Following last year’s ACF AGM the Sea Touring steering committee decided to examine the Sea Awards adopted by the ACF and recommend changes (if any) thought necessary for Australian sea paddlers. The Sea Proficiency and Advanced Awards have been taken directly from the BCU awards and may contain sections irrelevant to our conditions. It has been suggested that some skills, such as the ability to roll, should be included in the Proficiency Award.

 Peter Carter, the South Australia delegate, has asked for the Eskimo roll to be included in the Award. He also makes two more suggestions.
(A) Concerns section 2 (f) page 12 of the Award handbook “…..it is recommended that the kayak be fitted with rudder and steering gear”.
“Recommended by whom? Designers of some sea kayaks, including D. Hutchinson, would advise that they are unnecessary, and that their boats are designed to operate without them. They would also advise that they are subject to failure at inopportune moments, making paddling more difficult, not easier. J. Ramwell does not mention them in his book.”
SEA Kayakers in Australia seem to be divided into two camps when it comes to the question of steering in a straight line at sea. The Tasmanians and Queenslanders definitely favour the rudder and cable set up and have proved that this system, when used properly, can be of great benefit on a long paddle. The other group from South Australia that shun rudders or prefer an integral skeg type kayak have also proven that theirs is a very seaworthy concept. To avoid conflict it would be advisable to delete that part of section 2 (f) mentioned above.

(B) Concerns section 5 (b) page 13. “Bringing the kayak to a beach forwards, sideways, and backwards.”
“How many sea canoeists ever land backwards? It may work in a slalom boat, but few sea kayaks take kindly to the manoeuvre – they are after all designed to be directionally stable when running forwards, and are unstable when moving in reverse. Nordkapp is a handful in reverse at any speed, Seahawk swings madly, and I’ve seen a North Sea almost do a reverse loop when a backwards landing was tried. Surely a candidate for deletion.”
While few paddlers would attempt to deliberately land backwards on a rough surf beach, the ability to CONTROL your kayak in the event of accidental reverse landing would be an advantage, if not a necessity. Surf landings are one of our biggest hazards and should be emphasized in any basic sea award. Control when landing conventionally, sideways (more often) or in reverse, should be strongly stressed.

Section 3 recommends certain items be carried during the Proficiency test. Three of these would probably not be relevant in Australia except maybe Tasmanian waters. These are: “equipment for providing a hot drink; polythene bag of minimum size 2x1 metre for use in exposure cases; emergency space blanket”. The award adds further that items may be added or altered to suit local conditions.
The second paragraph of the Proficiency Award states that the test must be taken at sea under MODERATE conditions. Perhaps a better definition of exactly what are moderate conditions should be included. Anyone who has paddled at sea and is prepared to take the test must be capable of handling fairly difficult sea conditions.
Section 8 (a) states that the candidate must give firm evidence of having taken part in at least three one-day expeditions at sea. Is this minimum enough experience to justify an award? Your views would be appreciated by the steering committee.

The lead paragraph of the Proficiency Award says its purpose is to test the paddler’s competency to take his kayak to sea under the eye of a competent leader. The question of a leader thus brings us to the Advanced Sea Award. The coverage of this test in our Award book certainly belies the stringent conditions imposed by the BCU on prospective candidates. The technical aspects of the navigational requirements would probably mean that only a handful of Australia’s experienced paddlers could pass this test right now. The others would probably have to study and practice the skills judged necessary before attempting this test.

P. Carter has suggested that an advanced candidate should demonstrate an efficient means of towing a kayak at sea. This does seem a necessity as some paddlers have become temporarily incapacitated and need assistance to reach shore.

Your opinion on both the Proficiency and the Advanced Awards would be welcomed by the steering committee whose task it is to establish and promote the tests. This can only help to build a high standard of skill among our growing number of sea paddlers and avoid the unfortunate fatalities that have resulted overseas. Most Australian sea canoeists are very resourceful and determined people but it must be remembered that there will be those entering the sport in the near future that are not so experienced and will need help. It is up to us to give them assistance.
  SEAN DIXON, Secretary ACF STC
 

From the Ed,
 Well, I have you all as witness, opinions asked for so I will give mine, and it will give you a bit more the think about.

 First of all – Rudders. I have paddled for some years now in all parts of Tasmania in various kayaks, with and without rudders, in calms and in force 8 gales, and I have no hesitation in recommending them to anyone. Sure you might have a bit of work to come up with a decent design that is fairly foolproof, but it is not impossible, and we have many different types over here, and to give further weight to the argument let me quote some bits and pieces from an English expedition report that did 400 miles along the coast of Norway to North Cape.

 “All the members of the team, to varying degrees, were disappointed at the lack of exciting and challenging sea conditions during the journey.”
 : The general design of the kayak was based on the Anus Acuta, but certain features were needed in the new boat for the expedition. These were: - “(1) ….
 (4) A better balance between manoeuvrability and directional stability. It was hoped to reduce the tendency to turn into windward without impairing the manoeuvrability.”
 “The overall length has been increased by 25 cm making the Nordkapp 545 cm long. In comparison with the Anus all the additional length is in the stern, the seat is therefore nearer the centre of the boat. It was hoped that this would improve the balance of the boat and help to alleviate the problem of turning into the wind. This was unsuccessful, but considerably more space is available for packing gear in the stern, also helped by a more buoyant curve to the rear deck. This space allows flexibility with packing, and the handling characteristics of the kayak can be altered depending on the prevailing, or expected sea conditions. By loading the stern unwanted turning to windward can be reduced.” (not eliminated, ED)

 “During the expedition there was a problem with the kayak turning to windward and skegs were produced to alleviate this.” (not cure it. ED)

 I feel they were lucky they did not strike worse conditions in these boats. The one big advantage of rudders is that you are putting them on an ordinary sea kayak of recognised design so that even if it packs up, you are then back to the same kayak everyone else is paddling. (there is a commercial version of the Nordkapp fitted with a rudder). But if it is a boat that won’t steer straight in a cross wind then the rudder will keep it straight, and all your paddling is straight ahead on both sides, not continually sweeping on one side which is very tiring and could be dangerous in the long run. A further quote from the report states “towards the end of the expedition the group were becoming physically tired, and in need of a prolonged rest.”

 If anyone is going to criticise rudders just because they give a bit of trouble now and then they had better think twice about fitting hatches and bulkheads to a boat – they have been known to leak and fill a compartment completely. And what do you do at sea if suddenly your bow is pointing skywards because your back compartment is full of water? You’ll be more bloody careful next time and check them out properly, and the same with rudders, you will gradually overcome weak spots as they show up and end up with a good design. So let’s not delete rudders from the award, it is only a recommendation when all is said and done. They are probably unnecessary on a short trip, but I feel extremely sorry for anyone attempting a long difficult passage without one. Maybe those same paddlers like knocking their heads against brick walls as well.

 Landing a kayak backwards – I thought everyone knew this procedure, but will describe it anyway. It’s actually more use getting into narrow caves with a big swell running, or working in behind some reefs. If you try this front first and a rogue swell comes in you are in all sorts of trouble, you may not see it till too late, and in any case paddling backwards is not very efficient and you probably won’t get over the incoming surf anyway. The procedure is to paddle backwards normally, at the same time keeping an eye seaward for the big ones. When they come you paddle forward just hard enough to be moving forward through the ‘soup’ on the wave and so keeping your direction under control, while the whole wave and you are actually travelling backwards over the ground. Take note that you are only talking about moderate conditions for this award, probably 3 or 4 foot waves on a sandy beach, so if you don’t learn this technique now you will miss out on some of the more exciting parts of coastal sea canoeing.

 I must also point out again that nowhere in the award does it mention the test is to be done in a sea kayak. Slalom and general purpose kayaks have crossed the English Channel and the Irish Sea, and many people in Tasmania use these kayaks for sea canoeing. If you can’t handle sea kayaks in surf then why not turn up for the test in your trusty slalom kayak? Also keep in mind the purpose of this test. It is to allow you to paddle competently with a good leader. Now a good leader will know the capabilities of his/her group and not get caught in the situation where every one is capsizing. And if the occasional new chum does capsize accidentally, that’s what all the practice rescues have been for. There are many people canoeing around our coast that cannot roll, and probably never will, but are very competent in all other respects. If you intend leading a trip where you expect trouble then you are looking above the Prof. level. All the Award tells you is the basic standard those people have attained, and it you are aware of it then there is no problem. Most of these people are only doing day trips in nearly empty boats, so what is the problem with an X rescue - we do ‘em all the time. If you want to make the Proficiency award any harder, why not cut it our altogether and just have the Advanced award – then you will know that everybody can look after themselves.

 I don’t know whether I would delete all the items mentioned for carrying for the test. All you need to do is change the wording to “It is recommended the following be carried…”, and leave the bit in about items being altered to suit local conditions. Then obviously Queensland can delete the polythene bag, the hot drink equipment, etc. But let’s leave the list there to give new paddlers an idea of the type of equipment they may require one day for a trip out of their own state.

 I know some paddlers that could pass the test with only the minimum number of trips; I know others that require at least double that number. It says you must do at least; why not let the examiner decide each individual case?

 Tow ropes are very necessary and completely standard equipment in our club.

 Lifejacket in 2 (4) should be buoyancy aid. Whatever the arguments for a full jacket, most sea canoeists are also river canoeists and are not going to get another aid just for sea canoeing – as I said once before, lets keep sea canoeing simple and inexpensive.

 As for Advanced award. It’s not much use talking about overfalls and races, etc, in most part of Australia they are non-existent, and certainly nowhere near as dangerous as the English variety. In lieu of this I would like to see the test done in a recorded force 6 to 8 for five hours. This award is not meant to be easy to get, it indicates that you just about know it all, and only a very small percentage of inland paddlers ever get the Inland Advanced Award. In fact, I wouldn’t see many paddlers even attempting this award, and even fewer actually gaining it.

 The Male Chauvinistic Pig that wrote the Award book should be severely reprimanded, the sea is just not man’s domain alone.   L FORD

Joe Lamb’s comments on the proposal of a S.A.S.C.E. Sea Canoeing Instructors award.
 “The proposal has some merits by virtue of deriving extracts from such sources as the ACF Award Scheme handbook.
 It is agreed that the sea is totally different to inland waters and therefore different standards should apply, but the sea and all its complexities are universally identical and cannot be differentiated by political, state, and national boundaries. Thus sea canoeing awards at all levels should be universally the same. While there may be a logical explanation to adopt a uniquely different inland waters canoeing proficiency and instructors standards, the same cannot be argued for sea canoeing … without betraying lack of knowledge and experience in sea canoeing.

 Rightly or wrongly sea canoeing and/or some sea canoeists have been subjected to criticisms by some Tasmanian sea canoeists (he actually means one – myself. ED) and the fabrication of a separate Award would likely justify criticisms especially when it can be seen that the incompetent and/or the inexperienced are attempting to dilute standard to serve their own status and qualification, especially expedition experience.

 Wordings expressing meanings which may be regarded as only Sea Canoeing Instructors or candidates of the award may lead sea trips/expeditions must be viewed with some disapproval. Indeed, the majority of Australian and overseas major expeditions have been achieved by non-instructors and/or non-affiliated paddlers. The future of sea canoeing cannot be endangered by academic bureaucracy domination. There is no doubt that dedicated action at sea as demonstrated by noted British and Tasmanian sea canoeists would contribute to the propagation of our adventure pursuit.

 If any proposal is to come about, it should come from the most experienced and creative sea canoeists in this state (Peter Carter and Ian McNicole) by consultation with
experienced sea canoeists in other states and the ACF…..with regards to the BCU and British sea canoeists.

 These comments are made in the interest of sea canoeing and its future.”
JOE. F. LAMB, SAGA Sea Kayaking Convenor & CBO International Long River Canoeist Club, ACF Instructor.
 

 This seemed a bit like a politician's speech to me, with no real point to it. However, I would argue that there is a lot of difference between three or four people on a trip together, and a person leading a trip of lesser experienced paddlers. These less experienced paddlers have to start building up experience by going on more advanced trips, and these trips should be led by qualified people.  It is a totally different situation to a few people that know each other well and decide to do a trip together, maybe there would be fewer deaths in canoeing if everybody canoed under the watchful eye of a qualified person – far too many people only think they are. If you feel you are qualified then it’s a very easy matter to do one of the ACF Awards and prove it.  ED