Canoe and Kayak Safety Death Study
 

Canoe and Kayak Mass Murders in Canada and the United States
 
 

Preface

Normally mass murder is a subject involving grossly abnormal persons: abnormally racist in personal perspective or obviously hate-filled. Genocide is often connected with mass murder. Hitler's Nazi Germany is perhaps most often associated with the topics of mass murder or genocide. Hitler's Germany was unique within the subjects of mass murder and genocide due to Germany's membership among the most developed countries of the world, and closely connected to the most developed cultures and countries within Europe. Today Germany is conspicuous in political attempts not to cover the Nazi past; but in attempts to educate everyone with respect to the details of these horrors, conserved within museums and memorials at camps such as Dachau (on the streetcar route in modern, suburban Munich), Auschwitz, Treblinka and others.

Hitler's horrors led to the Nuremberg Trials and focus on Crimes Against Humanity. Inevitably, new international laws have led to academic studies within universities to study these crimes. In the 60's Dr. Stanley Milgram at Yale University was horrified by Nazis and remarked on how "normal" the Nazis could appear to anyone studying the Nuremberg trials. These mass murderers could appear very kind and loving toward their own family and their own children. Yet they could participate in terrible tortures and executions of other children and their parents, about 12 million in total: 3 million Polish citizens, 2 million Russian POWs, about a million the Nazis considered to be dissidents, and 6 million Jewish people. About one million Jewish children are generally included in the last figure of six million; and the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. has always prominently displayed pictures and artifacts to convey what this horror might have appeared like to Jewish children in schools at that time.

Simon Wiesenthal, who became the famous "Nazi Hunter" has been recorded as saying that two guards working at Auschwitz were in fact "humane", while surviving in their employment there among other, sadistic guards. Simon Wiesenthal eventually found Eichmann in South America, who was not at all repentent for his efficient organization. Adolph Eichmann was in charge   of the transportation for the mass murder of millions. His trial and execution in Israel chilled the world that attended to his role in helping other Nazis get rid of any guilt or other "bad feelings" for their roles in these murders, particularly the murders of Jewish children too young to know their names, and led by the hand by their also very young brothers and sisters, to their horrible deaths. Eichmann quoted the necessity of exterminating children before they could reproduce.

The horror and guilt even from participating in the Milgam experiment at Yale University caused this study to be discontinued. The Milgram Study at Yale, using a paid actor who screamed and pleaded for mercy whenever the experimental subject applied electric shock after a "wrong answer", was redone in almost every university in every country in the world. Most modern countries, including Canada, the United States and the UK, showed an average compliance rate with this torture of 65%. Only 35% of subjects declined to follow through with the experiment; as they were required to apply ever more painful electric shocks to the victim, who they thought of course was not a paid actor, but a real victim. The Stanford Prison Study a few years later used 24 students at Stanford University  in a role-playing experiment where half of the subjects were randomly assigned to be prison guards and half were their prisoners. The effects on both "guards" and "prisoners" regarding systematic abuse and degradation was so realistic that experimenters soon called for its' ending; as a result of the horrible effects seen on the subjects. The Milgram experiments similarly affected subjects very deeply, so appalled that they could so easily torture another human being that these famous university experiments were stopped. Subjects in the Milgram experiments begged to be allowed to stop shocking the screaming "victim", but most subjects continued to administer the most severe electric shocks, even against their personal ethical values.

Today we have the Canoe and Kayak Safety Death Study in Canada and the United States, with the UK used a a control group for the North American data. It will be noted that this study includes victims who are actually murdered, in fact tortured to death and then degraded for dying; for real, not acting or role-playing as in the experiments at Yale and Stanford. The subjects below are real people, their responses readily available on the internet. Many of the nearly 2000 dead in this longitudinal study since 1993, who are tortured, killed and then degraded, are children  in the United States and Canada. Although this study would have boggled the best minds at the time of Dr. Milgram and the Nuremberg Trials; today the War in Iraq and the deaths of over 4,000 US soldiers for deliberate lies on the part of the White House, recorded in dozens of best-selling books by top authors, make the Canoe and Kayak Safety Death Study results no surprise. Current government ethics in Canada and the United States; easily understood by any honest and normal person.

The real subjects regarding the real dead and degraded victims are only as guilty of criminal acts such as torture and murder as the subjects at Yale and Stanford Universities. I have found no-one in this study who would kill anyone using any other method than fraudulent canoe or kayak instruction. Some of these subjects show no regard for the safety of others, or the value of human life; even the lives of children who die cruel and tortured deaths and then are blamed for their own deaths while being denied any simple and inexpensive means to get out of the deadly water in seconds: 5 second/50 cent sponsons.  The American Canoe Association and Paddle Canada are deadly lobby groups, among a few government employees and a few in police organizations, that are exceptions to this finding. Their dedication to making canoes and kayaks as deadly as possible, instead of saving lives, is a matter of record. These killers do not have an excuse, like the guards known to Simon Wiesenthal, whom he met when they worked at Auschwitz. See American Canoe Association Safety
 
 

 Canoe and Kayak Safety Death Study

Introduction

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board

Re: Safety and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram

Posted By: David
Date: Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 8:21 a.m.

In Response To: Saftey and sponsons (Tim Mattson)

I had a long talk with Tim Ingram yesterday, asking him all about sponsons. He is very nice on the phone, speaks quite calmly, listens well. I rather enjoyed our conversation. He certainly doesn't strike me as someone who flies off the handle, at least in person.

He invented them in 1992, based on his studies of military flotation devices, he is a walking encyclopedia on this subject. Most military ops used sponsons for entry onto surf beaches, but then again, according to Tim, military use of kayaks is down, they are too easily detected with modern technology. I don't agree with everything he says, his impression is that the paddlesport industry is rejecting sponsons because they are so effective that they would eliminate most of the need for instruction. He definitely believes in instruction, but feels most instructor's time could be better spent teaching how to interpret charts, plan routes, assess sea conditions, etc. He is definintely pushing for legal action against the ACA, there is alot of discussion of conspiracy so that ACA can protect its own market and interests. This is where I just didn't bother arguing, I disagree that sponsons are the be and end all of safety. When I asked about compromises in secondary stability he pointed out the fact that the life raft does not tip in most conditions and that the combination of enhanced flotation and ballast is still a time-honored way to save lives at sea. He does have a point here, and I think we get too caught up in the secondary stability argument, the UBC research tank results showed that narrow kayaks tip easier, they were no more stable than wide boats, so I am even beginning to doubt the hype about secondary stability and kayaks. Face it, a wide boat is a stable boat. Not much fun for 3D paddling of Jeds, not so easy to get onto edge, but more stable in big waves. Not sure, I have read hundreds of papers on secondary stability, but there is little evidence to back up these claims that somehow a narrow boat will ride waves more securely than a wide beam boat. I think that the hype surrounding narrow yaks (for touring) is worse and probably more misleading than Tim's sponson comments. Narrow boats, with very rounded hulls, providing enhanced secondary stability, to me, are just capsizes waiting to happen in all but the most skilled hands.

He is certainly pro-paddlefloat rescue, but believes that sponsons stabilize the boat after re-entry, so in combination with paddlefloat put the paddler in a more secure position, to get to shore. His new model has both a regular inflation valve, and a gas cartridge, he is designing longer sponsons which can be deployed with gas cartridge and provide a substantial increase in flotation over older models. He has only sold about a dozen sets from MEC here in Canada, so his market penetration is really low. You have no fears of these things becoming dominant anytime soon.

Although I disagree strongly with this legal action of his, it was an interesting and pleasant conversation. He sees sponsons like a climber sees a safety harness, you wear it as insurance. And whereas some of you might still choose to rappel with a dulfersitz, the modern harness is much more effective, that's his take on sponsons. He also describes their use by aboriginal cultures of the Aleutians all the way to Greenland.

I think his best comments concern White Squall, which is, even ahead of our operation, the biggest and most successful kayak rental and instruction outfit in Ontario. They have been using sponsons, according to Tim, for years, although I have rented from White Squall and didn't find any of them on my boat. White Squall, John Dowd and other leaders in the field have endorsed them.
Anyhow, I paddled for 20 years without them, and haven't even had them out of the duffle bag for 2 years; but, I still think he has an idea, that with further refinement, are a worthy addition to rental kayaks, at least. We have all had enough of this topic, and thought I would follow up by talking directly to the designer, to clarify my own position further.

: With all our talk about sponsons and saftey, I just couldn't resist sharing
: this with you all.

: I am on all sorts of paddlesports mailing lists. I just got a catelog from
: Wyoming river Raiders. On page 6, they advertise Seawing sponsons --
: normally $150 but now on sale for $106. Is this for real? Is that really
: what they cost? That is outrageous!

: It gets better. You look at the picture that goes with the sponson add. It
: shows a picture of a studly, hair chested kayaker with aweful technique
: (all push pull with a paddle only 2/3 submerged in the water) paddling
: along in flat water with sponsons on his kayak. He is not wearing a PFD or
: a spray skirt. There isn't even a PFD on the deck of the kayak (though
: there is a pump and what looks like soem sort of sailing rig).

: What a great saftey message this sends. If you use sponsons, you're so safe
: you don't need a spray skirt of PFD. So you see, since you save all that
: money on a PFD and spray skirt, the $106 bucks you pay for the sponsons is
: a real bargin.

: --Tim

: P.S. ... and yes I am aware that Sponson-Tim did not necessarily endorse this
: add. The stupid way his product is displayed does not reflect on him or
: any sponson advocates out there. It's really the catelog company I'm
: picking on -- not the sponsons.
 

Messages In This Thread
 

Saftey and sponsons (views: 2077)
Tim Mattson -- Saturday, 6 July 2002, at 5:59 p.m.
Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram (views: 1048)
David -- Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 8:21 a.m.
Talking to Tim Ingram: Hard Talk (views: 784)
Eric -- Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 1:41 p.m.
Re: Wide and ballasted works (views: 626)
Nick Schade-Guillemot Kayaks -- Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 5:44 p.m.
Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram (views: 634)
Tim Mattson -- Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 8:28 p.m.
Great posts... (views: 489)
David -- Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 9:05 p.m.
Re: talking (views: 482)
LeeG -- Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 9:34 p.m.
Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram (views: 501)
Bill Bradshaw -- Monday, 8 July 2002, at 4:41 p.m.
Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram (views: 528)
Ian Johnston -- Monday, 8 July 2002, at 4:44 p.m.
OOOOPS!!! (views: 549)
Ian Johnston -- Monday, 8 July 2002, at 7:16 p.m.
Stay away from Wyoming River Raiders (views: 1679)
Brian Nystrom -- Monday, 8 July 2002, at 2:52 p.m.
[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]
 

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board is maintained by Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks with WebBBS 5.12.

Kayak Trips
 Kayak Building
 Kayaking Technique
 Boat Design
 

Guillemot | SEE Kayak Directory | Kayak Forum
 

High Performance Sea Kayak Designs
 
 
 

This subject "David",  is representative of many canoe and kayak enthusiasts, appearing rational and safety conscious; although not well-educated regarding the physics of  canoe and kayak safety. The concept of a guaranteed and foolproof, 5 second and 50 cent means of rescuing even 10 year old children, without any training or practice of any kind, is well beyond the consciousness of almost any enthusiast in this sport, due to typical cult thinking. Nevertheless, his staight-forward and assertive viewpoint is commendable; considering that it is stated within a context of hatred and malice toward victims and anyone who would easily save them: Even 2 ten year old girls within 5 seconds with no training or practice. At least part of this malice can be understood as a reaction to questioniong of the perpetrators' "expertise" and "superiority" to any victim. This "macho" and "superior" attitude is readily perceived, even by most subjects in this group below. Tim Ingram
 

Posted By: Ian Johnston <mailto:qayak@yahoo.ca?subject=Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram>
Date: Monday, 8 July 2002, at 4:44 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram (David)

: He does have a point here, and I think we get too caught up in the
: secondary stability argument, the UBC research tank results showed that
: narrow kayaks tip easier, they were no more stable than wide boats, so I
: am even beginning to doubt the hype about secondary stability and kayaks.
: Face it, a wide boat is a stable boat. Not much fun for 3D paddling of
: Jeds, not so easy to get onto edge, but more stable in big waves. Not
: sure, I have read hundreds of papers on secondary stability, but there is
: little evidence to back up these claims that somehow a narrow boat will
: ride waves more securely than a wide beam boat. I think that the hype
: surrounding narrow yaks (for touring) is worse and probably more
: misleading than Tim's sponson comments. Narrow boats, with very rounded
: hulls, providing enhanced secondary stability, to me, are just capsizes
: waiting to happen in all but the most skilled hands.

It is easy to find out for yourself. Hop in a wide boat and hit the rough stuff then try it again with a narrow boat.

The point that Tim misses is that it is a narrow boat's instability that makes it easy to keep upright in big waves.

Try to edge a wide boat. Nearly impossible! And yet this is exactly what is required in large waves to keep you vertical and the boat upright.

: Although I disagree strongly with this legal action of his, it was an
: interesting and pleasant conversation. He sees sponsons like a climber
: sees a safety harness, you wear it as insurance. And whereas some of you
: might still choose to rappel with a dulfersitz, the modern harness is much
: more effective, that's his take on sponsons. He also describes their use
: by aboriginal cultures of the Aleutians all the way to Greenland.

There is a vast difference between a modern climbing harness and sponsons. He would be far more accurate if he compared Sponsons to training wheels on children's bikes. Hey, some kids need them, some don't but we are not likely to see Steve Armstrong using them in the Tour de France.

As for their use by aboriginal cultures; ask him for the proof. He can say almost anything to someone who will take it at face value. I have read many historic books on aboriginal cultures and have yet to see sponsons mentioned.

: White Squall, John Dowd and other leaders in the field
: have endorsed them.

The only thing I have read concerning sponsons by John Dowd can hardly be called an endorsement. He does mention them but then again Pepsi mentions Coke in their adds and that is hardly an endorsement. You have the knowledge to refute his claims because you rented from White Squall and did not see sponsons. This in itself should make you question everything Tim says.

: Anyhow, I paddled for 20 years without them, and haven't even had them out of
: the duffle bag for 2 years; but, I still think he has an idea, that with
: further refinement, are a worthy addition to rental kayaks, at least. We
: have all had enough of this topic, and thought I would follow up by
: talking directly to the designer, to clarify my own position further.

We haven't had enough of Tim....or at least he doesn't think so. He will keep popping up over and over pushing his BS as fact. There are many who are too lazy to become informed that will keep his myth alive (hey...look at how many people still invest in perpetual motion machines!)

There is no substitute for good techniques and practice combined with keeping your brain turned on. Tim relies on those who are asleep and as proof of this I offer up my own observation and something you said.

You said: "I haven't even had them out of the duffle bag for two years."

This is the same statement I hear from almost every person I know of who has bought Tim's Training Wheels. Many of the people who paid $100-$150 for them have never used them. THAT'S HOW IMPORTANT SPONSONS ARE!!!

A better idea would be to use the money on something that will benefit you. Like dinner with your wife or another good looking woman.

Ian
 
 

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board is maintained by Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks with WebBBS 5.12.
 

You will note a common delusion in the above posting, regarding the "stability" of narrower kayaks compared to wider kayaks in waves. You can also see numerous attempts by the poster to negate or minimize the importance of basic information, including numerous book references by most authors at http://www.sponsonguy.com

The concept of a life raft has been around for at least a century. No life rafts are "narrower" in order to be more stable in waves. In fact life rafts are all relatively wide; and modern life rafts incorporate water ballast pockets below the waterline, that were not available in life rafts from the WW2 era, to prevent capsize in large, breaking waves.

No canoes and kayaks can be pumped out in waves, or prevented from re-filling and rendered un-usable, without sponsons. This facts is plain, obvious and well-documented:

"However Dillon and others have killed hundreds of kayakers using sprayskirts, knowing that a 2 handed pump cannot be shoved down a 2 handed sprayskirt while leaning on a 2 handed paddle with a paddle float on the end. It has generally been recognized for many years that kayaks are impossible to pump out through a sprayskirt, even in small waves. You need hands for the paddle, pump and sprayskirt, but you still can't seal the sprayskirt, so water comes back in. This has been openly acknowledged: "...It has two fairly serious shortcomings: You can't seal the sprayskirt, and you can't keep both hands on the paddle while pumping." (Sea Kayaker Magazine, February 2003, p.29) "The most effective way of using a handheld bilge pump in rough seas is to lift the bottom of your PFD up and shove the pump down between the spray skirt and your belly. This way is slow and awkward, but you can pump with the spray skirt completely sealed. Practice it." (p.27, Sea Kayaker Magazine, June 2006.) Matt Broze, "Pumping Out after Paddle Float Rescue", Paddlewise, Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:36:43 -0700: "...obviously there are going to be certain combinations of clothing and spraydecks that don't allow a pump down the front. Please try it and report back (if you don't knock yourself out and drown after hitting your chin)." The idea to shove the pump down the top of the sprayskirt requires unfastening the PFD, since the tops of sprayskirts normally extend some distance underneath the PFD."

The US Coast Guard has utilized the concept of a life raft platform for decades: USCG Level Flotation Standard  33 CFR 183. Issued April 18, 1977; Effective August 1, 1978  "Establishes level flotation standards on rowboats and outboard boats less than 20 feet in length, the boats most often involved in swamping and capsizing accidents, so that the boat will float level when swamped and provide a safe platform until rescue."

Unless victims have a foolproof and very easy means to escape the water, they will die in the water within a short time, wearing a PFD or not, due to the effects of hypothermia.

This fact is obvious. Tim Ingram

PS: I should mention that the buoyancy of  "approximately" a 5 gallon gas can (or the foam-filled or the air-bladder filled sponson) does not negate the ability, in the most extreme conditions, of righting a capsized canoe or kayak. The weight of 2 ten year old girls is sufficient, like any normal adult, to sink a sponson by sitting upon one sponson to upright the canoe or kayak. Once righted, any canoe or kayak will remain upright due to (at least one ton) of water ballast inevitably flooding the canoe (less for most kayaks.) This point may not be obvious to all viewers, unless pointed out. You do not want a buoyancy of sponsons overcoming the weight of the paddlers, no matter the potentially obtrusive nature on small craft; this also accomodates the need for sponsons to be as small and unobtrusive as possible. You want only "sufficient rescue buoyancy". Please see the patent links. Incidentally, I am an inventor who makes no money from the invention, after expenses. This is normal. Most inventors simply want to improve society. (Money might be nice, like the inventor of variable-speed windshield wipers after 25 years of litigation against the Big 3.). This is why the Patent Offices around the world encourage inventions but offer no protection, nor "riches". Inventions do profit society, not most inventors.

I am a former scoutmaster and YMCA counsellor, without these worldly needs. Tim Ingram
 

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board is maintained by Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks with WebBBS 5.12.

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board

Re: Wide and ballasted works

Posted By: Nick Schade-Guillemot Kayaks <Schade@guillemot-kayaks.com>
Date: Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 5:44 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram (David)

: He invented them in 1992, based on his studies of military flotation devices,
: he is a walking encyclopedia on this subject. Most military ops used
: sponsons for entry onto surf beaches, but then again, according to Tim,
: military use of kayaks is down, they are too easily detected with modern
: technology. I don't agree with everything he says, his impression is that
: the paddlesport industry is rejecting sponsons because they are so
: effective that they would eliminate most of the need for instruction. He
: definitely believes in instruction, but feels most instructor's time could
: be better spent teaching how to interpret charts, plan routes, assess sea
: conditions, etc. He is definintely pushing for legal action against the
: ACA, there is alot of discussion of conspiracy so that ACA can protect its
: own market and interests. This is where I just didn't bother arguing, I
: disagree that sponsons are the be and end all of safety. When I asked
: about compromises in secondary stability he pointed out the fact that the
: life raft does not tip in most conditions and that the combination of
: enhanced flotation and ballast is still a time-honored way to save lives
: at sea.

Tim is right if he says flotation and ballast on a life raft make them very stable. However the ballast is a crucial element in the equation. Without the ballast a breaking wave can very easily flip a life raft. In flat seas the ballast is not necessary, but in the stormy conditions that may cause the need to use the raft can and do flip unballasted rafts.

Tim's sponsons don't provide ballast. On the scale of a kayak, it doesn't take a very big wave to make a wide, flat kayak quite easy to flip. The stability is so great that the kayak sticks to the face of the wave and when the wave breaks, the kayak flips over with the break.

While a narrow boat may not be a whole lot easier to keep upright in similar conditions if the paddler is passive, it does give a skilled paddler the opportunity to take evasive actions. For example leaning into the breaking wave and bracing.

Tim is correct in that sea kayaks are not very stable. However, that is part of the key to their seaworthiness. You can give people a very stable kayak. Many manufactures offer them under the name "recreational" kayaks. But these boats are not that seaworthy, and most paddlers will find a narrower sea kayak more suitable if they want to spend much time in rough conditions.
 

*Nick is generally a decent fellow but apparently does not understand (or does not want to understand) all of the pictures of flooded canoes (or kayaks) in my website:http://www.sponsonguy.com

My sponsons do provide water ballast. See the pictures. This fact is inevitable!

I invented sponsons in 1987, when I applied at the US Patent Office. Flooded canoes and kayaks are inevitable in emergencies. There is no foolproof nor easy means to get water out of capsized canoes and kayaks, nor any way to prevent waves from simply refilling them. This is why they are so deadly. Only sponsons provide a means to get water out or make canoes and kayaks still able to be paddled to safety completely flooded:

These 2 ten year old girls can rescue themselves within 5 seconds, and any other victims in the water, even large and disabled adults who only need crawl over a submerged gunwale, before the girls paddle them to shore at 2 knots standing up. Normally the girls would be sitting on the seats, body cores out of cold water, and the sponsons would be both clipped to the canoe at a point 4 inches below the gunwale. In this picture one sponson is intentionally set higher to demonstrate 2 knot paddling even with total flooding. (Otherwise, both sponsons 4 inches below the gunwales at the mid-point of the canoe, prevent total flooding through self-bailing by simply leaning the canoe to one side, putting body weight on one sponson.) However, if a large wave should completely flood or swamp the canoe again, it is good to know that the canoe can be easily paddled to shore at 2 knots, completely flooded, by 2 ten year old girls without any instruction or practice:

Notice that one airbag (sponson)  is higher than the other. This is to demonstrate total flooding. If it were set lower, the same as the other sponson or "air bag", most of the water would pour out just by leaning on one Airbag sponson. Also the two girls would normally be sitting on the seats.

However, even standing up they can paddle the canoe that weighs over one ton at a speed of 2 knots. They can also turn and pick up any victims in the water. Even large and disabled adults can be rescued from the water easily, since victims only have to make it over the low gunwale to be in the canoe, so that they can be paddled to shore at 2 knots. Tim Ingram

Two Postings: One Relatively Sophisticated, One Not
 

Re: talking

Posted By: LeeG <gardannap@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 9:34 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram (David)

When I asked about compromises in secondary stability he pointed out the fact that the life raft does not tip in most conditions and that the combination of enhanced flotation and ballast is still a time-honored way to save lives at sea. He does have a point here.

A life raft is a static platform. Comparing aspects of safety between a kayak and a life raft is like comparing a bicycle with a cart. Two fundamentally different vehicles.

The ballast in life rafts used for rescue in sea going boats are chambers under neath the raft enclosing cubic feet of sea water. So a 6' diameter life raft with a few cubic feet of water underneath has tremendous stability and righting force, especially with an inflated canopy so the raft can right itself when capsized on a huge waves as the inflated canopy lifts the floor upright as those chambers drain out. A life raft without those chambers and inflated roof will blow completely over when a helicoptor comes to rescue it or in high winds/waves.

Threats of lawsuits come from morally impotent individuals.

Messages In This Thread

Saftey and sponsons (views: 2077)
Tim Mattson -- Saturday, 6 July 2002, at 5:59 p.m.
Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram (views: 1048)

And Not:
 

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board

Talking to Tim Ingram: Hard Talk

Posted By: Eric
Date: Sunday, 7 July 2002, at 1:41 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram (David)

: I had a long talk with Tim Ingram yesterday, asking him all about sponsons.
: He is very nice on the phone, speaks quite calmly, listens well. I rather
: enjoyed our conversation. He certainly doesn't strike me as someone who
: flies off the handle, at least in person.
: He invented them in 1992, based on his studies of military flotation devices,
: he is a walking encyclopedia on this subject. Most military ops used
: sponsons for entry onto surf beaches, but then again, according to Tim,
: military use of kayaks is down, they are too easily detected with modern
: technology.

* Do the military use hard-shell kayaks ? I thought those were take-aparts, some with four sponsons as commandos most often carry heavy gear as machine-guns, etc. Are such boats much easier to spot than frogmen ?
-

: I don't agree with everything he says, his impression is that
: the paddlesport industry is rejecting sponsons because they are so
: effective that they would eliminate most of the need for instruction. He
: definitely believes in instruction, but feels most instructor's time could
: be better spent teaching how to interpret charts, plan routes, assess sea
: conditions, etc.

* Yeah, let's replace them all with navigation teachers; too bad for their students (in Darwinian studies) who'll capsize and never come back to surface. I thought teachers had been contributing to some extent to keeping the sea kayaking casualty roll quite low compared with flat water figures.
-

: He is definintely pushing for legal action against the
: ACA, there is alot of discussion of conspiracy so that ACA can protect its
: own market and interests. This is where I just didn't bother arguing, I
: disagree that sponsons are the be and end all of safety.

* Yup, I surmise BandAid too, is "definitely" going to sue the military buildup, as the White House the bretzel industry, etc. I'll bet a GP the ACA will sue him before he sues them, but I enjoyed getting back to that Grassy Knoll Gazette atmosphere.
-

:When I asked about compromises in secondary stability he pointed out the fact that the life raft does not tip in most conditions

* in most conditions, yes, yet many do. And the width-to-lenght proportions of a raft won't allow paddling in acceptable conditions. They are very large boats.
And anyway, the people who find themselves stranded on a raft have nothing to loose, so that 50% survival chances are still a better deal than none.
A raft is supposed to be drifting, not being paddled fast.
-

: and that the combination of enhanced flotation and ballast is still a time- honored way to save lives at sea. He does have a point here, and I think we get too caught up in the secondary stability argument, the UBC research tank results showed that narrow kayaks tip easier, they were no more stable than wide boats, so I am even beginning to doubt the hype about secondary stability and kayaks.

* What amount of hype exactly ?
-

: Face it, a wide boat is a stable boat. Not much fun for 3D paddling of
: Jeds, not so easy to get onto edge, but more stable in big waves. Not
: sure, I have read hundreds of papers on secondary stability, but there is
: little evidence to back up these claims that somehow a narrow boat will
: ride waves more securely than a wide beam boat. I think that the hype
: surrounding narrow yaks (for touring) is worse and probably more
: misleading than Tim's sponson comments. Narrow boats, with very rounded
: hulls, providing enhanced secondary stability, to me, are just capsizes
: waiting to happen in all but the most skilled hands.

* The problem there is the shape of a hull, just like in a catamaran vs a hull that has a keel. Granted, you won't beat the primary stability of a catamaran, but when she has capsized, how will you right her back? Have you tried with a sailing dinghy and a larger type Hobbie Cat ?
Granted too, not many yaks have a keel; but the way to get some IIndary stability is to dig the center of gravity deeper into the soup, which you can't get within a large hull (i-e a kayak hull enlarged with sponsons, i-e a catamaran). She'll be tippier, but her steadiness won't be an All or Nothing bet, as on a large hull. The question is, do you increase or diminish the gravity pressure of the hull onto the water. The deal is: the more stability you've spent in Iary, keeping perfectly steady, the less you'll still have in IIary. Designing your hull (or adding sponsons in a storm) you've chosen the turning point.
-

: He is certainly pro-paddlefloat rescue,

* Does he hype paddlefloats too ?
-

but believes that sponsons stabilize the boat after re-entry, so in combination with paddlefloat put the paddler in a more secure position, to get to shore. His new model has both a regular inflation valve, and a gas cartridge, he is designing longer sponsons which can be deployed with gas cartridge and provide a : substantial increase in flotation over older models. He has only sold
: about a dozen sets from MEC here in Canada, so his market penetration is
: really low. You have no fears of these things becoming dominant anytime
: soon. : Although I disagree strongly with this legal action of his, it was an
: interesting and pleasant conversation. He sees sponsons like a climber
: sees a safety harness, you wear it as insurance.

* How much Lord Sponsonby will pay our loving ones if we take the plunge ?

: And whereas some of you might still choose to rappel with a dulfersitz, the modern harness is much more effective, that's his take on sponsons. He also describes their use by aboriginal cultures of the Aleutians all the way to Greenland.

* OK. Sponsons on kayaks ? I've seen some on sailboats only. This is a most interesting information, are there pics, drawings, etc.?

: I think his best comments concern White Squall, which is, even ahead of our
: operation, the biggest and most successful kayak rental and instruction
: outfit in Ontario. They have been using sponsons, according to Tim, for
: years, although I have rented from White Squall and didn't find any of
: them on my boat. White Squall, John Dowd and other leaders in the field
: have endorsed them.
: Anyhow, I paddled for 20 years without them, and haven't even had them out of
: the duffle bag for 2 years;

* Are you so puitting your own life at risk ?

but, I still think he has an idea, that with further refinement,

* Why not? Huge, helium inflated, instant airbags...They'd work once, probably.
-

are a worthy addition to rental kayaks, at least. We have all had enough of this topic, and thought I would follow up by talking directly to the designer, to clarify my own position further.

* In the end, I'd say sponsons give a false feeling of safety since they are acting just as long as the chop keeps moderate, and won't be effective any more as soon as the situation goes over our heads. Do you think there's so much of a difference between a kayak hull and the same equipped and widened with a pair of sponsons? It would be much effective if appended from a pair of yokes or any kind of spacers. But that would be a pirogue with amas, and quite a dangerous contraption as, when capsized we would have to wet exit and we wouldn't be able to right her back easily.
More, it's still better for a beginner to capsize in a small chop so that he has some chances to make it and he'll be ever aware of the dangers, than to run into a storm at a later stage believing he's protected anyway while this time he won't stand the ghost of a chance against steep waves.

Messages In This Thread
 

Saftey and sponsons (views: 2077)
Tim Mattson -- Saturday, 6 July 2002, at 5:59 p.m.
Re: Saftey and sponsons - Talking to Tim Ingram (views: 1048)
 

The American Canoe Association's letter in reply June 29, 2001 to the Attorney-General of Florida by Gordon Black, lied extensively, avoiding the defending of paddlefloats and Eskimo rolling, since the American Canoe Association in their "Paddler" magazine had already admitted, many times, that most people could not save their lives with either "rescue". These letters and many others are reproduced in "Canoe and Kayak Scam Kills 1000 Americans", available at Amazon.com and throughout the world. Tim Ingram (tim@sponsonguy.com).

The most popular type of kayaks, called "recreational" kayaks", sold at Walmart and sporting goods stores from $300 to $700, 10 or 12 feet long, with a very large cockpit, too large to fit a sprayskirt effectively, has no ACA rescue at all! Victims simply die in the water; although the Search and Rescue groups of the Canadian Coast Guard use these kayaks with sponsons and no sprayskirt (to ensure interior flooding for extra stability from the water ballast), for rocky surf rescues, clipping victims to fore and aft decks and paddled back to the mothership.
 

Dave Harrison started this whole story in the largest canoe and kayak magazine, stating the obvious below. Then the advertisers, the ACA instructors and their allies, threatened him with a financial boycott. See the original letter in my book "Canoe and Kayak Scam Kills 1000 Americans". It would be the same result if the likewise ethical editor of Sea Kayaker Magazine were to attempt to do the same. Dead bodies are good business for the fraudulent rescues of the American Canoe Association: "I thought these were a better idea, and have turned my old paddle float bag into a camera case." (Canoe and Kayak Magazine, July 1993.)

"Every serious kayaker should learn the Eskimo Roll. It is by far the quickest, most reliable method of rescue (Obviously this statement is untrue, as contradicted above, by the need for back-up rescues, that in turn are not reliable.).... Its only disadvantage is that some find it difficult to learn.... Until you find the blade’s glide angle all attempts to complete a roll will fail and you may pick up several habits that might need to be laboriously broken before you will be able to succeed... Once you master the Eskimo roll make sure you can do it with the equipment you will actually be using. (Why do the Greenland Champs require a rescue boat? Who can trust an Eskimo roll with their life, if the World Champs are failure-prone.) When you get a new boat, paddle, PFD, drysuit or anything else that might affect your roll you should practice rolling with it. It's not enough to be a pool roller, you must also be capable of rolling the kayak as you would be paddling it. That is with a gear load, bag on the back deck, your life jacket on, etc. You need to be successful in whatever conditions (cold water, waves, turbulence, etc.) you may find yourself. " (This recommendation for the Eskimo roll is so qualified and demanding of special considerations, that it cannot be trusted with human lives. It is a "show off" trick.) http://www.marinerkayaks.com/mkhtml/Kykrescw.html

Please read the entire link at Mariner Kayaks by Mr. Broze and ask yourself why nearly 2000 citizens have died in canoes and kayaks in Canada and the United States (over 1,500 American citizens) since Mr. Broze and others have worked to deny these dead victims, including hundreds of children, any practical means to Save Themselves. The 5 second/50 cent Sponsons enable any 2 ten year old girls in the pictures here to rescue Mr. Broze and all of his "expert" friends in seconds.

Mr. Dowd and Mr. Hutchinson are very decent and major authors who said this:
" In this book I would like to emphasize rescue techniques other than the Eskimo roll because a backup technique is mandatory...given that relatively few sea kayakers will ever roll successfully and because workable alternative techniques are too often neglected...The great advantage of the Sea Wing (sponsons) is that it leaves the paddler in a more stable position than before the capsize." (John Dowd, Sea Kayaking, 3rd edition, 1997, pp.90-95)

"The Paddlefloat is not really a rough water rescue. During trials I found the SEA WING (sponsons) ... very comforting. I paddled out to sea in rough, windy conditions...I was able to sit on my rear deck-not something I would normally do at sea...The rescue potential is obvious." (Derek Hutchinson, The Complete Book of Sea Kayaking, pp.104-111)

Unfortunately, over 1,500 Americans and hundreds of Canadians (including hundreds of crying and terrified children), nearly 2,000 in total since 1993, have died agonizing deaths (that were obviously and easily preventable with sponsons and 2 ten year old girls); deaths due to Mr. Broze's ideas, that are very, very similar to the murderous American Canoe Association propaganda:

"However Reimer was an experienced sea kayaker...His Eskimo roll was not strong, so there was only his paddlefloat." He was unable to get back in, like most experienced paddlers. He died an agonizing death:
"Hanging onto his upside-down boat, he lifted his paddle over his head. In spite of the rough seas, he waved it back and forth..." (Sea Kayaker, June, '01, p.54).

Mr. Broze in "Deep Trouble", and in conversations with me and hundreds of other people knew all about sponsons in 1993. Sponsons are mentioned several times; but extremely briefly in "Deep Trouble". Instead:
"A capsized paddler who Eskimo rolls is still in the same conditions that capsized him  or her in the first place, and with each roll he or she will take on more water, lessening the kayak's stability." Matt Broze, Deep Trouble, p.91

And elsewhere:
"It has generally been recognized for many years that kayaks are impossible to pump out through a sprayskirt, even in small waves. You need hands for the paddle, pump and sprayskirt, but you still can't seal the sprayskirt, so water comes back in. This has been openly acknowledged: "...It has two fairly serious shortcomings: You can't seal the sprayskirt, and you can't keep both hands on the paddle while pumping." (Sea Kayaker Magazine, February 2003, p.29) "The most effective way of using a handheld bilge pump in rough seas is to lift the bottom of your PFD up and shove the pump down between the spray skirt and your belly. This way is slow and awkward, but you can pump with the spray skirt completely sealed. Practice it." (p.27, Sea Kayaker Magazine, June 2006.) Matt Broze, "Pumping Out after Paddle Float Rescue", Paddlewise, Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:36:43 -0700: "...obviously there are going to be certain combinations of clothing and spraydecks that don't allow a pump down the front. Please try it and report back (if you don't knock yourself out and drown after hitting your chin)." The idea to shove the pump down the top of the sprayskirt requires unfastening the PFD, since the tops of sprayskirts normally extend some distance underneath the PFD.""

Another very cruel and deadly author, supported by the American Canoe Association Murder Scam::

"For paddlers with good rolling skills, this is the quickest way to recover from a wet exit. You can be back in the boat and rolled up within a minute." (Jonathan Hanson referring to yet another unlikely "rescue", the "re-entry and roll", Complete Sea Kayak Touring, 1998, p.85) You will also have a boat full of water obviously! And no way to stabilize it while trying to pump it out. Pumping requires at least one hand, holding a paddle at least one hand, and the sprayskirt is generally at least a one hand operation. In Fact: It is impossible to pump out the flooded kayak through an opening between the sprayskirt and the cockpit rim. "...It has two fairly serious shortcomings: You can't seal the sprayskirt, and you can't keep both hands on the paddle while pumping." Sea Kayaker Magazine, February 2003, p.29.)

"Once you have the Sea Wings fitted and adjusted, its advantages over the paddlefloat become clear. To use a paddlefloat, a certain amount of instruction and practice is needed. But with Sea Wings, I simply told my volunteer how to snap the four buckles, inflate the sponsons, and climb back aboard." (Sea Kayaker Magazine, Winter, 1993)

Of course the 5 second, 50 cent sponsons of the two 10 year old girls are even more obvious.

Homeland Security, that controls the U.S. Coast Guard, has ensured "safety exemptions" for canoes and kayaks, despite attempts by the FBI and The Consumer Product Safety Commission to change this. Men, women and children, an average of 100 annually are killed in canoes and kayaks in America. Brought to you by Homeland Security that has not rebuilt New Orleans nor secured the border with Mexico. American lives are for sale in America to the ACA and other lobby groups. This will likely improve with an election change in Washington this year.
 
 

The same long, blue, thin, sponsons close up:

The newest CO2 inflatable sponsons are not long and thin, and easily rescue any victims within 5 seconds, no practice or instruction needed; giving 2 knot speed and re-capsize protection in big waves (that have not suddenly disappeared, nor the suddenly appearing, capsizing winds.) These sponsons can be made at kids' camps from 50 cents worth of used, closed-cell foam and an 8 foot length of cord connecting the sponsons and tied to the middle canoe thwart. (Or preferably two 25 cent clips to clip the sponsons to the hull well within 5 seconds.) Very simple, as long as 2 things exist: these exactly same specific points of attachment to the canoe are made, and the foam contains the same, equal buoyancy to the green pillow sponsons below. Foam will require more volume to equal an air-filled or CO2 filled, Fat pillow sponson in buoyancy, due to the extra weight of the foam. See this most recent patent at the U.S. Patent Office in Washington: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6343562.html

You will notice a Big difference between the 2 sponson pictures above. The long, narrow sponsons have only about 60% of the buoyancy of the pillow-shaped green sponsons. The green pilllow sponsons are much more powerful and inflate instantly by means of a CO2 cartridge. They can also be inflated orally in about 10 puffs of air from a normal adult. They are manufactured identically to CO2 PFDs, but are made of much more rugged materials. (They can also be made at kids' camps from 50 cents worth of used, closed-cell foam and an 8 foot length of cord connecting the sponsons and tied to the middle canoe thwart. Or two 25 cent clips for 5 second attachment instead. Very simple) See the most recent patent at the U.S. Patent Office in Washington: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6343562.html

Note that historically, Paddle Canada (until recently the Canadian Recreational Canoeing Association) advocated safety flotation for canoes through revered member and famous Canadian canoeist Bill Mason, who reversed his traditional rescue ideas after the many dead schoolchildren (12) in the 1978 Lake Temiskaming tragedy, stating that these rescues simply cannot work, in his last book: "canoe over canoe...I have since changed my mind..." (Song of the Paddle,1988, p.126). Mr. Mason advocated extra interior flotation; otherwise a flooded canoe cannot be paddled and no self rescue is possible. Extra interior flotation is not as effective as sponsons because it negates the water ballast/buoyancy couple that allows:

1. Any 10 year old kids to get out of the water within 5 seconds,
2. As well as rescue others from the water immediately, even large disabled adults from the water in wind and waves.
3. Bail the flooded canoe by simply leaning on one sponson to allow water to pour out, the sponsoned gunwale being slightly above the exterior water level.
4. Re-capsize protection even if large waves completely refill the canoe (or kayak) since the water within is actually water ballast, created by the leverage of the water ballast/sponson buoyancy couple. More water inside creates more stability through more weight. Without sponsons, water inside canoes and kayaks sloshes from side to side, as revealed by any expert paddler, as well as Bill Mason.

You will notice that Dillon attempts to mislead the safety of the public by saying that 4 (count 'em) ACA instructors on and in the (perfectly calm) water in the pictures in her book can rescue themselves; if they don't panic, have 2 lightweight and completely empty canoes, have at least 4 strong, experienced and well-practiced canoeists, and no winds, waves, or any other condition except calm, perfect luck to accompany their deceit and stupidity in showing the "rescue" that has also murdered hundreds, including dozens of school children! Follow the experts over the years, although the foolish and calamity prone ACA Dillon "rescue" is obvious:

Both ACA authors and the Famous Canadian canoeist and film-maker Bill Mason, who reversed his traditional rescue ideas after the dead schoolchildren (12) in the 1978 Lake Temiskaming tragedy, have stated that this Dillon ACA "rescue" simply cannot work. Bill Mason stated in his last book: "canoe over canoe...I have since changed my mind..." (Song of the Paddle,1988, p.126). Mr. Mason advocated extra interior flotation in this book instead, but died suddenly of stomach cancer just before the first sponson patent became known. C.E.S. Franks reached Bill Mason's conclusion just before Temiskaming, in The Canoe and White Water, University of Toronto Press, 1977, p.123: "...nearly useless...On a stormy lake where upsets are likely to occur, the water is often too rough and choppy."  American Canoe Association Hall of Fame member Cliff Jacobson in his 2005 book "Expedition Canoeing" states: "The canoe-over-canoe rescue touted by the Red Cross and Boy Scouts is generally impossible to perform in a running sea. Far better to forget about the swamped canoe and gear and put your efforts into rescuing the paddlers" (p.202.) However the 12 dead children at Lake Temiskaming in 1978 tried to simply get victims into uncapsized canoes, thereby capsizing the uncapsized canoes (no sponsons.) In Deep Waters, James Raffan also notes that Jacobson's idea merely capsized more canoes, killing 12 boys and one leader, Ontario's Lake Temiskaming, 1978. Also see page 108 of "Deep Waters", regarding the deaths of another 12 Canadian children years before: "Somewhere in the middle of the lake, about two miles from shore and too far from the camp to be seen with the naked eye, the canoe upset. Whether this was from a sudden gust of wind on an otherwise calm summer evening, or from a novice paddler "catching a crab" (a paddle) on the water and shifting position, is not clear, although there was a tendency for some newspaper writers (as there would be with Timiskaming fifty years later) to concoct a violent storm to overturn the canoe. There was likely no storm. In any case the big canoe upset. It had no air tanks, sponsons, or flotation chambers,..."

Dillon published her book in 2008 anyway. Oyen and Dillon are deliberately wanton and reckless with regard to human life, despite the above book comment by even their own ACA Hall of Fame member Cliff Jacobson!

Please note: Fraudulent and deadly canoe and kayak instruction frequently recommends paddling in groups, so that uncapsized paddlers supposedly can "rescue" a capsized victim. This idea has killed both many experts and novices in the "care" of "experts". In fact any group of canoes and kayaks without emergency sponsons just ensures the likelihood of greater deaths than if just a single canoe or kayak capsizes. There is no means to empty out the water! See again: American Canoe Association Hall of Fame member Cliff Jacobson in the 2005 book "Expedition Canoeing" states: "The canoe-over-canoe rescue touted by the Red Cross and Boy Scouts is generally impossible to perform in a running sea. Far better to forget about the swamped canoe and gear and put your efforts into rescuing the paddlers" (p.202.) In Deep Waters, James Raffan notes that Jacobson's idea merely capsized more canoes, killing 12 boys and one leader, Ontario's Lake Temiskaming, 1978. This occurs even if canoes do not contain packs and gear inside when capsized. Empty kayaks up-ended over other kayaks to drain out the water also risks capsizing other kayaks and then simply refilling again due to the well-documented sprayskirt problems:

"It has generally been recognized for many years that kayaks are impossible to pump out through a sprayskirt, even in small waves. You need hands for the paddle, pump and sprayskirt, but you still can't seal the sprayskirt, so water comes back in. This has been openly acknowledged: "...It has two fairly serious shortcomings: You can't seal the sprayskirt, and you can't keep both hands on the paddle while pumping." (Sea Kayaker Magazine, February 2003, p.29) "The most effective way of using a handheld bilge pump in rough seas is to lift the bottom of your PFD up and shove the pump down between the spray skirt and your belly. This way is slow and awkward, but you can pump with the spray skirt completely sealed. Practice it." (p.27, Sea Kayaker Magazine, June 2006.) Matt Broze, "Pumping Out after Paddle Float Rescue", Paddlewise, Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:36:43 -0700: "...obviously there are going to be certain combinations of clothing and spraydecks that don't allow a pump down the front. Please try it and report back (if you don't knock yourself out and drown after hitting your chin)." The idea to shove the pump down the top of the sprayskirt requires unfastening the PFD, since the tops of sprayskirts normally extend some distance underneath the PFD.""
 
 

Paddling in groups merely reinforces the deadly death cult, the more kayaks and canoes in a group, the more potential deaths. There is no safety in numbers if they have no sponson protection after capsize. Even the 2 ten year old girls without any instruction can paddle up to any "expert" victims in the water and rescue them, even if the experts are hurt, since they need only crawl over a submerged gunwale before the 2 ten year old girls paddle them to shore, even standing up, testifying to the tremendous stability from sponsons coupled with a ton of water ballast.

The group rescue idea killed the 4 students at Lyme Bay and hundreds more in other cases, when even one canoe or kayak with sponsons could have saved at least a couple of victims in the water. Many victims have also died when they have attempted to crawl up on the back deck of a kayak to be paddled to shore; sometimes even killing the wouldbe expert "rescuer" who is also capsized because the kayak had no 50 cent, 5 second sponsons. It is no surprise that "macho" experts appear "abusive" and "defensive" when their lack of personal safety is inflicted even upon Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, who then die tortured deaths in the water wearing a PFD or not. Using canoes and kayaks without sponsons is not only stupid, it is egregious criminal negligence. *Any 2 ten year old girls make any expert without sponsons look negligent and foolish.
 

*Here we have a un-edited example of the canoe and kayak fraud, that any elementary schoolchild could identify as duplicitous (lying) since the self-contradictory author Matt Broze (self-professed "inventor of the paddle-float", although in fact Will Nordby invented this device years before, as documented by famous British author Derek Hutchinson), had spoken to me many times in person at the West Coast Sea Kayaking Symposium since 1993, when he was outraged that Wayne Horodowich, safety chairman of TASK, the Trade Association of Sea Kayaking, organized by John Dowd, first endorsed sponsons on behalf of TASK. I personally demonstrated sponsons in the Pacific Ocean, September 1993, before Mr. Broze and about 500 members of TASK on the large pier at Port Townsend, Washington State: Nearly 2000 easily prevented canoe and kayak deaths have occurred since this time. Un-edited, From http://www.marinerkayaks.com/mkhtml/Kyksaftw.html

"PADDLING IN GROUPS

The paddling ability and judgment of the group members is more important than group size. While many consider three kayakers to be the absolute minimum for anything beyond an easy shore paddle, there is not necessarily safety in numbers. For example, an expert is probably safer alone than with two or three novices involving him or her in their troubles. With each additional member the chance of trouble due to one of the group having difficulties increases. Ultimately YOU are responsible for your own safety so don't blindly follow another paddler’s lead. When you are no longer dependent on others you will be welcomed in a group as an asset rather than seen as a liability. Please don't consider this as permission to paddle alone. Paddling alone is far more dangerous than paddling with a partner. Three is safer yet providing more options with which to meet an emergency. With four paddlers one could stay with a disabled paddler (on shore) and two could go for help. Even though the group was forced to split up each member still has a partner.
Groups larger than three should pick a leader to be responsible for keeping the group together, picking a safe route, and assessing the physical and psychological state of the group members. When inexperienced paddlers are involved the leader should check that they have the necessary gear and proper flotation in their kayak. Before embarking the leader should inform the novices of what they will be expected to do if they are involved in a capsize or other emergency and an explanation of what kind of rescue to expect. If a problem arises this information should serve to give the novices hope to help avoid the panic that could cause an emergency, delay rescue, or endanger others. It will also make the entire group aware of the possibility of trouble and force them to see if they have the skills and equipment necessary to meet an emergency.
While all group members should be consulted concerning important decisions, the leader is charged with making the final decision and making sure all the members know the plan. It is important that all members be included in the decision making process as this is one of the prime learning opportunities for the less experienced. By agreeing on a leader in advance and having discussed the hazards a group can minimize the chances of serious disagreements arising at a time when they could threaten everyone’s safety. Large groups should use the buddy system, linking novices to experts. This helps keep the group together and makes the responsibilities of group members clear-cut. If larger groups are divided into subgroups it is important to distribute the experienced paddlers so a weak group is not formed. Never leave a novice or group of novices by themselves. Some paddlers have paddled for years but only in calm conditions. If there is a chance of rough conditions these paddlers should be considered to be nearly novices.
Be prepared to voice your strong objections to any plan you think would be risky for you or some other member of the group. Novices can easily be led into trouble by those who have forgotten how vulnerable the were as beginners. Conditions can get so bad that the experts will have trouble taking care of themselves. Don't count on them being able to rescue you. If the plan appears to be dangerous if you were on your own insist on a safer course of action. In a group paddlers should follow the lead kayak and not branch out at some angle without first notifying the leaders of their intentions. The lead kayak must be certain it is not leaving anyone behind. A meeting place should be agreed on in advance in case the group is accidentally separated.

KNOW YOUR EQUIPMENT

Check your equipment for damage and wear.
Check that your kayak has flotation, secured both in the bow and stern adequate to float a swamped kayak level and minimize the amount of water that must be removed. Flotation in only one end will allow your kayak to become vertical in the water, Making reentry virtually impossible without the help of a large boat.
Check that your spray deck fits tightly enough on the cockpit rim so as to be resistant to being popped off by a wave dumping into your lap. Shock cord loses its elasticity and stretches with time and use so it may need to be readjusted later. Make sure novices don't use a spraydeck until they can show they know how to remove it.
Practice capsizing and "wet exits" so you know how to remove your spray deck and climb out (if you wear gloves, can you find the grabloop with them on? Underwater with your eyes closed?). Practice alternate spraydeck removal methods in case the primary one is unavailable. Some include: grasping the shock cord in back, reaching down inside through the waist tube and with palm up pushing the straight fingers out to one side, leaning to the side at the hips to create a fold in the fabric to grab, pressing down on the coaming rim and pushing the fabric out to the side to grab with your fingers. Since none of these will always work practice them all and place them in order of likelyhood of success for you and your equipment.
Be careful with your equipment so as not to create a trap with your ropes, loose gear, spray deck, paddle leash (don't use one in breaking surf), PFD's straps, or footbraces (shoelaces and some sandals) that could hold you or your feet and prevent a "wet exit".
Carry repair kits for your kayak and paddle, as well as for yourself (first-aid kit).

IMPROVE YOUR SKILLS
Those who come to sea kayaking by way of river kayaking have an advantage in that whitewater conditions have forced them to develop several reflexive paddle braces. As a result they are not dependent on the inherent stability of the kayak to keep them upright. The high and low brace are the most important physical skills in kayaking. You should work at developing them. The high brace is basically a bracing forward stroke and the low brace is a bracing reverse stroke. Practice in warm shallow water where you won't be afraid to capsize. Throw yourself progressively further and further off balance and use your paddle to recover. Once you’ve gotten the idea, have a friend or two stand at the end(s) of your kayak and purposely try to capsize you. You should be able to remain upright no matter how hard they try.

Also practice a sculling high brace and alternating between a high and low brace to support you while you lean over to one side. When you've practiced this enough you'll find you can slowly lean your body over until your ear is in the water, then slowly bring yourself back upright. If done quickly you can manage it all with a single sweep. Work on your bracing strokes and you may never have to resort to an Eskimo roll.
In order to know what to expect and what to do when faced with a difficult situation, its best to have practiced in a similar situation. With this in mind we suggest you paddle in progressively stronger winds and rougher waves, but in safe locations such as near an easy landing beach towards which the wind will push you should you capsize. You should be dressed for a capsize and have a source of help, shelter, and warmth at hand. Try rough conditions with your kayak loaded with gear as well as empty. Kayaks and paddles can become extremely difficult to handle in severe conditions. This practice will not only improve your paddling skills, but also give you some experience which will improve your judgment.
Another skill you should master is crossing eddylines. Learn to lean your kayak away from the current you are moving into by using a paddle brace downstream for stability. This lean is to counteract the force of the water sliding under your kayak which often causes a capsize to the upstream side. Find a safe place on a river or tidal stream where an obstruction in the current forms an eddy and practice crossing the eddyline both ways. Expect to capsize. Practice with a group containing some experts (for instruction and rescue). Have a source of warmth at hand and wear a wetsuit or drysuit.
We recommend you learn to Eskimo roll your kayak. This skill is potentially more valuable to sea kayakers than river kayakers because the distance to shore can be so much greater. Because capsizes are so rare while sea kayaking the value of learning to roll is not nearly as obvious as it is to a whitewater paddler. You will probably need expert instruction. Contact a club or kayak shop to find classes. Incidentally, it is easier to roll most gear laden sea kayaks than it is to roll an empty river kayak. At least if the gear can’t seriously shift to one side, side support at the seat keeps you from shifting to the side, and adequate knee braces are present. The additional weight acts as ballast and helps finish the roll. Although the motion is slower getting started--it is more like a thigh pull than a hip snap--once the rotating motion is present the momentum can pull you up out of the water like a punching dummy. Please quit using that sorry old "heavy gear laden kayak" excuse I hear so often for not learning to roll. Learn to roll the kayak you will actually be using both with and without a gear load.
Practice other rescues to back up your ability to Eskimo roll. Even the best rescues are marginal if they haven't been practiced. Rescue practice in a pool can be very valuable, but you should understand that a rescue which works in a heated pool with empty kayaks can give one a false sense of security. Wind, waves, cold water and 150 pounds of gear create a far more difficult situation. There is a wide variety of rescue techniques described in kayaking books, and it is nice to be aware of them; however, many work only under ideal conditions. Rescues that require the lifting of one kayak and rocking it over another to empty it of water risk serious damage to many kayaks and become nearly impossible with a gear load.
The best rescues require little or no help and do not require lifting and dumping the kayak. They get you out of the water quickly to minimize your exposure to hypothermia and allow you to aid in the pumping or bailing of your kayak. They should also be simple and easy to execute with a minimum of extra gear if any. The best rescues are still a poor second to Eskimo rolling.
Do not let confidence in the ability to Eskimo roll or perform rescues cause you to place yourself or your companions in a position where you are depending on it. Rolling and rescues are only safety back-ups. If you need to use them it is a sign you have already made a serious error in judgment.
Finally, practice paddling while pretending to cripple yourself or your equipment in some way. Try paddling and bracing using only one blade of your paddle to simulate a broken paddle (and maybe convince yourself to carry a spare). If your kayak has a rudder or skeg, you should learn to control your kayak without it in difficult conditions. Paddling with your kayak one-half full of water will give you an idea of what it might be like during a rescue. It may also help you to practice your paddle brace and teach you the value of carrying a pump and bailing container and having a partner (or a paddle float for the Mariner Self Rescue) to stabilize the kayak while you are pumping or bailing.

USE SAFETY EQUIPMENT
Obviously a day trip along a protected urban shoreline will require much less equipment and skill than a week long journey along an exposed wilderness coastline. You will have to decide what you may need and when you may need it.

Life Jacket
The Coast Guard requires there be an approved PFD (personal flotation device) for each person in a boat. You should wear it because if the wind and waves come up you may find it very difficult if not impossible to put it on while in your kayak. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can put it on if you capsize. You can quickly become separated from your kayak (and PFD) if you capsize in wind and waves. Because a kayak can blow away faster than you can swim many kayakers fasten themselves or their paddle to the kayak with a length of cord or shock cord. If faced with breaking waves any leashes or loose lines should be safely stowed so they can't tie you to your kayak. You should practice "wet exits" while never losing your grip on your kayak and paddle.

Bailing device
Lifting and dumping water from a gear laden kayak is virtually impossible from other kayaks, so a means of removing water from the kayak once you’ve gotten yourself up out of the cold water is a must. A high capacity electric, hand held or deck mounted pump is better than a "bailing bucket" because they can be used with the spray skirt closed to further water entry. Slip the hand pump through the top of your spray deck at your chest. A large sponge is nice for the last inch. These items should be readily available but stored securely so they won't float (or sink) away. A hand pump full of water will sink so tether it or add a float collar to it. Consider carrying a back up water removing device such as a bailing container or even second pump." http://www.marinerkayaks.com/mkhtml/Kyksaftw.html

(My underlining. In view of 120-140 deaths annually in the United States and Canada, 50 Cent/ 5 second sponsons demonstrated by the 2 ten year old girls, or CO2 sponsons manufactured like CO2 inflated PFDs, are mandatory to prevent these easily-prevented deaths. Why does Mr. Broze deliberately omit Sponsons in all of the dangerous circumstances he states above? Read his "Rescue" ideas and think: http://www.marinerkayaks.com/mkhtml/Kykrescw.html

"The best rescues require little or no help and do not require lifting and dumping the kayak. They get you out of the water quickly to minimize your exposure to hypothermia and allow you to aid in the pumping or bailing of your kayak. They should also be simple and easy to execute with a minimum of extra gear if any. The best rescues are still a poor second to Eskimo rolling.
Do not let confidence in the ability to Eskimo roll or perform rescues cause you to place yourself or your companions in a position where you are depending on it. Rolling and rescues are only safety back-ups. If you need to use them it is a sign you have already made a serious error in judgment."
Why does he not warn about sprayskirts and no means to pump out water? "Matt Broze, "Pumping Out after Paddle Float Rescue", Paddlewise, Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:36:43 -0700: "...obviously there are going to be certain combinations of clothing and spraydecks that don't allow a pump down the front. Please try it and report back (if you don't knock yourself out and drown after hitting your chin)."

The idea to shove the pump down the top of the sprayskirt requires unfastening the PFD, since the tops of sprayskirts normally extend some distance underneath the PFD. The above is extremely mis-leading, and has resulted in hundreds of deaths when victims suddenly found the pump they had purchased has no utility in emergencies, unless it is used in a calm swimming pool. (Tim Ingram)
 
 

Please note: with sponsons, more water inside creates more weight and therefore more stability. See this stability below in "awashed" U.S. Military kayaks: US Military Special Forces, 10th Airbourne, Fort Devens, MA, 200 mile ocean kayak race, the coast of Maine, between Military Kayaking Teams from about 12 NATO countries:
"basic, no nonsense...dramatically increase...safety and...capabilities... It should be noted that within the North American civilian sea kayak industry there is some controversy...Sea Wings' direct competition with...the paddle float...the merits of Sea Wings...far outweigh those of the paddlefloat...During the IMKP 1994 we used Sea Wings with all our rescue boats as back-up flotation/stability for awashed kayaks needing assistance pumping out in heavy seas. In addition, IMKP's rescue kayak was fitted with Sea Wings on a permanent basis which allowed us to be far more stable in possible rescue operations...Sea Wings dramatically increase re-entry operations with capsized boats. Indeed, even with heavily loaded boats (those approaching 1000 lbs.) most paddlers can easily re-enter the kayak. However the most notable advantage of Sea Wings is with lightly loaded boats; ie, those kayaks which are far less stable (more tippy) than fully loaded boats. Recovery operations are far more difficult in these boats and most students have extreme difficulty in mastering the necessary techniques. This is compounded in heavy seas. Sea Wings offers an almost guaranteed method of re-entering a lightly loaded kayak even in heavy seas. Stability increase in heavy seas. Paddling in extremely heavy seas is difficult. Sea Wings offer the crews an additional method of dealing with such sea states. One of the most dangerous situations a detachment can find itself in is that of towing a disabled crew with full operational loads in heavy seas at night. The employment of Sea Wings dramatically increases the safety margin. In my opinion, this is one of the sponsons' most important contributions to MAROPS... As an historical footnote it should be noted that circumpolar kayakers (Greenlanders and Inuit) employed a similar sponson/ float for stability. It differed significantly though from Sea Wings in that it was free floating; i.e., there was apparently no harness system and stability came from pushing down on the float on the side of the kayak. In addition, during the late 70's and early 80's we employed a similar system with our commo boats. Waterproof bags were blown up and hand held to the sides of the kayak while communication was conducted. The point here is that the idea of some sort of support on the sides of the kayak for stability is very old and universal." Invitational Military Kayak Paddle 1994 Evaluation

Without sponsons no canoe or kayak of any type can be "pumped out", resulting in instability, re-capsize and death. Escape from certain death is the main reason for the "life raft platform concept" in the United States:
USCG Level Flotation Standard  33 CFR 183. Issued April 18, 1977; Effective August 1, 1978  "Establishes level flotation standards on rowboats and outboard boats less than 20 feet in length, the boats most often involved in swamping and capsizing accidents, so that the boat will float level when swamped and provide a safe platform until rescue." The US Coast Guard report 071-01 reveals: "Canoes and kayaks have by far the highest fatality rates per million hours of exposure (.42) as any other boat type". In use hours, canoes and kayaks have a far higher death rate than the deadliest vehicles. "Canoes and kayaks have the highest fatality rate of all boat types." (Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the U.S. House of Representatives, May 15, 2001, BOAT/U.S.)

Canoes and kayaks, the earliest and most primitive form of watercraft, are capable of 5 second transformation into the patented and most advanced form of active-rescue life raft:  http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6343562.html
 

Kayaks are generally narrower than canoes, but are transformed into the most advanced form of active-rescue life raft just as easily as canoes. The Canadian Coast Guard Search and Rescue in Newfoundland use $600, 10 foot recreational kayaks with sponsons to paddle into rocky surf zones, clip victims to fore and aft decks, and paddle back to the big "mother ship" (usually a twin-engined large Zodiac or other rigid-inflatable powerboat.)

See this drawing of a foam sponsoned kayak. These sponsons, made from 50 cents worth of  re-cycled foam, are clipped to the kayak below the small "wing" protruberances that serve to widen the distance between the sponsons to about 3 feet, the usual distance you see in the canoe pictures above:

The foam sponsons can be clipped to 25 cent clips C, or be connected to the kayak instead by a strap or cord B running under the kayak or canoe. The foam sponsons are stowed securely on the rear deck before deployment. The CO2 sponsons can be rugged enough to be "almost bulletproof", like modern liferafts, yet fit into tiny containers molded to the sides of any canoe or kayak. They are an obvious means to save lives. Otherwise victims in the water will soon die, even in 70 degree Fahrenheit waters, where body heat is lost at a rate 25 times the rate of heat loss in air.

You can have 3 very simple types of inexpensive sponsons:

1. Solid closed-cell foam sponsons (larger than inflatable sponsons that contain about 10 adult puffs of air.)
2. Inflatable sponsons that are already pre-inflated (10 puffs) by mouth and stowed securely within the canoe or on the rear deck of a kayak.
3. CO2 inflated sponsons within a protective container molded sleekly within the gunwale of a canoe or the hull of a kayak, inflating in 5 seconds upon pulling a cord.
 

Of course the major authors are both intelligent and genuinely interested in human lifesaving: "After Lyme Bay (and to avoid further attention from the British Press that tore into this terribly tragic story for weeks and ensured the Manslaughter conviction), the famous UK author Derek Huthchinson wrote: "The Paddlefloat is not really a rough water rescue. During trials I found the SEA WING (sponsons) ... very comforting. I paddled out to sea in rough, windy conditions...I was able to sit on my rear deck-not something I would normally do at sea...The rescue potential is obvious." (Derek Hutchinson, The Complete Book of Sea Kayaking, 1994, pp.104-111) Capt. D.C.S. Thompson, Principal Marine Surveyor, UK Coast Guard (re-named MSA under Margaret Thatcher), contacted me after this tragedy, following the huge media coverage in the UK. Capt. Thompson told me that he was acting on the recommendation of Mr. Derek Hutchinson that sponsons were necessary to prevent the continuing re-capsize of the students' kayaks, after the guides got them back in. Capt. Thompson mentioned that some UK experts complained that sponsons increased the "righting lever" of kayaks so much that kayaks with sponsons were in fact less stable in waves. (The US Military Kayakers did not complain of this! In fact their evaluation stated the obvious: Sponsons make kayaks much more stable in heavy seas or in surf landings when kayaks are more in danger of broaching and capsizing in large, breaking waves.) There is some "expert" propaganda in Paddle Canada about narrower canoes and kayaks being more stable in waves. This is not supported by either science or commonsense.

The famous Canadian author John Dowd, in his book "Sea Kayaking", 1986, p.227 states: "I was once with a group of Outward Bound boys...fourteen boys, 16 to 19 years old...a savage squall capsized nine of them in one blast... any form of group rescue using the techniques...was out of the question. There were two instructors with the group and myself and another instructor in a 24 foot jet rescue boat, watching through binoculars from a distance of half a mile. we picked up...in less than twenty minutes. Without the rescue boat, we would have needed a 1:1 staff to pupil ratio...and even then the result would have been in doubt." With the invention of sponsons in 1987, John Dowd stated: "The great advantage of the Sea Wing (sponsons) is that it leaves the paddler in a more stable position than before capsize." (Sea Kayaking, 1997, pp.90-95) In "Deep Trouble", 1997, sponsons are mentioned for emergency stability on pages 140, 153, and 182. These sponsons or "airbags" can be different shapes and CO2 inflated for immediate rescue from deadly waters in a few seconds, without any instruction or practice, on any kind of canoe or kayak. These sponsons or airbags can be rugged enough to be "almost bulletproof", like modern liferafts, yet fit into tiny containers molded to the sides of any canoe or kayak. They are an obvious means to save lives. Otherwise victims in the water will soon die, even in 70 degree Fahrenheit waters, where body heat is lost at a rate 25 times the rate of heat loss in air.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada Report Number M93W0008 still exists:

"2.8 Emergency and Safety Equipment: The side sponsons...were not inflated and installed ahead of time to assist the kayaker to reboard after a possible capsizing or to increase the stability of the kayaks. Consequently, when the kayakers entered an area of rough seas, they had to keep paddling to keep their kayaks upright. Each kayak was equipped with these floats. The secondary use of the sponsons, i.e. to increase the stability of the kayaks, was not foreseen before the kayaks encountered severe weather."

Unfortunately the young man in the above report, on a commercial kayak touring trip in the Queen Charlotte Islands, paid with his life in 1993, mainly because the full use of sponson safety was not appreciated: deploying them before inevitable capsize in an approaching storm on the open Pacific Ocean. After all, Dr. Hannes Lindemann crossed the Atlantic Ocean in 1956 with a sponsoned canoe, amd then survived a Hurricaine crossing the Atlantic again in 1957 with a sponsoned Klepper kayak. The tour group did not take paddle floats with them because it was well known that paddle floats were both ineffective at providing stability on both sides of the kayaks (in fact actually creating a capsizing lever on one side); but also they could not continue to paddle to a safe shore with paddle floats obviously. But sponsons of course permit steady paddling to safety in heavy winds and capsizing waves flooded with water or not!

Two of these 11 year old Girl Guides below died horribly and slowly, crying and wishing to see their families again. They had no means to escape the water.












Another Posting Group:

BoatBanter.com > rec.boats.paddle > Touring > Re: Tim Ingram's address?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDAView Full Version : Re: Tim Ingram's address?
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim IngramFebruary 23rd 04, 12:44 PM
Now this is an interesting Subject!

I just don't have time to really bother with these 2 newsgroups much.
They have self destructed through "macho" ego and truly remarkable
stupidity, for the most part. Almost no women posters! Why take the
time for a tiny readership who for the most part just want to make
canoes and kayaks as deadly as possible. It is no wonder that over 10
times as many wide sit on tops and recreational kayaks are sold. They
are more stable, and no-one needs to take expensive instruction from a
moron. Most instructors, (there are a few happy exceptions), are
incapable of complex thoughts. They have severe psychosexual needs to
gratify instead.

This newsgroup is obvious evidence!

Now there are several ways to play you remnants from here. For the
most part I am just documenting your predilictions for hate,
prejudice, threats of violence and harrassment, and outright
intentions of murder toward children. Just look at what some of you
have posted in the last few days!

I can use these posts in exactly the same way I would edit a
documentory interview with the Grand Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. My
preference is humour! Read Jonathan Swift. Terrific. See Michael Moore
interview Charleton Heston in "Columbine"? Right. A litle clumsy.
Charleton could have been made to look a lot funnier, (for a truly
stupid jerk)!

There is an award winning film out now, "The Corporation",
interviewing Moore, Noam Chomsky, and others. Very good stuff!

However, the canoe and kayak industry has a corporate structure that
would make Himmler proud! Instead of trying to sell canoes and kayaks
with safety, they try to make things as dangerous as possible. Very
stupid and hateful people like the Klan, Nazis etc. get what they
deserve eventually. What the canoe and kayak industry gets is steadily
declining sales, with no-one wanting instruction from an idiot who
can't figure out the fallacies behind "Eskimo" rolls. (The Greenland
Champs need a powerboat close by!)

I am now trying to provoke the American Canoe Association into court.
But they are afraid of me. Just like some of you cannot prove that you
not are trying to kill kids. You see truth is not libel. And I want to
really study these remarkable hate crimes, as well as stop them fast.
Court is best. Second choice is satire. You just can't find a nastier
group of dumb-ass, deadly intentions toward the safety of innocent
citizens than here, on rbp!

These last few days posting here have been pure Swift. The satire
inherent in the postings makes my job very easy. And very funny (if
you forget how many dead victims, including kids.)

Read carefully, it is short and there are pictures for the literacy
program drop-outs:

http://www.sponsonguy.com
(My insertion of a live link here, instead of a long extinct link. Tim Ingram)

Some day all of you may see exposure you never dreamed of, just from
participating in a hate group like RBP.

In closing, for all you "Klan" guys (few women are as stupid as you!),
from the above link: (See the pictures. Think about the judge and jury
in the swimming pool doing the same as the girls. And the Wrongful
Deaths Lawsuits!)

"These little girls can quickly rescue a half dozen adults from the
water, since the adults weigh just about the same as their immersed
volume in water. This canoe cannot sink totally flooded! Police and
other RESCUE PROFESSIONALS use sponsons to create devices that are
smaller and less mobile, to rescue victims in tricky water and ice
rescues. Canoes are superior rescue craft with proper self-rescue
sponsons: Paddled easily at 2 knots fully flooded, by 2 kids standing
up. Set the far sponson in the above picture properly (lower), and the
canoe is almost entirely self-bailing by leaning on one sponson!

Canoes (and kayaks too), can save many lives, not just kill! Why kill
1000 US citizens in 10 years? Who gains from those cruel and easily
preventable deaths?"

Oh, by the way, Answer:

A little money, remarkably little, can induce the ACA and other
instructors to steal money for deadly instruction that kills US
citizens. I just keep informing the USCG and Homeland Security that
not all of the killers are a long way off!

Tim
 
 

(Backyard Renegade) wrote in message >...
> (Paddlec1) wrote in message >...
> > Who was it that posted Timmy's address last time he came around? And does
> > someone still have it?
>
> Probably, but what would that do? Don't you see what you guys have
> done to the group with your intolerance of anything or anyone new?
> Granted Tim is an idiot and in my opinion a self serving liar, but how
> about the rest. I watched last season as you and a few others ripped
> and high fived each other while you beat up on folks asking newbie
> questions, asking about building a roofrack, asking about anything
> else and then not taking your collective words as gospel, and I even
> watched last fall as King Tut "W" wondered why there was not much
> discussion in the group anymore. Could it be that folks don't like
> having questions and opinions addressed with sarcasm and ego? As I
> check in now I see 10 of the last 25 posts either looking for or
> selling equipment. Even the guy with the full detailed description and
> contact information just to ask where to "sell" a couple of kayaks, no
> one is beating up on them. Now of course with no one to bully, most of
> the bullies have moved on, probably to boatered, but they will be back
> when they need to knock a few newbies around. You all did this to
> yourselves, addressing folks like Tim in the first place and then
> strutting when you whipped his ass... No big winner in that one...
> Well, you wanted a toe the line equipment sales group, now you got
> it...
> Scotty
> Scotty

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BeachBck9February 23rd 04, 02:23 PM
Tim Ingram writes: Yadda yadda yadda, bla bla bla, etc.
 
 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave VanFebruary 23rd 04, 02:36 PM
> From: (BeachBck9)
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: rec.boats.paddle.touring
> Date: 23 Feb 2004 13:23:53 GMT
> Subject: Re: Tim Ingram's address?
>
>
>
> Tim Ingram writes: Yadda yadda yadda, bla bla bla, etc.
>

Yeah, and that's the message he left on the Homeland Security answering
machine too...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Backyard RenegadeFebruary 23rd 04, 08:37 PM
(Tim Ingram) wrote in message >...
> Now this is an interesting Subject!
>
> I just don't have time to really bother with these 2 newsgroups much.
> They have self destructed through "macho" ego and truly remarkable
> stupidity, for the most part. Almost no women posters! Why take the
>

Screw you Tim, you are a ****head... Although you may agree with me
that there is a macho ego attitude on this group, it was you and your
ilk that drove the bus. You are a self serving middleman for a bad
idea...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply for this group is typical of hundreds of postings to these Canoe and Kayak Cults that have prevented these people from posting even more dangerous canoe and kayaks ideas. They are not so unintelligent to not understand that they are ignorant toward their preferred subject: canoe and kayak safety.  Their responses can be found on the internet. I have not changed their responses, nor their context in any way to distort their messages. These groups require a different type of information response, "blunt" information, rather than the Canoe and Kayak Safety Death Study design method for individuals on phone or email or in person, due to the socio-psychological behavior of cults that reinforce members' thinking, despite irrational positions that are obvious to anyone outside of the cult (such as any judge or jury.). There are relatively few responders from the cult now; since I applied these techniques to http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats.paddle/topics in the late 1990's. This group is now virtually extinct since most posters recognized the antisocial aspects of most postings. Individuals can be treated very respectfully and politely, due to the one-on-one nature of interaction.
Tim Ingram
 

PS: I should mention that the buoyancy of  "approximately" a 5 gallon gas can (or the foam-filled or the air-bladder filled sponson) does not negate the ability, in the most extreme conditions, of righting a capsized canoe or kayak. The weight of 2 ten year old girls is sufficient, like any normal adult, to sink by sitting upon, one sponson to upright the canoe or kayak. Once righted, any canoe or kayak will remain upright due to (at least one ton) of water ballast inevitably flooding the canoe or kayak (less for kayaks).  This is point may not be obvious to all viewers, unless pointed out. You do not want a buoyancy of sponsons overcoming the weight of the paddlers, no matter the huge and obviously obtrusive aspect; this also accomodates the need for sponsons to be as small and unobtrusive as possible. You want "sufficient rescue buoyancy". Please see the patent links on this page (toward the end.). Incidentally, I am an inventor who makes no money from the invention, after expenses. This is normal. Most inventors simply want to improve society. (Money might be nice, like the inventor of variable-speed windshield wipers after 25 years of litigation against the Big 3.). This is why the Patent Offices around the world encourage inventions but offer no protection, nor "riches". Inventions do profit society, not most inventors.
 
 

Canoe and Kayak Safety Death Study

Tim Ingram

Penetanguishene, Ontario, Canada

Abstract: The danger to all citizens of the United States and Canada using canoes and kayaks has been well documented for decades: causing 120-140 deaths annually. All victims have not been able to get out of the water easily and immediately, in a simple, inexpensive and foolproof manner. This lifesaving means to escape certain death in the water has been available since 1987; but has been denied to the public by fraudulent instruction profitting perpetrators who gain both money and ego from degrading dead victims, whom they regard as inferior persons. This study has compared responses on the internet regarding this issue as well as responses from government agencies in the United States and Canada, who have denied any lifesaving means to these victims and have even facilitated fraudulent, deadly and untrue "rescues" and "safety" misinformation within school boards: Ensuring that many victims are innocent schoolchildren. The findings show a deliberate and unrelenting insistence that all canoes and kayaks have no means to escape death in the water; no means to remove the water from a canoe or kayak nor any means to prevent re-filling by even small waves: Making it impossible to paddle any flooded canoe or kayak to shore and making other canoes and kayaks attempting to rescue another canoe or kayak most likely to capsize as well, ensuring maximum danger and deaths .

Introduction
In response to my insistent communications with the US Coast Guard, they funded a study of my sponsons: see Federal Register/ Vol. 67, No. 232/ Tuesday, December 3, 2002/ Notices: Kayak/Canoe Sponson Study "Study conducted in conjunction with the CG Research and Development Center to study the efficacy of the use of sponsons in canoes and kayaks. ($26,171)")

The US Coast Guard report 071-01 reveals: "Canoes and kayaks have by far the highest fatality rates per million hours of exposure (.42) as any other boat type". In use hours, canoes and kayaks have a far higher death rate than the deadliest vehicles: Ford/Firestone had 200 deaths 1993-2000, but these vehicles were far more numerous and were driven far more hours daily. Canoes and kayaks are far fewer, and are not paddled daily! They are much more deadly than any car when used. http://www.sponsonguy.com

 "A total of 105 canoeists and kayakers drowned in 1998. Canoes and kayaks have the highest fatality rate of all boat types ñ double the rate of personal watercraft and 4 times higher than open motorboats." (Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the U.S. House of Representatives, May 15, 2001, BOAT/U.S.)

An intelligent and conscientious Search and Rescue Patrol Officer (Colin___ walked from the Canadian Coast Guard Office in Victoria, B.C., August 1994, to the largest local canoe and kayak store in this small city (Current Designs). He interviewed a number of canoe and kayak instructors, who confirmed what the US Special Forces Military Kayakers (10th airborne, Fort Devens) had confirmed only a couple of months before, at a meeting of NATO military kayak teams from nearly a dozen allied countries:
"basic, no nonsense...dramatically increase...safety and...capabilities... It should be noted that within the North American civilian sea kayak industry there is some controversy...Sea Wings' direct competition with...the paddle float...the merits of Sea Wings...far outweigh those of the paddlefloat." Invitational Military Kayak Paddle 1994 Evaluation

The then-owner of Current Designs, Brian Henry, an intelligent, decent man told me in person at the West Coast Sea Kayaking Symposium, September 1994 that he was unhappy with this: He needed no words to tell me that an endorsement of sponsons over the paddlefloat or any other "popular rescue" would have met financial disaster in the highly competitive industry that used kayak instructors as salesmen, no matter how difficult their rolling, paddlefloating and a huge plethora of rescue techniques were to the public. In fact, none of these complicated and highly circumstantial "rescues" are possible for any judge or jury in a swimming pool,  no matter how much practice. These rescues are a showcase for the egos of instructors who apparently do not care about the huge loss of life compared to the relatively low use of canoes and kayaks within the public domain, or the large profits to be made by endorsing sponsons: from 50 cent homemade sponsons (that would sell, with easily demonstrable safety for these notoriously unsafe craft, more canoes and kayaks to the frugal), to $150 CO2 cartridge sponsons for the trendy, made similarly to CO2 PFDs. Some trendy and less frugal enthusiasts would enjoy being "real rescuers", having demonstable rescue abilities far superior to any "expert" on the planet!

Sponson-equipped, canoes and kayaks are then safe, not dangerous at all, but in fact are used by Coast Guard Search and Rescue groups as endorsed rescue craft for surf rescues among rocks and cliffs where helicopters cannot use a winch amd rescue-swimmer; let alone the time savings if a multi- million dollar helicoptor is not stationed nearby!  The cheapest and most common type of kayak, the $600 "recreational kayak" with a cockpit too large for a safely-operating sprayskirt (easily collapsed by any wave), is the rescue kayak by choice, with external sponsons, internal flotation and most importantly, flooded cockpit area for water-ballast flooding, to lower the kayak in the water, for ballast stability and ease of rescuing victims onto lowered deck areas.

These facts are all obvious and testable by any judge, jury or anyone else. Alternatively we have demonstrably obvious lies with regard to lifesaving. This is no surprise in the United States with government agencies not saving lives in New Orleans after Katrina, nor in Canada with a government similarly aiding lobby groups: http://www.sponsonguy.com/policecrime.html

Almost all members of Parliament and major Canadian Media responded "read" to the above email survey. The data are readily available in the email records, during and after the last Canadian Federal Election.

Go to the above link to see named government employees in this "safety death scam".
 
 

Method
Briefly, the method is the same, whether interacting with subjects who are members of large government institutions, or individual police officers, or canoe and kayak enthusiasts who seek the most dangerous canoes and kayaks possible to enhance their superiority as "experts" who have not died (knowing the failure rate of the "rescues"), and their "superiority" to the dead victims, even children; although none of them are as capable as any 2 ten year old girls below:

These 2 ten year old girls can rescue themselves within 5 seconds, and any other victims in the water, even large and disabled adults who only need crawl over a submerged gunwale, before the girls paddle them to shore at 2 knots standing up. Normally the girls would be sitting on the seats, body cores out of cold water, and the sponsons would be both clipped to the canoe at a point 4 inches below the gunwale. In this picture one sponson is intentionally set higher to demonstrate 2 knot paddling even with total flooding. (Otherwise, both sponsons 4 inches below the gunwales at the mid-point of the canoe, prevent total flooding through self-bailing by simply leaning the canoe to one side, putting body weight on one sponson.) However, if a large wave should completely flood or swamp the canoe again, it is good to know that the canoe can be easily paddled to shore at 2 knots, completely flooded, by 2 ten year old girls without any instruction or practice:

Notice that one airbag (sponson)  is higher than the other. This is to demonstrate total flooding. If it were set lower, the same as the other sponson or "air bag", most of the water would pour out just by leaning on one Airbag sponson. Also the two girls would normally be sitting on the seats.

However, even standing up they can paddle the canoe that weighs over one ton at a speed of 2 knots. They can also turn and pick up any victims in the water. Even large and disabled adults can be rescued from the water easily, since victims only have to make it over the low gunwale to be in the canoe, so that they can be paddled to shore at 2 knots. Tim Ingram

So the method is simply to confront any subject with the obvious contradictions to any negative assertion as below:

I shall quickly outline this "Canoe and Kayak Safety Death Study" that you can prove yourself, in about 5 minutes, with anyone: yourself, your family, your local police department, your local Homeland Security staff, anyone at all. For example, some years ago I did this study with the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), as well as the US Coast Guard.

Instead of 24 students at Stanford University in The Stanford Prison Study, I employed my scientific method with over 500 police officers, that had the societal benefit of extremely cost effective education of the officers, leading to deep psychological insight for most of the police officer subjects at various ranks, from constable to superintendents or commissioners.

The scientific method of all these studies, whether 500 Canadian police officers or a few hundred staff within Homeland Security, takes less than 5 minutes to administer:

Statement 1. "If you capsize a canoe or kayak, you have no means to get out of the water, like any schoolchild, and you will certainly die wearing a PFD or not, if you do not get out of the water. Please save these children and yourself immediately by ringing the alarm!" Possible Responses to Statement 1:

Response 1. (Positive +) "Immediately! I shall instruct my chain of command to immediately save these human lives by providing the most simple failsafe means to get out of the water." to further along the Positive Response Spectrum: "Those dummies are more deadly to innocent human life than Osama bin Laden, but I shall keep trying!" Etc.

Response 2. (Negative-Antisocial) "There are more important things to do than save school children, or myself, or my family, or any members of my community, who will certainly die in the water after capsizing a canoe or kayak, with no means to get out of the water immediately."

Response 3. (Negative-Delusional) "I can get out of the water after capsizing a canoe or kayak to save my life or any children."

Statement 2/Response 1 (Positive+). "Thank you very much for immediately saving these lives by providing the means to get out of the water. Please contact me immediately with your plan to immediately save all these innocent people who are about to die painfully." and "Thanks for your effort in any case."  Conventional polite Statement 2: "Thanks for your effort in any case." should be used in every response, positive or negative response spectrum, even Response 2 or 3 (that are rare among any police officers),  to always communicate a positive regard of the subject, together with the simple lifesaving fact of getting out of the water immediately, no matter how positive or negative the responses.

This experiment is unique in that it does not create any artificial conditions that are common in conducting social science experiments. There is no manipulation of subjects in any manner for the sake of scientific experimentation, any more than human life can survive without getting out of the water. These statements are legitimate statements of alarm regarding lifesaving and these statements are within the purview of any government or police departments that are mandated for public safety. Humour can surface in the administration of  these simple statement/responses, just as long as both conditions are fulfilled: a) communicate a positive regard of the subject, b) together with the simple lifesaving fact of getting out of the water immediately.

Statement 2/Response 2 (Negative-Antisocial). "You admit that you are not fulfilling your duty to save human lives!" "Thanks for your effort in any case."

Statement 2/Response 3 (Negative-Delusional). "You cannot save yourself or any child without enough side buoyancy to make any canoe and kayak a stable enough platform, completely full of water, to be able to easily crawl out of the water immediately to save your life." "Thanks for your effort in any case."

Statement 2 is almost always a Response 2 or Response 3, unless the Responder is an expert in the field, for example a Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer familiar with the buoyancy requirements of any canoe or kayak without enough side buoyancy to make any canoe or kayak a stable enough platform, completely full of water, to be able to easily crawl out of the water immediately. I have only received about 50 responses of this type out of thousands of responses over the years (mostly former military or other specialists with rescue training who know that there is in fact no other means to make any canoe or kayak stable a stable enough platform, completely full of water, to be able to easily crawl out of the water immediately, nor is there any means to easily remove the water from a capsized canoe or kayak.) This buoyancy requirement in each side of a canoe or kayak is approximately the volume of a 5 gallon gas can or approximately the same volume of closed-cell foam, or air-filled bladder, and can be tested in a swimming pool by tying or clipping a gas can or buoyant foam of similar volume, bladder etc. to each side of a canoe or kayak so that each buoyant volume is only partially immersed in the water on each side of a flooded canoe or kayak, as in the pictures. They are connected several inches below the gunwales on each side to provide bailing capability when leaned against the buoyancy provided on one side.

Statement 2/Response 2 and Statement2/Response 3 statements are generic in this scientific method, the experiment using statements that label the fufillment of duty in response 2 and label the buoyancy requirement to be able to easily crawl out of the water in response 3. Both of these Negative- responses create in fact a learning experience for the subject, who cannot escape this experience by feigning ignorance of what a canoe or kayak is, given that canoes and kayaks are the earliest and simplest form of human watercraft. The large numbers of deaths, over 100 in the United States and 20-30 in Canada annually cannot therefore be dismissed without using either a Response 2 or Response 3 type of response: In which case the appropriate Statement 2 is merely repeated as simply and closely to the original Statement 2 response, conveying positive regard for the subject together with the simple lifesaving fact of getting out of the water immediately.

This experimental condition is reality-based, not artificial in any sense, given the real tragedy of horrible and painful deaths that are so simply prevented. Review the nature of human drowning (not painless), death plus the added agony of those survivors watching victims slowly dying of  hypothermia, for example, members of Girl Guides and other groups knowing this:
"After that Ryan described how her canoe,... She described efforts to keep the young girls occupied by playing word games. Ryan was also trying to keep the girls calm and instructed them to not fight the rocking of the canoe in heavy waves. Panic continued to grow as the young girls hung on to the canoe which continued to take on water and finally capsized. Ryan instructed the girls to huddle with her to preserve body heat in the cold water. The group drifted for some time before Erica spotted land and wanted to swim toward it. An attempt was made, but the group didn’t make any headway. Ryan got the group together to preserve body heat but later noticed Erica starting to slur her words –a sign of hypothermia. Later Erica started to flail her arms and Monique Lewis, who was holding on to her became afraid. Later Erica began moaning and groaning and the group yelled at her for a period of time in an attempt to keep her alert, but eventually all movement stopped and she began frothing at the mouth. Ryan said a similar process began shortly after with Megan and in an attempt to preserve the 11 year olds (sic) body heat she let go of Erica “thinking she had passed.” Megan deteriorated in similar fashion and shortly after Ryan spotted a helicopter flying overhead...." LTVNEWS, Coroner's Inquest, May 12, 2004.

Results
Most subjects changed their viewpoint when confronted with these commonsense facts regarding canoe and kayak safety; and Sponsons' guaranteed means to get out of the water in order to avoid certain death; regardless of PFDs, helicopters or "experts" who might choose to save or let die the "Darwinian" victims (see above "Darwin" post that is not uncommon, to "blame the victims for dying"). Only the "canoe and kayak enthusiasts" asserted that there were rescues available; but the victims were not skilled enough to save themselves, (although no enthusiast, however expert, was able to demonstrate the guaranteed ability to save themselves in 5 seconds, as well as other swimmers in the water, like the 2 ten year old girls in the pictures here.)

This experiment helps to prevent the familiar fraudulent forms of mis-information and propaganda employed by ignorant and sometimes even corrupt government and societal organizations, to perpetuate antisocial acts for profit: whatever organization, expanding mandates, territory, budgets or profits.

This method, applied to Canadian police officers, resulted in total acknowledgement that there was no means to rescue these victims except the timely arrival of a police rescue powerboat or other rescue powerboat (that obviously is a very scarce item when canoes and kayaks capsize.) Only the "canoe and kayak enthusiasts" asserted that there were rescues available; but the victims were not skilled enough to save themselves, (although no enthusiast, however expert, was able to demonstrate the guaranteed ability to save themselves in 5 seconds, as well as other swimmers in the water, like the 2 ten year old girls in the pictures here.) This horrible cult is not so historically unusual, given the preface to this webpage regarding Hitler, the Yale and Stanford University experiments:

"A "Super-race" of canoeists and kayakers is supposed to exist, far superior to the victims, but in fact the super-race cannot rescue themselves or anyone else from the water using a capsized flooded canoe, unlike the 10 year old girls. To become a member of the "super-race", much expensive instruction must be purchased by the public; although it cannot save the purchaser in the water, no matter how "expert", or thousands of dollars spent, or years of practice. It is impossible to degrade
these dead victims unless a "super-race" is fabricated, to whom the victims are "inferior". The super-race need not be an ethnic or racial entity, merely a group that is "superior" so the victims did not "measure up" and died due to their own failings. Until the level of degradation is significant, most people find it unpleasant and difficult to kill these otherwise completely innocent victims, of all ages and cultural groups. Also, society will not tolerate the killings until government propaganda has sufficiently degraded the victims so that their deaths, no matter how cruel and agonizing, no matter that they are the children of someone in Canada or the US, are accepted. The victims are to blame when they are sufficiently degraded."

The US Coast Guard was obviously afraid of the Bush Whitehouse, actually inviting the American Canoe Association for input, that of course denied any of these obvious lifesaving facts in order to protect their fraudulent ACA "safety" projects. This fact is prominent in the reference to the lobbying of government officials at the beginning of their USCG Sponson Study:
http://www.uscgboating.org/safety/efficacy.htm

Discussion and Conclusion

This type of social science experiment can be adapted to any social science, both proving and negating organized antisocial or delusional patterns. For example, today we see ongoing war for the United States is predicated on lies now exposed by at least a dozen best-selling authors. These "weapons of mass destruction" lies are in fact so blatant that one asks what free press and journalism was doing by remaining almost silent, to allow massive human and economic damage that has not finished badly hurting the entire world.

This experimental model applied to contemporary economic and political scams, using very simple facts like canoe and kayak stability, but using simple economic facts instead of buoyancy etc., results in proving similarly obvious, fraudulent facts and antisocial behavior in economic and political policy, just as proven in the Canoe and Kayak Death Study. First it is desirable to prove a very simple fact of buoyancy and thousands of human lives in the water. As long as the United States and Canada continue to torture citizens to death in this simple experiment, even children, for no good purpose; the future of either country, socially or economically, is predictably bleak. This is a very simple experiment, proving very simple facts in everyday reality. These simple applications of very simple facts are easily applied to almost any other area of human interest (economics for example, another area of my personal expertise.) Sponson buoyancy has not just symbolic application, in this regard. It is a very powerful model too.

Simple confrontation of any normal person with the safety facts of Canoe and Kayak Safety, results in Quick Change toward allowing all potentially dead canoe and kayak victims to be allowed to rescue themselves with any kind of sponsons, 50 cent to CO2 sponsons. Canoe and kayak enthusiasts who derive ego and money benefits from these deaths and continuing sale of dangerous canoes and kayaks, without any means to get out of deadly waters, derive support from their cult (shown in the excerpts), to kill innocent children and adults for their own ego or monetary gain. This is plain and obvious. Government officials confronted with these facts continue to allow the tortured deaths of innocent Canadian and American children and adults, by favouring criminally-operating, fraudulent lobby groups. This point is well-known to both American and Canadian citizens with regard to many other aspects of "democratic" governments.

References
On the above internet links throughout. Tim Ingram

Further Proofs

The following are posts on one internet forum of many regarding the deadly canoe and kayak safety fraud. These posters know that there is no means for any citizen to escape the deadly waters, no matter how much instruction or practice, wearing a PFD or not. Without sponsons there is simply no way to transform a canoe or kayak into a 5 second/50 cent, guaranteed rescue craft, calm waters or rough.

These canoe and kayak enthusiasts seek the most dangerous canoes and kayaks possible to enhance their superiority as "experts" who have not died and their "superiority" to the dead victims, even children; although none of them are as capable as any 2 ten year old girls below:

These 2 ten year old girls can rescue themselves within 5 seconds, and any other victims in the water, even large and disabled adults who only need crawl over a submerged gunwale, before the girls paddle them to shore at 2 knots standing up. Normally the girls would be sitting on the seats, body cores out of cold water, and the sponsons would be both clipped to the canoe at a point 4 inches below the gunwale. In this picture one sponson is intentionally set higher to demonstrate 2 knot paddling even with total flooding. (Otherwise, both sponsons 4 inches below the gunwales at the mid-point of the canoe, prevent total flooding through self-bailing by simply leaning the canoe to one side, putting body weight on one sponson.) However, if a large wave should completely flood or swamp the canoe again, it is good to know that the canoe can be easily paddled to shore at 2 knots, completely flooded, by 2 ten year old girls without any instruction or practice:

Notice that one airbag (sponson)  is higher than the other. This is to demonstrate total flooding. If it were set lower, the same as the other sponson or "air bag", most of the water would pour out just by leaning on one Airbag sponson. Also the two girls would normally be sitting on the seats.

However, even standing up they can paddle the canoe that weighs over one ton at a speed of 2 knots. They can also turn and pick up any victims in the water. Even large and disabled adults can be rescued from the water easily, since victims only have to make it over the low gunwale to be in the canoe, so that they can be paddled to shore at 2 knots. Tim Ingram

This bulletin board is sponsored by Guillemot Kayaks . Please feel free to post a response.

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]
 

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board

Re: Rec Boat Scenario

Posted By: Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks <BBS@guillemot-kayak.com>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 8:51 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Rec Boat Scenario (Bill Price)

: Wouldn't this concern extend to recreational canoes too?

Yes, it does. However, there are some well established self rescue techniques for canoes that would work even for small recreational canoes. One thing about canoes is a small amount of built-in floatation is standard equipment for canoes, but this in not true for recreational kayaks.

This is a lie; since there are no "well established self rescue techniques for canoes that would work..." Only the 5 second/50 cent sponsons of the 10 year old girls can work, rather obviously. Tim Ingram

Messages In This Thread
 

Rec Boat Scenario (views: 1337)
Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks -- Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 4:16 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 711)
mike allen -- Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 5:20 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 621)
John -- Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 6:00 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 602)
Reg Lake -- Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 6:27 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 575)
Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks -- Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 9:59 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 560)
Bill Price -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 1:47 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 553)
Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 8:51 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 536)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:02 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 509)
Don Flowers -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 11:05 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 458)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 4:29 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 447)
Don Flowers -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 5:56 p.m.
Rec Boat demos (views: 548)
Randy Knauff -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 2:36 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Rescues--tough, but "somewhat" doable (views: 515)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:10 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Rescues--tough, but "somewhat" doable (views: 451)
Ed Hopkins -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 9:45 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat demos (views: 462)
LeeG -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:20 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat demos (views: 496)
Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 1:55 p.m.
unsafe at any speed? (views: 513)
Reg Lake -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:30 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 514)
Sage -- Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 6:34 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 497)
LeeG -- Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 7:25 p.m.
That's what I would do, Sage (views: 466)
Robert N Pruden -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 3:11 p.m.
repair (views: 467)
Sage -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 6:22 p.m.
It won't work without bow floatation. (views: 416)
Brian Nystrom -- Monday, 21 April 2003, at 4:10 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 509)
Randy Knauff -- Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 6:40 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 446)
LeeG -- Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 7:49 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat -lay acrooss back and paddle (views: 487)
davemcadoo -- Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 10:00 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat -lay acrooss back and paddle (views: 442)
LeeG -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:22 a.m.
Re: Cleopatra's needle (views: 557)
yakman -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 12:15 a.m.
Demonstrate Don't Talk (views: 469)
Liz N. -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 7:25 a.m.
Re: Demonstrate Don't Talk (views: 448)
LeeG -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:34 a.m.
Re: Demonstrate Don't Talk (views: 423)
Liz N. -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 2:51 p.m.
Re: They won't listen. (views: 459)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:32 a.m.
Every spring, when we start skills sessions... (views: 422)
Brian Nystrom -- Monday, 21 April 2003, at 4:16 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 426)
Ian Johnston -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 2:18 a.m.
My $.02 (views: 537)
Brianne Corbett -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:01 a.m.
I'm with Bree (views: 503)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:06 a.m.
Re: I'm with Bree (views: 468)
Brianne Corbett -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:22 a.m.
Re: I'm with Bree (views: 442)
LeeG -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:44 a.m.
Re: I'm with Bree (views: 427)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 11:04 a.m.
Re: Canoe rescues (views: 431)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 11:01 a.m.
Re: Canoe rescues (views: 430)
Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 1:44 p.m.
Re: I'm with Bree (views: 436)
Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 1:40 p.m.
Re: I'm with Bree (views: 420)
Robert N Pruden -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 3:25 p.m.
Re: swimming with a paddle (views: 410)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 4:32 p.m.
Re: I'm with Bree (views: 444)
Ian Johnston -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 12:41 p.m.
Re: I'm with Bree (views: 406)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 4:16 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 531)
Bill Burton -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:04 a.m.
Great!!! *NM* (views: 398)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:11 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 424)
LeeG -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:36 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 420)
Robert N Pruden -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 3:26 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 460)
Ian Johnston -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 12:46 p.m.
Re: putting PFD on while in the water. (views: 465)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 4:46 p.m.
Really ??? (views: 415)
Brian Nystrom -- Monday, 21 April 2003, at 4:00 p.m.
Really, really!!! (views: 434)
Ian Johnston -- Thursday, 24 April 2003, at 12:17 a.m.
Re: Really, really!!! (views: 417)
LeeG -- Thursday, 24 April 2003, at 7:31 a.m.
Re: Really, really!!! (views: 358)
Ian Johnston -- Thursday, 24 April 2003, at 10:49 a.m.
Re: Write off the Fisherman (views: 435)
Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks -- Thursday, 24 April 2003, at 1:51 p.m.
What technique? (views: 349)
Brian Nystrom -- Thursday, 24 April 2003, at 1:12 p.m.
Fail. Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 429)
topher -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:40 a.m.
Re: Fail. Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 434)
Shawn Baker -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 11:05 a.m.
Re: Fail. Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 454)
Brianne Corbett -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 1:23 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 423)
Paul J -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 2:12 p.m.
Re: Cell Phone (views: 396)
Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks -- Friday, 18 April 2003, at 3:33 p.m.
A shot in the head *NM* (views: 405)
Petewp -- Sunday, 20 April 2003, at 10:12 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 427)
Rick Allnutt -- Wednesday, 23 April 2003, at 2:11 p.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 548)
Shawn Baker -- Tuesday, 12 August 2003, at 11:41 p.m.
Too Late! (views: 489)
Ian Johnston -- Wednesday, 13 August 2003, at 2:55 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 415)
Brianne Corbett -- Wednesday, 13 August 2003, at 7:29 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 476)
Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks -- Wednesday, 13 August 2003, at 9:57 a.m.
Re: Rec Boat Scenario (views: 459)
bob Kelim -- Wednesday, 13 August 2003, at 10:01 a.m.
[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]
 

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board is maintained by Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks with WebBBS 5.12.

Posted By: Bill Price <bprice@moscow.com>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 1:47 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Rec Boat Scenario (Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks)

: it is not a loaded question. The "Critical Judgment" report
: suggests that a large proportion of the fatalities are this kind of
: paddler. The perception of recreational kayaks is they are stable and
: "safe".

I completely agree with you here, Nick. We started out in an Old Town Loon 16. This is an open cockpit plastic double "kayak" that could very easily fill with water in small waves. It is also very heavy (70 lbs empty) and would be very difficult to empty, or renter without flooding, even if you did get it emptied. While I don't have any good answers here, I'm glad you brought the topic up. Safety was never even raised or thought about beyond PFD's when we bought it (REI). Thankfully, we never had the chance to test that scenario. We used to carry a half gallon milk jug with the top cut off thinking we could bail out with it, but I doubt it would have been very effective.

Wouldn't this concern extend to recreational canoes too?

Bill

This man apparently realizes that both recreational canoes and recreational kayaks cannot be pumped out or bailed since there is so much water inside (close to one ton of water or more depending on volume of the craft.) Not only is the swamped canoe or kayak so low in the water that there is no means to prevent water from simply re-entering again, it would take an hour or so to bail or pump that much water, even if it did not simply fill again. These craft are too heavy, even completely empty, to throw into the air to empty the water; a "rescue" called the "Capistrano Flip" by the cult, none of whom, not even Arnold Schwarzeneger, have this super-human strength. Sponsons used by the 10 year old girls use this water as ballast, further enhancing stability. This principle has been known to the cult since 1993, over 1,500 American deaths ago. This cult is as deadly as any terrorist group, steadily killing citizens through this fraud. Tim Ingram

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board

Re: Rec Boat Scenario

Posted By: Shawn Baker <kayak@boatbuilding.com>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:02 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Rec Boat Scenario (Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks)

: Yes, it does. However, there are some well established self rescue techniques
: for canoes that would work even for small recreational canoes. One thing
: about canoes is a small amount of built-in floatation is standard
: equipment for canoes, but this in not true for recreational kayaks.

And with thwarts, it's pretty easy to put flotation in traditional canoes. The same cannot be said for semi-decked, large cockpit "recreational kayaks".

For canoes without added flotation, the best bet is to be near shore...experienced river runners use flotation or gear as flotation, and do assisted canoe rescues.

But...an inexperienced canoeist without flotation in the middle of a lake is in the same boat, or lack of, as the recreational kayaker. Or an inexperienced sea kayaker.....

Shawn

This man acknowledges the need for extra flotation, but inside the craft, which negates the leverage of the water ballast, used by the 10 year old girls. This man does not want sponsons to be used, as he states elsewhere constantly like the other members of this cult. But he does know about 10 year old girls and 5 second/50 cent sponsons, apparently uncaring about 1,500 deaths that are easily prevented. Tim Ingram

Re: Rec Boat Scenario

Posted By: Don Flowers <dflowers@cyberlink.bc.ca>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 11:05 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Rec Boat Scenario (Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks)

: Yes, it does. However, there are some well established self rescue techniques
: for canoes that would work even for small recreational canoes. One thing
: about canoes is a small amount of built-in floatation is standard
: equipment for canoes, but this in not true for recreational kayaks.
I have to disagree with you Nick. Most of the new canoes I see do not have built in flotation, in part because they will not stack for efficient shipping if they have float chambers. Many of the techniques such as sloshing the water out don't work with the wider vinyl covered gunnels (I defy you to spill water out of my Old Town), a Capistrano Flip works ok with a kevlar but put an 80 or 90 pound plastic canoe in the senario and it doesn't come out of the water. If the person is carrying float bags, they probably are not in the situation -- most places that sell rec canoes do not even carry float bags (or know what they are), add in older and/or overweight individuals and you have fish bait. I demo rescues but if a person does not get in the water themselves they do not realize how difficult life is going to become. Most of the time I wind up preaching to the converted -- those who are willing to do a course and that's only a small percentage. Fortunately, the others don't use their boats much.
take care
don

This "Capistrano Flip" man believes that he can throw an overturned kevlar 50 lb. canoe into the air to empty it of water and flip it before it comes down, to land upright on the water surface, empty. He cannot, nor can even     muscleman Arnold, governor of California. He knows about sponsons in these pictures. Note: "fish bait". This cult blames the dead for their own deaths although even they, the "superior experts" cannot rescue themselves. They often refer to the "Darwin Principle" to kill off these inferior citizens, even if the dead are someone's child. This is a true murder cult. Tim Ingram

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board

Re: Rec Boat Scenario

Posted By: Shawn Baker <kayak@boatbuilding.com>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 4:29 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Rec Boat Scenario (Don Flowers)

: I demo rescues

So what?!  As you mention below, if a person does not get in the water themselves, they don't know how difficult it really is. Watching a skilled individual perform a rescue can make the rescue seem easier than it really is! Are we doing people a disservice by showing them rescues?!

"Oh, I'll remember that in case I go in the water....Don made it look easy!"

Paddlers are paddlers. If you've spent any amount of time in a certain watercraft, you have some mastery of other watercraft--you're a great example. Your skill with a kayak belies the fact that you've only paddled one a few years. Canoe rescues are not exactly like kayak rescues, but still...you'll "fake it" better than the average Joe on the street.

In most cases, the people we see in rec. boats are not paddlers, they're "people in rec. boats"!

: Most of the time I wind up preaching to
: the converted -- those who are willing to do a course and that's only a
: small percentage.

Yeah, but also fortunately, they're the ones you'd rather paddle with anyway!

: Fortunately, the others don't use their boats much.

Given their time on the water and the numbers of deaths, per-outing, these things are risky!!

Shawn

This man is aware of the 1,500 deaths in the United States since 1993. He knows my name and he has seen these 10 year old girls with 5 second/50 cent sponsons. Tim Ingram

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board

Re: Rec Boat Scenario

Posted By: Don Flowers <dflowers@cyberlink.bc.ca>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 5:56 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Rec Boat Scenario (Shawn Baker)

No argument from me Shawn. My point was that the demos don't show the dangers and its tough to get the people who should learn in the water. Nick posed a nasty question-- makes me think and that hurts my head.
: So what?!  As you mention below, if a person does not get in the water
: themselves, they don't know how difficult it really is. Watching a skilled
: individual perform a rescue can make the rescue seem easier than it really
: is! Are we doing people a disservice by showing them rescues?!

: "Oh, I'll remember that in case I go in the water....Don made it look
: easy!"

: Paddlers are paddlers. If you've spent any amount of time in a certain
: watercraft, you have some mastery of other watercraft--you're a great
: example. Your skill with a kayak belies the fact that you've only paddled
: one a few years. Canoe rescues are not exactly like kayak rescues, but
: still...you'll "fake it" better than the average Joe on the
: street.

: In most cases, the people we see in rec. boats are not paddlers, they're
: "people in rec. boats"!

: Yeah, but also fortunately, they're the ones you'd rather paddle with anyway!

: Given their time on the water and the numbers of deaths, per-outing, these
: things are risky!!

: Shawn
Rec Boat demos

Confirmed. Although "makes me think and that hurts my head", this man has seen the 10 year old girls and sponsons pictures. This legal evidence stands for use soon by US Attorneys in several States, in upcoming criminal trials, as well as in a class action lawsuit: justice for 1,500 dead Americans and over 350 dead Canadians.  Tim Ingram

Posted By: Randy Knauff <randykn@ak.net>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 2:36 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Rec Boat Scenario (Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks)

: it is not a loaded question. The "Critical Judgment" report
: suggests that a large proportion of the fatalities are this kind of
: paddler. The perception of recreational kayaks is they are stable and
: "safe". The people who buy them don't feel that they are doing
: anything risky when they go out on a summer afternoon to enjoy the local
: lake. But they can still get into trouble. There has not been much
: attention paid to how to do a self rescue in this kind of boat. I am
: hoping to get people to think about it.

: What I would like to see is some techniques that when kayak clubs are asked
: to do demos for the public, will prove useful to casual kayakers in short,
: wide, large cockpitted boats.

The demos should show that these boats will not let you do most of the sea kayak rescues once the boat has taken on any substantial amount of water, even with a trained person. They are not very safe boats as sold.
Demo what might work and then show a boat set up properly with displacement floatation.
They can then see how many more options they have with a safely modified boat.

Has anyone had any luck getting these type rec boats and boaters out to an instruction and safety class? If so, how did your reach this community?

Randy
unsafe at any speed?

Posted By: Reg Lake <reglake@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:30 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Rec Boat Scenario (Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks)

: it is not a loaded question. The "Critical Judgment" report
: suggests that a large proportion of the fatalities are this kind of
: paddler. The perception of recreational kayaks is they are stable and
: "safe". The people who buy them don't feel that they are doing
: anything risky when they go out on a summer afternoon to enjoy the local
: lake. But they can still get into trouble. There has not been much
: attention paid to how to do a self rescue in this kind of boat. I am
: hoping to get people to think about it.

: What I would like to see is some techniques that when kayak clubs are asked
: to do demos for the public, will prove useful to casual kayakers in short,
: wide, large cockpitted boats.

The perception of feeling safe is an attitude that puts one at risk. The knowledge that one is doing something risky can make one safer. Where do we start?
We could possibly reach the consumer by pointing out that they are at high risk until they get some time in the boat and in the water, plus carrying added safety items.
I also think that the industry should be challenged to produce boats that float level when submerged and can be reentered .
Good questions. Thanks Nick.

Nick knows that the 10 year old girls with 5 second/50 cent sponsons have the industry solution: "I also think that the industry should be challenged to produce boats that float level when submerged and can be reentered . Good questions. Thanks Nick."

Notice that one airbag (sponson)  is higher than the other. This is to demonstrate total flooding. If it were set lower, the same as the other sponson or "air bag", most of the water would pour out just by leaning on one Airbag sponson. Also the two girls would normally be sitting on the seats.

However, even standing up they can paddle the canoe that weighs over one ton at a speed of 2 knots. They can also turn and pick up any victims in the water. Even large and disabled adults can be rescued from the water easily, since victims only have to make it over the low gunwale to be in the canoe, so that they can be paddled to shore at 2 knots. Tim Ingram

Nick has known about sponsons for 1,500 US canoe and kayak deaths and has provided this forum for evidence of this fact in the largest criminal death fraud in the history of the United States. His forum is legal evidence for criminal proceedings and civil actions for 1,500 wrongful deaths. Tim Ingram

Re: Rec Boat Scenario

Posted By: Sage <sagesimone@earthlink.net>
Date: Thursday, 17 April 2003, at 6:34 p.m.

In Response To: Rec Boat Scenario (Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks)

Ok, I will have to try this out on a Pungo this weekend. My first thought would be to try a cowboy self rescue, or at least a variation of it. First position your self at the stern of the kayak. Reach forward and grab bungee and pull and kick your self up on the rear deck facing the bow. At this point you should be able to reach the cockpit. Pull yourself into the cockpit while straddling the boat. The Pungo has a very large cockpit like all rec boats. At this point you should be able to turn around.

As I said I will try this on Saturday.

Sage

On second thought,

If possible find your cooler or any other thing to use as a float and set as an outrigger using your paddle. If you have zip lock bags fill with air and insert into your cotton t-shirt, then tie to end of paddle. OOPS I was starting to Mc Giver there for a minute. This guy is probably in a kayak for the first time!

I always tell people to take a sea kayak class before buying a kayak. This at least gives you an idea of how to do a rescue and makes you think about it

This man has no realistic thoughts for getting water out of a canoe or kayak, to create the stability to rescue himself. Some of these posters seem less intelligent than others. Tim Ingram

Re: Rec Boat demos

Posted By: LeeG <gardannap@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 10:20 a.m.

In Response To: Rec Boat demos (Randy Knauff)

It's a good point, most of the kayaks sold by the local paddle shop are Pungos. They suggested offering a rec. kayak basics class for a couple years as it was obvious that's where most of the customers were. I allowed a few rec. boats to participate in classes and it was a learning expererience for all. In flat water assisted rescues were possible but awkward. Solo rescues were not at all possible. In a few instances the people that brought rec. kayaks were borderline obese who had even less of a chance for selfrescue but my inability to self-rescue in a high coaming Pungo that had about 15lbs positive buoyancy of foam in the ends was an education. Attempting to self-rescue a double Pamlico with two fit adult males was fun but not possible. Maybe with more time and effort we could have pulled it off but not in any kind of waves.

No means of rescue confirmed again. Tim Ingram

Re: Canoe rescues

Posted By: Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks <BBS@guillemot-kayak.com>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 1:44 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Canoe rescues (Shawn Baker)

You can climb in a flooded Grumman and float fairly comfortably. There are bouyancy tanks at each end of the boat that float with the gunwales right near the waterline. This is not as good as being able to empty it out and go somewhere, but it does let you get your torso out of the water. With the boat flooded, it is not too hard to climb into.

Most rec boats don't have any built in floatation.

: A canoe with full flotation bags isn't too bad. But how many fully
: flotation-equipped Grummans do you see sitting next to someone's summer
: cottage?! :P

This is a lie. The Grumman canoe, like the open canoe in the 10 year old girl pictures, needs the buoyancy provided by the sponsons to prevent immediate overturning when entering a flooded canoe or kayak. The gunwales of the Grumman or any canoe are about 2 inches in diameter or less, providing insufficient beam buoyancy to prevent overturning.  Mr. Schade lies and could not demonstrate this in a swimming pool to a judge or jury without immediately overturning, without sponsons. Is he delusional (mad) or is he anti-social, preventing rescue of citizens from certain death (bad)? Tim Ingram

Re: Canoe rescues

Posted By: Shawn Baker <kayak@boatbuilding.com>
Date: Friday, 18 April 2003, at 11:01 a.m.

In Response To: Re: I'm with Bree (Brianne Corbett)

A canoe with full flotation bags isn't too bad. But how many fully flotation-equipped Grummans do you see sitting next to someone's summer cottage?! :P

I think, more than anything, that there are vessels suited to specific conditions. Using them outside of those conditions may entail a certain level of panache, or just plain idiocy, depending on your viewpoint. Canoes are awesome for meandering rivers - even up to Class II for reasonably skilled paddlers. (Class III/IV for experts). Sea kayaks are optimum for open coastal conditions and big lakes. Recreational kayaks are superb for fishing on small stock ponds.

This may offend some kayak die-hards, but kayaks are silly on rivers...canoes are a lot more comfortable and stylish. But, doing a lake or bay crossing in a canoe with a lot of wetted surface and high windage....is masochistic. Use a kayak here.

If your Pungo fits in your bathtub, it's probably safe there.

Shawn

: To me, a Pungo is just like a canoe. Capsize a canoe in the middle of a lake
: and you basically swim to shore. There are few options available. You have
: to really be an expert to empty and re-enter a canoe solo in the middle of
: a lake. Even so you may need some specialized equipment. This is just some
: fisherman poking around his lake. I think it's a miracle he had on his
: PFD! Nick sure had a heart when he crafted the scenario conditions.

: Safe Paddling!
: Brianne

Confirmed again; although this poster seems to think there are some canoe rescues that work, like the "Capistrano Flip", despite the obvious facts. Tim Ingram

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board

Re: Rec Boat Scenario

Posted By: Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks <BBS@guillemot-kayak.com>
Date: Wednesday, 13 August 2003, at 9:57 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Rec Boat Scenario (Shawn Baker)

: Roll up! If you pull the footpegs back and splay your knees, you can roll a
: Pungo with a sculling roll. (and an extended GP!)

The poor fisherman has been in the water since April and now you tell him he can roll up. You would think he could have swum ashore by now, but it never occurred to him. He thought he might be able to roll the thing, but he was waiting for tech support to take him off hold and tell him he could.

This cult is almost "funny", it is so incompetent in its' safety fraud. But they have killed 1,500 Americans since 1993 with this foolishness. Other forums are more ruthless in condemning American citizens to death. They write about me and sponsons, as you have seen. They are not so stupid to not understand the 10 year old girl pictures and 5 second/50 cent sponsons. They intend to endanger and kill completely innocent citizens and children. They feel entitled to murder because the US Coast Guard has always granted them "safety exemptions" for canoes and kayaks from Federal law; so they have perpetrated this most deadly fraud in the history of the United States and Canada:

Without sponsons no canoe or kayak of any type can be "pumped out", resulting in instability, re-capsize and death. Escape from certain death is the main reason for the "life raft platform concept" in the United States:
USCG Level Flotation Standard  33 CFR 183. Issued April 18, 1977; Effective August 1, 1978  "Establishes level flotation standards on rowboats and outboard boats less than 20 feet in length, the boats most often involved in swamping and capsizing accidents, so that the boat will float level when swamped and provide a safe platform until rescue." The US Coast Guard report 071-01 reveals: "Canoes and kayaks have by far the highest fatality rates per million hours of exposure (.42) as any other boat type". In use hours, canoes and kayaks have a far higher death rate than the deadliest vehicles. "Canoes and kayaks have the highest fatality rate of all boat types." (Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation of the U.S. House of Representatives, May 15, 2001, BOAT/U.S.)

Sponson War

Here is an exchange containing considerable libel and defamation of my character. Thank goodness these people are not Nazi kayakers, inflamed by anyone who is arrogant enough to want to save their life, or the lives of their loved ones! Notice that the "David" responses are quite reasonable compared to the more vicious people below, who are probably also enamoured of Sarah Palin. (David is unknown to me, but intelligent enough to see that his friends lost their lives due to no foolproof means to get out of the water.) In fact the idea that "no-one should paddle anywhere they could not also swim safely", a sort of "happy conclusion" to their exchange, shows how deadly and deceitful this cult can be, even toward themselves. Even David apparently thinks that he can save himself by swimming to shore; since he apparently can swim farther than he can paddle no matter the water temperature or any other factors.

No matter how polite I have been to anyone (and no-one in this group has spoken to me about any of these issues to my knowledge.) I do not waste time speaking to cult members when I have many people, far more reasonable, to speak with.  I have become "an urban myth" to this cult. They certainly don't know me or apparently anything that I have written on my website. They apparently will not mention any of thousands of facts on the website.

Of course what David says he can do is irrelevant to public safety; since someone's child might not be able to swim to shore on a school trip, like so many dead school children. No matter how polite I have been to these subjects, their rage toward myself or anyone else interfering with their mission to apparently endanger victims in canoes and kayaks, as exposed below, is immediate. They hate to have their entitlement to human life questioned, like any other criminals. This evidence is freely available to Canadian and American class action legal suits, together with http://www.sponsonguy.com/Lewis.html and http://www.sponsonguy.com/grievingfamilies.html
 

In fact Canadian Police have endorsed these very same vicious and criminal actions toward Canadian school children. See Premier McGuinty's letter. Some politicians do draw the line but are helpless in the face of collegial criminals (like Bentley, Bryant, Fantino or Zaccardelli.)

Today, Dec. 13, 2010 CBC Radio has revealed that about 50% of all persons arrested in Toronto are strip-searched, apparently to intimidate and demean the general public. Many of these victims (thousands in total) are teenage girls. This story has been amplified since the Youtube of Ottawa police similarly demeaning an innocent young woman in Ottawa, with the full approval of the Office of the Attorney General of Ontario! 

These vicious acts toward the general public below, effectively killing them in canoes and kayaks, have been endorsed by police departments, apparently to encourage more "respect for authority". It is likely that this twist (repulsive to most police officers who are not, of course, naturally sadistic or psychotic), is responsible for such sick behavior, together with incompetent leadership. Any country in the right conditions is capable of the excesses of Hitler's Germany: Even execution of school children, cloaked as canoe and kayak instruction, to encourage respect for authority. How else can you explain deliberate endangerment of a nation's schoolchildren?!! (See the famous Milgram experiments at Yale.)
 

From:
http://www.kayakforum.com/cgi-bin/Technique/index.cgi/noframes/read/11497

This bulletin board is sponsored by Guillemot Kayaks . Please feel free to post a response.

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]
 

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board

Re: Georgian Bay Kayaks - The Sponson War Continue

Posted By: Nick Schade-Guillemot Kayaks <Schade@guillemot-kayaks.com>
Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 8:55 a.m.

In Response To: Georgian Bay Kayaks - The Sponson War Continues (David)

While I don't think sponsons are the miracle of safety that Tim asserts, they are probably a good addition to selection of safety equipment available. I can imagine certain uses where sponsons would be a good thing: such as helping stabilize an incapacitated paddler during a tow.
 
 

Messages In This Thread
 

Georgian Bay Kayaks - The Sponson War Continues (views: 1602)
David -- Monday, 1 July 2002, at 8:50 p.m.
Re: glucosamine chondroitin (views: 679)
LeeG -- Monday, 1 July 2002, at 9:00 p.m.
Re: Georgian Bay Kayaks - The Sponson War Continue (views: 778)
Ed Deery -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 12:57 a.m.
Re: The Sponson War Continues (views: 695)
Eric -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 6:45 a.m.
Re: The Sponson War Continues (views: 641)
Ed Deery -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 10:49 p.m.
when melted down - - - (views: 605)
Dan -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 6:51 a.m.
Re: Georgian Bay Kayaks - The Sponson War Continue (views: 771)
Nick Schade-Guillemot Kayaks -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 8:55 a.m.
Sure, but would you give Timmy any of YOUR money? (views: 706)
Brian Nystrom -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 12:19 p.m.
Re: No, but thats not the question. (views: 611)
Nick Schade-Guillemot Kayaks -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 8:50 a.m.
Re: No, but thats not the question. (views: 547)
Brian Nystrom -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 12:27 p.m.
Re: No, but thats not the question. (views: 553)
Nick Schade-Guillemot Kayaks -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 1:19 p.m.
Yawn... (views: 569)
Craig Mackinnon -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 10:36 a.m.
Sponsons not a hot item I can see...:) (views: 593)
David -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 1:18 p.m.
you're a perfect candidate for sponsons - - - (views: 616)
Dan -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 1:45 p.m.
Sponsons bring up some strong emotions... *NM* (views: 491)
David -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 2:15 p.m.
Re: Who should stay home? (views: 510)
Robert -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 5:18 p.m.
Re: good golly (views: 546)
LeeG -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 1:56 p.m.
Agreed, but what about sponsons themselves.. *NM* (views: 509)
David -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 2:16 p.m.
Re: a little one tracked are we? *NM* (views: 449)
LeeG -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 2:20 p.m.
Haven't heard one good reason not to yet... (views: 521)
David -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 2:23 p.m.
Re: Haven't heard one good reason not to yet... (views: 530)
LeeG -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 2:37 p.m.
Re: Good reasons not to, but some good reasons to. (views: 588)
Shawn Baker -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 3:35 p.m.
Re: Good reasons not to, but some good reasons to. (views: 487)
David -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 4:18 p.m.
Re: fishing (views: 481)
LeeG -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 5:00 p.m.
Yoda speaks, he does (views: 478)
David -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 6:07 p.m.
Re: hmgmgmg, confused he is (views: 489)
LeeG -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 8:38 p.m.
Re: Good reasons not to, but some good reasons to. (views: 456)
Shawn Baker -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 7:26 p.m.
more reasons for: (views: 489)
mike allen -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 5:23 p.m.
Re: technique and knowledge vs. equipment (views: 448)
Shawn Baker -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 10:46 a.m.
Funny thing... (views: 459)
Brian Nystrom -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 12:40 p.m.
Re: Funny thing... (views: 455)
mike allen -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 1:36 p.m.
My reasons for not using them . . (views: 524)
Jed -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 3:57 p.m.
Re: My reasons for not using them . . (views: 455)
David -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 4:22 p.m.
making sense of gear instead of skill - - - (views: 484)
Dan -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 5:18 p.m.
OT: rules for survival... (views: 452)
Craig Mackinnon -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 6:39 p.m.
Clarification . . (views: 505)
Jed -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 8:54 p.m.
"We are all between swims" (views: 418)
Shawn Baker -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 10:54 a.m.
Re: Haven't heard one good reason not to yet... (views: 461)
Eric -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 5:27 p.m.
Re: Haven't heard one good reason not to yet... (views: 427)
David -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 6:13 p.m.
Comparing apples to oranges (views: 432)
Brian Nystrom -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 12:49 p.m.
Re: Salade de Fruits (views: 441)
Eric -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 3:16 p.m.
You heard a reason but you didn't listen. (views: 452)
Brianne Corbett -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 6:34 p.m.
I am listening, are you? (views: 457)
David -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 11:03 p.m.
you're right - - - (views: 461)
Dan -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 6:54 a.m.
Thanks Dan, me too, are we cool now? (views: 480)
David -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 9:20 a.m.
sure we're cool - - - (views: 458)
Dan -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 9:26 a.m.
LOL *NM* (views: 378)
David -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 9:34 a.m.
Setting the record straight (views: 448)
Brian Nystrom -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 1:24 p.m.
Good points, don't agree with all, but fair enough *NM* (views: 377)
David -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 1:30 p.m.
Being at the Center of a Black Hole (views: 519)
Brianne Corbett -- Thursday, 4 July 2002, at 11:52 a.m.
Never seen someone do a PF rescue in 20 secs. *NM* (views: 429)
David -- Thursday, 4 July 2002, at 2:35 p.m.
Re: Never seen someone do a PF rescue in 20 secs. (views: 461)
Tim Mattson -- Thursday, 4 July 2002, at 6:23 p.m.
Re: Never seen someone do a PF rescue in 20 secs. (views: 416)
Brianne Corbett -- Friday, 5 July 2002, at 3:40 p.m.
Brianne, I didn't know you cared... *NM* (views: 373)
David -- Friday, 5 July 2002, at 11:29 p.m.
alternative sponson supplier (views: 536)
martin -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 2:03 p.m.
Re: alternative sponson supplier (views: 507)
martin -- Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 2:57 p.m.
Check out the "Paddle Loom Float"... (views: 480)
Brian Nystrom -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 1:30 p.m.
interesting info??? (views: 478)
Randy Knauff -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 12:07 a.m.
Re: Georgian Bay Kayaks - The Sponson War Continue (views: 588)
Tim Mattson -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 2:38 a.m.
I couldn't agree more... *NM* (views: 401)
David -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 9:35 a.m.
But isn't redundancy of rescue devices the issue? (views: 440)
David -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 9:49 a.m.
Re: But isn't redundancy of rescue devices the iss (views: 379)
Nick Schade-Guillemot Kayaks -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 1:34 p.m.
Good point, Nick...but let me rephrase... (views: 436)
David -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 2:45 p.m.
Re: Seasonal ? (views: 421)
Eric -- Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 5:22 p.m.
[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]
 

Sea Kayaks Techniques Bulletin Board is maintained by Nick Schade - Guillemot Kayaks with WebBBS 5.12.

Kayak Trips
 Kayak Building
 Kayaking Technique
 Boat Design
 
 

 Guillemot | SEE Kayak Directory | Kayak Forum
 

The Kayak Forum is Sponsored By
 
 

High Performance Sea Kayak Designs
 

But isn't redundancy of rescue devices the issue?

Posted By: David
Date: Wednesday, 3 July 2002, at 9:49 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Georgian Bay Kayaks - The Sponson War Continue (Tim Mattson)

snip

but rather than argue, lets have a saftey clinic and see how the different
: techniques stack up against each other.

Tim, no doubt paddle float would win in terms of sheer deployment time, that was never a question for me. The key is that you are more stable after rescue with sponsons. Paddle float cannot give you that. Paddle float might be lost. Sponsons may be deployed prior to capsize to stablize boat, please believe me here, it certainly does, without significant compromise of secondary stability. The rest of the post...right on, really well written, got alot out of reading it. We are a damned safe bunch...THESE DAYS.

Unfortunately, 3 of those 12 annual fatalities were my friends, here's to the memory of Jane Carter and her husband and also to Barry Alwater, all of whom died because of lack of training...those are the names of those I have lost along the way, and part of my reasoning behind triple redundancy backup systems. Jane and hubby died off the gulf islands during failed assisted rescue, no PFD's found on bodies...we smoked hemp together in the 70's, she never made it past the early 80's. Barry was 19 when he drowned kayaking in Nova Scotia. These were unconnected incidents, and they served as my introduction to the sport. On my first paddle in 1979, I capsized twice, we went out like a couple of fools into whitecapped waters. After somehow getting back in the yak the first time, I capsized again and swam to shore with the boat. There I got stuck in the surf for an hour. No biggy, just wet. Hundreds of people still take to the water in a yak without any training each year, maybe its thousands world wide. I just taught a private lesson to a couple from Brazil, they can't find instruction where they live, but yak's are freely available. Our work is only beginning...

I'm not exploiting their names here for a point, God forbid...but Jane Carter and Barry Alwater are real people who never made it back. So I say triple, quadriple, quintuple redundancy. And so does John Dowd, especially for the solo paddler.

Sponsons not a hot item I can see...:)

Posted By: David
Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 1:18 p.m.

In Response To: Yawn... (Craig Mackinnon)

snip:
Why can't people separate the product from the marketing campaign? .

Okay, out on a limb we go. I would not consider travel without sponsons.

Face it, the paddlefloat rescue is close to worthless in many conditions that demand it, when wind opposes current it is a waste of time. And I don't think that many people practice rolling in a loaded, expedition ready boat; with the same panic that a sudden squall or gale force wind can produce. So most real world rolling experience is lacking and the paddle float is unreliable in all but the most practised hands. So what you have to pre-rig them, it only takes a couple of hours and you leave it there permanently. You pre-rig the rental fleet the same way. What's the big deal, are we really in a hurry?

You can't always stay out of Deep Trouble, Mike and Rikki proved that a few weeks ago. So here I go out on ANOTHER limb: paddling without sponsons in anything but basic flatwater protected conditions, is unadvised. This is not in my instructor's manual, and I am not authorized to teach this, only the Eskimo bow, T and paddle float are on the CRCA basic curriculum. Don't get me started on the stupidity of the Eskimo bow rescue or the idiocy of doing a T with loaded boats in 2 meter waves. I got T rescue stories, punctured boats, second capsizes, broken paddle shafts, ripped spray skirts, face it, it sucks and is a temporary, imperfect solution. Tim has taken it to the next level. Man, are some of you ever close minded!

But as far as reality goes, I am backing Tim on this one. Maybe you haven't been as terrified as I have been on the open water, but they are one of the few things that brought me peace of mind in the PNW. Why would you ignore this technology, first introduced by ancient paddling cultures for the childish reason of being turned off by Tim. You can't even find them in outdoor stores anywhere, and if they do contribute to safety, isn't he getting a bum rap for all the wrong reasons?

Haven't heard one good reason not to yet...

Posted By: David
Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 2:23 p.m.

In Response To: Re: a little one tracked are we? *NM* (LeeG)

Haven't heard one sound reason to not use them. What is the reasoning behind the product rejection? How many have tried them for self rescue?

Georgian Bay Kayaks - The Sponson War Continues

Posted By: David
Date: Monday, 1 July 2002, at 8:50 p.m.

From TIm's site;

"Canoes and kayaks have by far the highest fatality rates per million hours of exposure (.42) as any other boat type. Most of these are due to drowning." US Coast Guard release # 071-01 (May 24, 2001).

From the look of his updated site he is raving as usual. I am a big Tim fan, because of his passion, but aside from Tim, what say ye on sponsons? They don't seem to be catching on, but even John Dowd now thinks they are an improvement over the paddle float. I just put mine back on yesterday, that's how little I use them.

I know we have this in the archives; but each year its nice to bring it up; alot of new lurkers on the board, and that is sponsons. Please don't turn away; I know the very word evokes fear, but; how many of you are using them? Do you think that we should recommend them as a replacement for the paddle float rescue?

Yoda speaks, he does

Posted By: David
Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 6:07 p.m.

In Response To: Re: fishing (LeeG)

Not really dude, I post these comments to inspire a discussion, so we can all get something out of the board, or off our chest. Just wondered about the counter arguments, Hegel and all that. If this discussion is only a headache, sorry, I introduced it to stimulate discussion.

: for a fight you are...as yoda would put it. Good lord David, so how are you
: going to get disabled in a context where it was safe enough to take
: pictures and eat lunch solo? You have the safe sponsons,,,I have clif bars
: and don't take pictures, and little kids can climb back in big kayaks
: without paddle floats sponsons or the ability to roll, all's well, no ones
: opinion really matters.

Re: My reasons for not using them . .

Posted By: David
Date: Tuesday, 2 July 2002, at 4:22 p.m.

In Response To: My reasons for not using them . . (Jed)

Not suggesting everyone needs em' Jed, just that they make alot of sense and I think some people around here are resistant to a new idea, plain and simple, alongside Tim's abrasive manner. I just can't see going on a major trip without em' and wonder why they have been so poorly adopted by paddlers. I agree, good weather is best, but I have hit squalls in the Johnston straight with a clean VHF broadcast, so our calculations of risk are only so effective. But then again, I am talking kayaking travel, rather than day paddles or protected Island hopping.
\
BTW: look forward to your visit here this summer; looking forward to some good old rock and roll....

: David,

: If they work for you, great. But please don't assume that everyone *needs*
: sponsons. I don't reject them, I just don't need them. Just like I don't
: need flippers or a breathing tube or a scuba tank. Sure these things might
: be useful someday but I do not paddle in the kind of conditions where I
: would need these things. I have never tried many of these things. I'm too
: busy working on my skills to waste my time looking for an equipment option
: to replace skills and good judgment. As I rock climber, we never ever used
: our equipment to rappel if we could avoid it. Not that we did not trust
: our equipment but why take the chance? For me it's the same with equipment
: based safety solutions. Why would I ever want to gamble *my* life on a
: piece of equipment?

: Craig wrote: I think this is the key issue. Some paddlers have no use for yet
: another specialized piece of equipment that has a limited application. For
: me and the folks I paddle with sponsons would only be useful for
: stabilizing an injured paddler. But we already have several ways to handle
: this scenario, why would I waste my time with sponsons? We don't even use
: our paddle floats anymore, in part because these equipment dependent
: solutions will fail if the equipment fails. I would much rather trust my
: survival to my skills and judgment than to any piece of equipment.

: Your point that people that get in over the heads might be better off if they
: have sponsons available to save them is well taken. But I would ask
: wouldn't we be better off to teach these ill-prepared people about the
: potential dangers and hazards and how to avoid them. No piece of equipment
: will make someone safe if they have weak skills and weak judgment. Those
: paddlers that have strong skills and strong judgment just don't need the
: extra equipment. Since the earliest days of my paddling the focus was on
: training and safety. My exposure to safety training preceded my paddling
: skills. I knew more about rescues than my strokes. So the majority of
: equipment based safety solutions has little value to me.

: Jed's simple rules for survival: Don't paddle if you would not swim in the
: same conditions.
: Don't paddle if you cannot self-rescue in the same conditions.

: Once these criteria are met the value of sponsons is sharply reduced.




BACK http://www.sponsonguy.com


Emailed to Whitehouse, April 4, 2009:

Why not Free President Obama from 911 lies (The Bush Playbook to go to war)? Go to http://www.patriotsquestion911.com and see Senator Patrick Leahy, Many of the Republican and Democratic 2008 presidential candidates who Pres. Obama knows, retired and decorated CIA and US Military veterans, heads of state, scientists, airline pilots, architects and engineers.

Yesterday, April 3, 2009 on my daughter's birthday, President Obama lied in Europe, referring to the Al Qaeda pilots who went from Florida cessna pilot training to fly into the towers, that no trained American airline pilots can do! Read http://www.patriotsquestion911.com See the Pentagon staffers who saw the hole in the wall of the Pentagon, 20 feet in diameter, no debris from tail or wings of an airliner. WTC 7, 49 stories, collapsed as in a controlled demolition into its' own footprint without an airliner strike, like the 911 towers with nearly 3,000 inside.

American people are not stupid, European people even less so. American jobs will not soon return, anger will rise. The 911 Commissioners have called to re-open the 9/11 Commission for years: it is a failed and deceiving report.

Read the links on http://www.sponsonguy.com, see the 9/11 pictures and arrest Giuliani (who destroyed the crime scene, breaking federal and state laws), in the first 15 lines: "FBI Public Safety Arrests" etc. President Obama does not have much time before seething anger and jobless/hopelessness takes over America. Re-open 9/11. Don't give bin Laden credit for pilots so smart they can go from flying a Cessna, to flying 700 series Boeing airliners like no American military or airline pilot can do!

Americans are not stupid. Ask Senator Patrick Leahy.

Tim Ingram, phone 705-549-3722