly.

OBJECTIVES
Rather than attempt to select the best raft, we knew as we approached the test that we would have a variety of rafts that were not necessarily competing in the same market. Even if we tried to evaluate cost versus performance, we did not think it was possible to conclude that a particular brand was superior to the others, although one raft was judged better than the others. As expected, some aspects of each raft were deemed better than others, which we have documented. We also included survival gear from several manufacturers, including Recovery Engineering watermakers, Pains Wessex flares, Skyblazer flares, Magellan GPS receivers, Icom, Standard Communications and West Marine handheld VHFs, SOSpenders inflatable lifejackets and a variety of seasickness remedies.

OBJECTIVITY
Participants were cautioned ahead of time that they would be testing rafts that had different price points, different amounts of survival gear, and different design criteria. Our goal was to have them look at specific aspects of the rafts somewhat in isolation from the rest of the raft. For example, we wanted them to look at the survival packs as if their contents were spread out on a table, and not let the fact that one raft had more bilge water affect their observations.

Although a laudable goal, it appears that two aspects of the rafts affected the crews’ observations about other raft attributes. One was the degree of headroom inside each raft. Rafts with increased head/leg room were described in much more positive terms. Also, the Avon Coastline, due to its single floor, was harshly judged in other areas unrelated to the floor construction. This was known in advance, and is more of a condemnation of single floor rafts in general, than the Avon Coastline in specific.

LOCATION
We conducted the test about 1-1/2 miles south of Lighthouse Point near Santa Cruz. Although technically within Monterey Bay, this area is open to the full effects of the prevailing Pacific winds and diurnal local winds. Upwind of the test site, the coastline is almost perfectly east-west, so there was little effect of being in the lee of landmasses due to the westerly winds. The water was 20 fathoms deep at the deployment site. Rafts were deployed in the vicinity of 36°55’N, 122°02’W.

On July 4th, rafts were deployed in the vicinity of the Santa Cruz Mile Buoy, about 1 mile from the first site. The buoy provided a convenient landmark by which we could observe our drift. Water depth was 10 fathoms.

WEATHER
On June 22nd we had typical summer conditions for this area. Winds at launch time (10:00 am) were out of the west at 7 knots (force 3). During the duration of the test, winds increased to a steady 25 knots with frequent gusts above 30 knots (force 6-7). Waves were about one foot at the start (sea state 1), building to 3-5 foot chop (sea state 4) at 2:00 pm. Whitecaps began about 11:00 am and intensified until wave tops were breaking and rolling for some distance at 2:00 pm. Spray streaks were also evident on the water surface.

On July 4th, conditions were foggy, with 1/2 mile visibility. Winds were out of the southwest at about five knots (force 2). By the time that the test was concluded, winds were about 10 knots (force 3), and wavelets were appearing (sea state 2).

SUPPORT VESSELS
Three support vessels and two inflatable sportboats were used to conduct the test. Two of the support vessels were sailboats, a Santa Cruz 40 ProMotion, and a Morgan 32 Suivez-Moi. The third boat, a 22’ Grady-White offshore fishing boat Flying Fish, was used to retrieve the rafts at the conclusion of the test.

PARTICIPANTS
A combination of West Marine associates and participants from various safety suppliers made up the liferaft teams. Representatives from each group were combined to make six teams of 3-4 individuals each. Due to attrition, teams 1 and 2 were combined towards the conclusion of testing on the first day, resulting in a single six man team. Experience levels amongst participants varied widely, ranging from those who had little sailing experience, to experienced offshore sailors with specific knowledge about liferafts. Teams were allowed to decide who was in charge, if anyone, and to spend their time getting to know the rafts and the raft’s survival gear. To the degree that it was possible, raft occupants were to imagine that they were actually abandoning a ship at sea, and to act accordingly.

On the second day of testing, only West Marine associates participated, all of whom were veterans of the first test. We split the group into two teams of four each, and then combined them at the latter stages to test the overload capacity of the two Switlik products.

Participants wore normal boating attire, with most of them in foul weather gear, one in a wetsuit, and several in lightweight water-resistant gear like West Marine Pacific Cup outfits.

RAFTS TESTED
We wanted to test rafts that would be the most popular with our customers. Since most of our customers fall into the "coastal cruising" category, or purchase rafts so that they meet the requirements of race organizers, we requested that raft manufacturers supply us with rafts that met the minimum ORC (Offshore Racing Council) standards.

June 22nd rafts included:

1. Avon Coastline valise-pack raft with a single floor. This is an single buoyancy tube raft with a self-erecting canopy arch and minimal safety gear.

2. ProMotion’s Avon Offshore raft, packed in a valise. This is the traditional Avon raft, with a integral double floor, complete "E" pack safety provisions, double buoyancy tube construction and self-erecting canopy.

3. Plastimo Offshore + raft, packed in a hard canister. This is a double-tube raft with self-erecting canopy, fitted with an optional inflatable floor for insulation.

July 4th rafts included:

4. Switlik Coastal raft in a valise. This is an oval single tube raft, with a manual-activated, CO2 -inflated canopy arches. It was equipped with an optional inflatable floor and standard equipment package.

5. Switlik Rescue Platform packed in a valise. This is a non-canopied, single tube disk that is designed to support the crew out of the water. Though quite different from the liferafts in this test, the Rescue Platform is an alternative to a liferaft for many consumers, and we decided to test it as well.

All rafts were 6 person sizes, and the Rescue Platform was in a 10 person size. The three raft manufacturers encouraged us to test their "premium" rafts. These included Avon’s Offshore raft, Switlik’s Search and Rescue model and Plastimo’s Trans-Oceanic model. Manufacturers repeatedly expressed concerns that their raft would not compare well to the others in the test due to the "apples and oranges" aspect of testing products. We assured them that our objective was not to select the perfect raft, but to compare features and trade-offs. The manufacturer’s concerns stem from frequent evidence that offshore boaters frequently select rafts designed for coastal cruising, rationalizing their choice because "something is better than nothing". While we understand the limited budgets of anyone venturing offshore, our tests reinforced the importance of having the correct liferaft for the type of boating one intends to do.

* Plastimo raft priced as tested in canister pack; valise version is $3,125.00.
** Plastimo raft dimensions are from one "point" to the opposite "side" due to its five sides.

DEPLOYMENT/INFLATION
Teams were instructed to pretend that their vessels had struck something and that they were taking on water rapidly. An Abandon Ship Bag was prepared in advance for each raft. Teams brought the rafts from below deck to the cockpit, made their lanyards fast, and threw the rafts into the water. They then inflated the rafts, boarded them from the cockpit area of the vessel, cut the lanyards free and set themselves adrift.

From the outset, there were marked differences in the amount of leadership/coordination of the teams. Because there was no actual danger, teams were methodical and did not forget any significant details (securing the lanyard, for example). The two larger rafts (Avon Offshore and Plastimo) were substantially more difficult to get into position to launch. The handles on the Plastimo canister were handy, allowing two testers to grasp them and toss it over the lifelines and into the water. According the Plastimo team, it was "somewhat difficult because it was heavy - two man launch". Due to the light weight of the Rescue Platform (approximately 20 lbs. less than the other rafts) it was easy to launch. It took an average of 20 seconds to get the rafts to the vessel’s gunwale, another 15 seconds to launch the rafts into the water, and 10-15 seconds for the rafts to inflate such that their canopies were erect. Boarding took about 40 seconds, and all rafts were cut free within 120 seconds of the start of the exercise. It is difficult to say whether panic would have increased or decreased the deployment time.

All rafts inflated right-side up without any seawater in them. Canopies were furled in the open position. The Plastimo raft had a much larger opening due to the shape of its door. The Switlik, due to its manually-activated arch inflation system, was completely open and could be boarded from any direction.

We noted afterwards from the Plastimo literature that their liferaft is packaged differently from the other rafts. Inside its protective canister, the raft is vacuum-packed inside a heavy plastic pouch, making the raft practically impervious to water damage between repacks. Since damage due to water intrusion is a common cause of premature liferaft damage, this seems like a good idea to us.

BOARDING
Teams boarded the rafts carefully, seemingly reluctant to jump in through the open canopies. We did not want to test the ease of boarding from the water, due to the low (56°F) water temperature and possibility of hypothermia. Later, when teams were exchanged amongst the rafts, several persons leapt into the openings in the canopies and found it surprisingly easy to board in this manner.

The lower freeboard afforded by a sinking boat would have made boarding much easier from a vessel.

Several participants expressed the opinion that it would be very difficult to board the rafts with foul weather gear and/or lifejackets from the water, especially if the person in the water were the first to board. Boarding ramps, which are now offered on Coast Guard rafts, would probably have made boarding from the water much easier. Due to the low inflation pressure and small tube diameter, it is easy for a person assisting from the raft to lower the freeboard to nearly water level with his weight on the tube(s).

DROGUE DEPLOYMENT
Teams deployed the drogues soon after boarding the rafts. All drogues were judged equal in effectiveness. Rafts drifted at a rate of 0.25 knots in 10 knots of wind, to a maximum of 1.5 knots in 25 knots of wind. Surprisingly, the rafts drifted apart laterally as well as downwind. This could have been due to some wind shear along the coast, or a counter-current in the test area.

The Plastimo raft had small retaining straps or tape which caused the raft to drift 90° to the intended direction until they were cut. This might have been difficult to diagnose at night. The Avon Offshore raft had an additional line which allowed the participants to rotate the raft towards the drogue so that it could be tripped and brought in. The Switlik Coastal raft has its drogue located at one of its "ends", which causes the raft to drift with its bow to the wind. This aligns the long axis of the raft with the wind, and places the waterproof "end" of its canopy towards the wind and waves.

The Rescue Platform had a drogue attached similarly to the rafts, which slowed its rate of drift. Since the Rescue Platform is a symmetrical disk, it does not have an axis or feature that aligns in any particular way with the wind.

CANOPIES
Both Avon rafts had similar canopy designs, using a triangular-shaped opening on the leeward side. This was held closed by Velcro® strips and fabric ties, although few teams felt comfortable enough to shut themselves inside. The Offshore version had a small halyard to facilitate pulling the door closed. Since the door on the Avons does not have a "sill" or "lip" at the bottom, the freeboard of the raft is not increased over the freeboard afforded by the buoyancy tubes alone.

The Plastimo raft has an opening that is about 45% as large as the canopy, on the leeward side. This is furled along the arch tube and is rolled down into place, as opposed to the Avon’s which is furled along the buoyancy tube and is rolled up. The lower portion of the Plastimo’s canopy runs along the top of the upper buoyancy tube, which is about 8" high and provides some additional freeboard. It has a zipper which mates with the zipper from the roll-down flap to form a reasonably tight seal. All teams reported difficulty in starting the Plastimo’s canopy zipper, due to the tautness of the fabric. Most felt it would be very difficult to start the zipper and close the door at night, especially if one were unfamiliar with the method.

Most teams liked the open nature of the Plastimo’s canopy, and would have left it wide open for the test had it not been for the need to test all variations in ventilation. Observer Michael Greenwald was quick to point out that in rough seas, the degree to which the canopy can be shut tight overrides one’s desire for ventilation and openness.

The Switlik Coastal raft has a distinctive canopy design compared to the other rafts. It was manually inflated, using two optional inflation mechanisms located on the arch tubes. The Switlik uses two arch tubes which are semicircular in shape which are located across the narrow axis of the raft. This provides much more interior volume than the other rafts. Second, only the fabric at each end of the raft is permanently attached to the arch tubes; the other three panels are adjustable by use of zippers. This allows the canopy to be erected in a number of configurations depending on the conditions. In rough conditions, for example, the two side panels could be zipped up about a foot to increase freeboard, yet the "roof" panel could be left entirely open. Our only concern was that the side and roof panels overlap by about twelve inches, but there is no way to seal the junction between them, other than a tie tape in the center. We suspect that this gap could leak in severe conditions. The interior of the canopy was coated with a blue paint, intended to reduce the nausea that the orange color reportedly promotes. No one got seasick while inside the Switlik raft, although conditions were calmer during its test. Like the Plastimo raft, the zipper which closes the roof panel was judged to be difficult to start at night.