There has been significant commentary on SB over the past couple of weeks since the Dep’t of Transport released the news that some kiters may need to wear PFD’s & carry other equipment with them if kiting more than 400m offshore. I would have posted this in a more timely manner but the first posts emerged whilst I was kiting in Indonesia, hence the delay.
In order to hopefully clarify some of the inaccuracies in some of the comments here, I posting this to provide some historical background and perspective on the issue(s). In doing so, I am reporting this history based on my attending meetings and discussions with Dep’t of Transport whilst I was WAKSA president for seasons 2010/11 & 2011/12.
History:
DoT initiated discussions with WAKSA during 2011 as the dep’t wanted to make amendments to the
Navigable Waters Regulations. DoT had received a number of complaints about kitesurfing/boarding (both on the river & the ocean), and had realised
at that time there was no regulatory basis for kiting to be banned/restricted because the Regs did not actually include/list kitesurfing/boarding as an aquatic activity that could be ‘managed’ by the department as such. As an example of the types of complaints DoT had received that led to the realisation that kiting was not covered by the regs, complaints from Melville Beach Road residents & various bird watching groups were listed as the sources of specific complaints.
The WAKSA committee agreed to participate in discussions on the basis that it was better to be influencing the decision makers as best we could, to ensure decisions were made on an informed basis, rather than by departmental staff with no understanding of the sport. During the course of the ‘discussions’ Transport indicated that PFD’s were also on
their agenda, so that there would be a consistent approach taken for both windsurfing requirements and kiting requirements, given that the Regs at that time, clearly outlined that windsurfers going more than 400m offshore were required to wear an appropriate PFD.
WAKSA indicated very clearly that PFDs were not going to be necessary for the majority of kiters, and would be seen as overkill in the majority of cases. DoT was advised that this decision was not going to be popular within the kiting community. Despite WAKSA proposing alternative distances (initially 750m offshore, subsequently 500m offshore) over the course of discussions, meetings & email exchanges,
it was, and remains my opinion that that Transport had pre-determined what they wanted, and what the outcome was going to be, regardless of any external input into the process. The alternative offshore distances were not accepted as DoT didn’t want one set of rules for windsurfing, and another for kitesurfing. It was also discussed that PFDs were not appropriate in certain situations such as wave riding etc.
[UPDATED @ 11.35am] - Discussions about EPIRBS & flares were 'difficult' to say the least - at the time, I recall telling Transport that this was overkill, but in light of what I say below re: Safety & offshore kiting, it's difficult now, not to acknowledge them, but only in the context of "offshore" kiting.
In these meetings, DoT advice indicated that as a ‘rule of thumb’ measure, that 400m was
approximately the location of the yellow shark monitoring buoys off most Perth beaches & that those buoys could be used to judge that distance. I cannot comment on whether or not those buoys are still roughly 400m offshore.
A number of commentators on the various threads have mentioned that WAKSA has not advised of this news – I do not accept that as in both reports made at the WAKSA AGMs in 2011 & 2012 I brought up this information in the context of what work WAKSA had done/was doing over the course of the previous year. The Reg changes simply weren’t finalised by the time my term expired.
The kicker in Transport's argument:
Despite advocating our concerns about some of the practicalities of these Reg changes, it was clear that Transport had an outcome in mind. And there is one real, actual argument that cannot IMO be reasonably argued against –
safety.
How many kiters actually go “offshore” on a regular basis? I’d argue that it’s a particularly small niche of kiters who regularly go “out to sea”. If a PDF & flares are a requirement for Lighthouse to Leighton, is it not at least,
common sense for an individual doing a similar distance/style of kiting to be prepared appropriately?
Let’s say a kiter choses to go “offshore” (let’s say 2km) and experiences a gear failure, should that kiter have been appropriately prepared? We can all talk up the importance of being able to swim a certain distance but there’s no actual obligation to be able to swim 400m let alone 2km if there’s a gear failure. Sure, we should all know how to do a deep water pack down, but again ‘should know’ how v ‘can do’ are two different things. In a situation like this, those pain in the backside PFD & flares however would make the difference.
Certainly, many of the formula race board crew go offshore, but in my experience, those guys actually prepare for that distance & usually wear some type of PFD
just in case something goes wrong.
Picture this unlikely but possible scenario: kiter goes 2km offshore, no PFD, gear malfunction; no signal equipment; and unfortunately, drowns. Imagine the general public/media/government/kiting community backlash if there were no appropriate safety standards, and if the sports’ representative body had argued against “safety” equipment for this type of kiting. It’s not a particularly exciting image that comes to mind is it?
I can't count the number of threads we've all read on SB about 'safety' - kiters coming too close to the beach; too close to swimmers; too close to boats; too fast etc. As kiters, who honestly isn't interested in safe kiting, and kiting safely? Is it safe to kite 2km offshore for example, without appropriate gear? If someone has an answer to that question starting with "Yes", please advise?
In saying this, IMO Transport has been massively inaccurate in their recent media comments about these new Regs. We all know there have been deaths in the sport, but those deaths have NOT been related to drowning’s, and the reliance on those deaths to justify the Reg changes is misleading in the extreme.
Of course, the usual naysayers are going to complain loud & long about the fact that WAKSA didn’t or couldn’t achieve a pro-kiter outcome, but those voices don’t want WAKSA doing anything on behalf of kiters. Absolutely, I was disappointed that I couldn’t deliver a better result on behalf of the members and the sport. Despite the outcome, I am of the view that it’s better to be inside the tent pissing out, than not consulted at all. To the naysayers, what would you suggest as an alternative – refuse to participate in the process & still get upset at this outcome?
I am prepared for the criticism for not being able to deliver a better result is going to bring, and the criticism this post will inevitably also bring (flame suit is freshly washed & ironed).
Some Perspective:
So where do these changes leave us now? Perhaps it’s worth thinking about these issues:
1) These changes only apply if you go beyond 400m.
2) Does anyone know of a windsurfer actually being charged by Transport for being more than 400m offshore without a PFD?
3) These changes aren’t going to have an impact on comps (as someone has suggested) - when was the last time a wave comp or freestyle comp was held that far off shore?
4) And here’s the actual fundamental practical outcome - departmental resourcing – do we actually think that they have the resources to have one boat off every beach every day of the season to issue warnings or tickets if Johnny Kiter (or Jenny Kiter) does a tack out to 500m? However, if Johnny or Jenny Kiter decides on a whim (and doesn’t have appropriate gear with him/her) and goes out 2km, and experiences a gear failure, gets rescued & gets a warning or ticket, IMO it might not be an unreasonable outcome.
I am hoping that this post will shed some light on how things got to where they are now.
Juddy
