West Marine Heavy Weather Liferaft Test
June 22, and July 4, 1991

Life Raft Study provided by West Marine,
for additional information dial (800)BOATING
© West Marine Products, Inc. 1994

(continued from previous page)

WATERMAKERS
Recovery Engineering supplied several watermakers for testing, and we included a Survivor 06 and Survivor 35 in each raft. Although the value of these devices has been well documented in recent liferaft survival stories, the critical nature of water on long-term survival may have been under-appreciated by the testers. None the less, each team made a modest amount of water and everyone consumed the water produced.

Several participants complained about the slightly salty taste of the water, while others thought it was tasteless. According to Sarah Black, from Recovery Engineering, the slightly salty taste disappears after two minutes, although it is not harmful in the meantime. Testers who consumed water after longer periods of operation did not object to the taste. Also, most "tasters" put the plastic output tube directly into their mouths, which had a taste of its own.

In tests conducted after the on-the-water test, no one objected to the taste of the water after three minutes if consumed from a separate container. Both the Survivor 06 and 35 met their design outputs of 6 and 35 gallons per day in our tests.

The larger Survivor 35 was judged easier to use, due to its long handles and high output. The Survivor 06, although much more practical for liferaft use due to its compact dimensions, was not nearly as comfortable to use. One tester commented that it was "difficult, not exhaustive". Its short handle stroke and uncomfortable handle were cited as reasons.

Watermakers like the Survivor 06, like EPIRBs, were deemed mandatory for inclusion in Abandon Ship Bags. As one observer pointed out about water that was supplied in the liferafts, "with water, when it’s gone, it’s gone".

LIFEJACKETS
All participants were required to wear lifejackets at all times, and most of them elected to wear inflatables made by SOSpenders or other high-buoyancy inflatable designs. The compact nature of the SOSpenders lifejackets when deflated gave the occupants of the rafts much more room, and allowed them to move about more easily. It was hard to imagine how the teams could have fit in the rafts had they been wearing Type I devices or Navy-type 35 lb. PFDs. Despite the frequent waves and splashes that the windy conditions brought on, no automatically inflating SOSpenders inflated accidentally. The tester’s experiences with the inflatable lifejackets further strengthens our opinion that modern, high-quality inflatable lifejackets like those from SOSpenders are ideal for offshore boating.

One the second day of testing, all participants inflated their vests to see if they could still fit in the Switlik Coastal. In fact, they could, although with little room to spare. We were surprised at how much our visibility was blocked in a downward direction by the large inflation chambers.

SEASICKNESS
Four participants got sufficiently seasick to vomit. About half of the other suffered lesser symptoms, including the usual dry mouth, thick tongue and "wishing they were dead" attitudes. The quick, undulating motion of the liferafts, combined with limited ventilation and a stuffy, humid environment all contributed to the motion sickness. Those who actually closed the liferaft doors were quick to reopen them - 10 minutes in the closed position was the record. Rafts with more visibility, and larger openings, seemed to help the occupants to control their nausea.

VHF RADIOS
We did not test VHF handheld radios as such, but included them so that we could maintain communications with the support vessels in case of emergency. The radios worked well although the use of waterproof bags made their operation difficult. Several users removed their radios from the waterproof cases, which inevitably resulted in wet radios. Several radios had belt clips on them which users used to hang the radios on the inner lifelines of the rafts. This worked well, because it kept the radios dry, yet placed close by where they could be heard.

The ACR SOLAS radio was used in our very wet inflatable support boats and worked perfectly. This is a specialty radio with extremely long storage life batteries, designed to be packed in a liferaft or lifeboat for emergency communications. Its construction is similar to the ACR RLB-21 EPIRB, with a fully sealed exterior. The microphone, for example, is behind a plastic membrane, and is sealed completely. The only drawback with this product is that it must be returned to the factory for battery replacement, a process that is required every five years assuming that the radio is not used in the meantime. Battery life is stated as 8 hours using the industry standard 5% transmit, 5% receive, 90% standby mode.

EPIRBs
It was our intention to test a 406 MHz EPIRB during the test, using what is known as a "test protocol" version of the EPIRB. Since 406 EPIRBs have a serialized code in their transmit message, this code can indicate that there is not a real emergency so that SAR resources are not summoned. We worked with the Mission Control Center in Suitland, MD over a period of time, trying to figure out how we could simulate an emergency without wasting Coast Guard, NOAA and other resources during the test. The Chief at the MCC was concerned about our drawing conclusions about the system responsiveness based on a single incident, due to the random nature of satellite passes over any one spot on the globe. Although helpful, he did not give us permission to set of the EPIRB.

Alden Electronics was very supportive in this area, however, by supplying us a normal as well as a test protocol 406 MHz EPIRB. We could not judge Alden Satfind’s effectiveness, but we remain convinced by the numerous reports of rapid rescues that the 406 MHz EPIRB must be considered mandatory safety equipment for offshore boats. Its combination of a precise signal, unique ID code and worldwide coverage make it a very cost-effective piece of safety gear.

GPS
Magellan GPS receivers were used to track the drift of the liferafts, and they worked perfectly. With horizon to horizon visibility, all available satellites were found. The slow drift rate of the rafts made the velocity calculations marginally useful, but the position reports accurately tracked the liferafts as they drifted with the wind.

The waterproof construction of the Magellans was especially critical in the rafts because everything, no matter how carefully segregated, got wet. Users were so confident in their construction that they actually let them lie on the wet floors, due to the lack of pockets in the interior of the rafts.

FLARES
After gaining permission from the Coast Guard, we set off several flares while en route from our test site. The first flare fired was a SOLAS-grade Pains-Wessex Red hand flare. Its ignition system is very simple, and can be done with cold hands. The flare is extremely bright, such that observers in bright daylight could not stare at it. The smoke and flame had the annoying tendency to run along the backside of the flare tube, resulting in singed hand hair. This problem was eliminated when the hot end of the flare was held within 30° of downwind. A protective glove would have been nice. The flare continued to burn when under water.

SOLAS-grade Pains-Wessex Red Parachute flares were also tested. No one was prepared for the incredible speed with which these flares shot skyward, nor with how high they reached. Their paths were almost perfectly vertical, showing little effect from the wind. Their brilliance, due to the bright sunshine, was not very impressive, although observers from the other support boat said that the flare appeared to be an "intense red dot" at substantial altitude. They were about one mile from the site at the time of launch. Despite the propulsion of the rocket motor, and the proximity of one’s hands to the flare, no discomfort was felt by the person launching either of the two parachute flares.

A SOLAS-grade smoke canister was also deployed. This produced a thick stream of bright orange smoke, which traveled downwind very quickly in the 25 knot winds. Observers judged that it was effective, although it would be more so on a day with less wind and/or from an airplane’s vantage point.

Finally, a Skyblazer USCG-approved meteor flare was launched. This left the person who launched the flare’s hand with powder burns from the launch charge. The flare was completely missed by all observers on the two nearby boats, while only a few members of the other support vessel could see the flare at 2/3 of a mile. It was hard to understand how to hold the flare tube so that it could be held securely, yet not get one’s hands close to the muzzle of the device.

A protective glove constructed of leather or similar fire-resistant material, would have provided protection to the person launching the flares, and is highly recommended.

RAFT PICK-UP
After five hours on the water, and with sea conditions becoming more threatening, we elected to pick-up the teams and rafts and take them to shore. Teams retrieved their drogues to reduce the chance of getting the tethers in the propeller.

After retrieving the liferaft teams, the rafts were hauled aboard the Grady-White fishing boat. This was challenging, due to the heavy ballast pockets which were filled with water. As the closest edge of the raft was lifted, someone would reach under the raft and compress the ballast bag to spill the water. The rafts’ stability was quite evident, due to the struggle to get them on board. It was also challenging to figure out how to deflate the rafts, with the Avon Offshore and Switliks having the only clearly-marked deflation valves.

The rafts drifted approximately four miles over the duration of the test. The trip back to shore, in 25 knots of wind and 5 foot breaking seas, was lengthy and rough.

CONCLUSIONS
Nearly all boaters who travel out of sight of land should have some sort of survival raft in our opinion. The numerous documented cases of vessels sinking, due to known causes or unknown, and the short time that a person can survive without protection makes liferafts a necessary part of offshore survival gear. We would feel relatively secure with any of the four liferafts tested, when augmented by an EPIRB and a Survivor 06 watermaker.

The Rescue Platform is preferable to treading water, but we are concerned by its tendency to fill with water. The hypothermia protection it provides its occupants, as well as greater visibility that it provides rescuers, are valuable, but we would strongly recommend a canopied raft for ocean use - even in sheltered waters.

The other four rafts would provide substantial protection from the elements for a small crew. In all cases, we think that an inflatable floor is mandatory, even in warm waters. Unless you experience the chill of a single floor raft for several hours, you cannot appreciate the additional comfort that an inflatable floor provides.

The Plastimo raft stood out for its higher headroom and large single door. The survival kit was also packed in a very useful way, with a resealable bag to contain the components. Its construction was unique, and leads us to believe that patching may be very difficult.

The Avon Coastline was the least expensive liferaft in the test, and was similar in quality to other Avon products. It suffered from having the least amount of headroom, low freeboard, and a poorly packaged survival kit.

The Avon Offshore was a robust, comfortable raft. Its tufted floor was reasonably comfortable, and the reserve buoyancy provided by twin independent tubes provided a feeling of security. The small opening, and somewhat flimsy closure, make the canopy design seem outdated in comparison with the Plastimo and Switlik rafts.

Although there were aspects of each raft that West Marine associates particularly liked, it was our unanimous opinion that the Switlik Coastal liferaft was a superior product. In particular, we liked the floor design, the headroom and adjustability of its canopy, the way its safety products were packaged, its baffle design, and its rugged valise. It appears to be a modern, very high quality innovative design that had no weak spots in its implementation. Although priced slightly higher than the Avon Coastline, we believe it is a superior product, and in most ways superior to the more expensive offshore rafts. We would caution buyers to augment its survival kit, but we would give the same advice to anyone buying a liferaft.

Brian Bos, Catalog Marketing (both days)
Kevin King, Plastimo
Sue Bowman, Customer Service (both days)

Brian Braine, Plastimo
Evan Baxter, Repair Center (both days)
Rob Ingram, Store Planning
Larry W. Curtis, Avon-Seagull Marine

Chris Smith, Catalog Sales (both days)
Jerome Steed, Store 024
Sarah Black, Recovery Engineering

Bruce Brown, Switlik
Gary Williamson, Purchasing (both days)
Mary Sarratt, Admin. Services (both days)

Dave Kanard, Formerly of Store 001
Chuck Hawley, Marketing (both days)
Mike Mullin, Plastimo
Scott Swanby, SOSpenders

Elaine White, Customer Service (both days)
Mike Cunningham, Catalog Sales
Paul Bannister, Plastimo
Howard Wright, Port Supply