I have found repeated references to this unit as an emergency body cover in marine situations. Doug describes the product very well and provides links to the manufacturer's site. My question is this:

Has anyone had the opportunity to field test this bag?

I am seeking information and not a product endorsement. At the current price I'm thinking about adding 4 to my boat's ditch bag. While the "something is better than nothing" argument may hold up, I see no point in creating a false sense of security to save a few bucks.

BTW, my offshore fishing is confined to 15-20 miles out max. We do not cross the bar if there is a sliver of doubt about conditions presently or in the next 10 hrs.

I don't see how it is any better than an "Adventure Medical Emergency Bivy"

Then you haven't looked closely. :-)

I have not used this product but have used and understand the theory behind thermal protective aids. I am sure the land/shark works very well but I don’t like the way they advertise them for in water use. It almost seems they are advertised to replace a life raft or they may be mistaken as such. In water survival you really want to get out of the water and into a life raft.

Thermal protective aid come in many styles, some are complete suits allowing the user to walk. The warmest and probably the most practical are the bag types that have built in arms and gloves. A thermal protective aid should have a close fitting hood.

Good points, PS. Clearly, TPAs are no substitute for a proper life raft.

In our circumstances, we never leave port alone. That is to say we follow the buddy system of linking up with other boats headed to the same fishing grounds, and return in a similar "wolf pack." We always file a float plan. We have redundant radio capacity that includes handheld waterproof VHF units in individual dry bags. We have EPIRB, the usual compliment of hand-held and rocket flares, dye, whistle and mirror setups, throw bags, and pre-rigged tether lines. We have redundant chartplotters as well as backup handheld GPS. And, of course, emergency H2O and first aid gear.

Adding TPAs seems to only make sense as they would fill the largest hole in our preparations. Why not full fledged survival suits? Why not add a life raft? Well, cost is a consideration, as is stowage space. A 22' boat becomes awfully small when all is considered. So, we rely on our judgment (and reports from NOAA and the USCG) and stay home when conditions are questionable.

In the final analysis it all comes down to judgment and risk aversion. It appears that TPAs are an acceptable tradeoff...at least based upon what I know at present. Thanks for the input!

Firstly, is a 22 foot boat that goes further than 3 miles from shore required by SOLAS laws to carry a life raft?

Secondly, your reply sounds like the excuses that victims of boat accidents come out with after they have been rescued.

If a group end up in the water it is very hard to keep together, each person in that situation would really benefit from a PLB.

At 20 miles out, the water is going to be cold. If no one notices your distress, you have failed radio coms and have to rely on the Epirb to alert to a problem; you could be in the water for some time. If you have an older 121.5 Mhz Epirb you could be in the water for 6 hours before the message is passed to the relevant ground resources. You may be an hour’s flight time for a helo. You are likely to be at least very cold if not floating face down.

Relying on NOAA and USCG reports can not be relied on. Weather reporting is very fickle at the best of times. I think it was the Kennedy plane crash where one of the contributing factors was poor weather forecasts. There are plenty other examples of this fact too.

Cost and space is again a common excuse for not having equipment and another is my boat is unsinkable. If you can afford a boat you should be a able to afford the safety equipment. Space is a very poor excuse; there are always options available to you that take up dead space.

I’m not judging you, just highlighting the facts. At the end of the day the decisions are yours.

Never seen one in real life (maybe the stealth camouflage really works !), I was just looking at the pictures.

Where is Mr. Ritter's review?

There is a brief section describing it here: http://www.equipped.org/shelter.htm

The product webpage is here: http://www.land-shark.com/

According to the site it is built out of a rugged 10 mil ripstop material with an aluminzed coating.

It does seem like a major improvement over cheap mylar bags. The one feature I'm not sure about is the tether and clip. While a great idea, I don't think I would trust that cheap plastic clip and drawstring to withstand the force of several people being pulled in different directions in rough seas. I'd much rather see somthing like para-cord and a metal clip. And you can't really unpack the bag to modify it, since that would defeat the convenient, compact vacuum sealing.

Sea Dogs are not cheap plastic clips. Sea Dogs are designed for prolonged ocean use.

The more I have looked at this thread the more I am interested in having a play with one of these Land/sharks. I can't find them in the UK though.

I can't see Land/shark comparing well to the thermal properties of Blizzard Bag but in a life raft environment it may have an advantage; possibly being used as an outer cover for the Blizzard Bag.

In summary, I simply asked a question and then provided a bit of background for reference. You failed to add to my knowledge base. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to install a missle battery in my backyard in case of an incoming asteriod or space junk.

Firstly my apologies, a vessel longer than 45 feet or that goes beyond 3 miles of shore is a Class XII vessel of the Merchant Shipping Regulations and not a SOLAS Class XII vessel. So it seams in the US you don’t have to have a liferaft. The regulation says ‘US flagged yachts, no matter what there size, that are for private use only (recreation vessels), do not have to carry a life raft.

However SOLAS, which you wrongly state only concerns the safety of merchant ships. Has clauses in it for all vessels, including pleasure craft. The main area that affects pleasure craft is SOLAS V: Safety of navigation. Particularly regulations: V19, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34 and V35. There are some other non safety regulations else where.

TJ has all the answers, risk aversion x trade-off. And, is operating within the law. I sure hope he never has to put his plan in place.

The facts, at sea, are the same the world over.
Weather changes, often suddenly and a lot worse than predicted.
Vessels malfunction or break down.
Atmospherics interfere with coms.
People fall or get swept overboard.
Other vessels can’t see boats or people in high seas.
People in the water may not be able to reach each other, let alone see each other.
People in high seas may struggle to catch there breath and open their eyes.
In seas of 7C/45F people’s survival time is estimated to be between 40 and 80 mins.
Cold will have rendered them useless after 7 to 14 mins at 7C/45F.
An immersion suit would expand survival times to between 6 & 8 hours at this temp.
Larger vessels with more sophisticated equipment and trained crew may recognise worsening weather conditions and move out of storm track. Taking them away from small vessels, that may need their assistance at a later time.
Aircraft flight operations may be affected by bad weather; rescue may have to come from a surface vessel.
Even with GPS enabled 406 Mhz Epirb could still mean being in the water for several hours.

PS,I didn't mean to start a flame game. Your points are all well taken and I learned something about SOLAS that I missed in my scan of the (many) pages of documentation. I'm simply describing a situation where there are many variables that you can't picture that help offset - and I stress the word "help" -the legitimate concerns you have stated.

I don't have all the answers. I am generally a "belt and suspenders" type erring on the side of caution. I think you'll agree that many active sports - rock climbing comes to mind - are inherently risky. I personally thing free climbing is insane but I have no technical skills to judge the circumstances where it is "reasonable". Hence my reference to risk adversion.

Be that as it may, I would gently point out that you essentially highjacked my original thread. Let's start over. I'm going to initiate a new discussion.

Cheers. And, Down the British.