[Dan Lehman]

Originally Posted by k7cej

The training syllabus from The Sailing Foundation (the inventors of the Lifesling) as well as their videos show the hoisting tackle being hooking into the loop of line connecting the D-rings. The reason is simple; after pulling the MOB as close up as possible by hand, the D-rings will still be about 1' above the water and out of reach from the deck of most boats. They recommend that the loop be of a size to just reach the rail.

And I apologize for only musing that ring-loading should be anticipated -- for
you said that exactly this loading is expected! (And above confirmed that.) And
it is this loading that has rendered the original Bowline into what surprised you.
But that was a Bowline with its tail most unfortunately stitched -- both in terms
of immediate performance and esp. with regard to this advice to size the eye
per rail-height from water level! (The tail should've been stitched to itself,
and thereby the size of the eye could be adjusted per boat (presumably one
won't be hollering "Wait a moment, don't go under yet, I'm adjusting the eye ... !").)

With a well-seized (both where and how strongly done) tail,
the Bowline will work -- it will become a Lapp Bend on ring-loading .
Though, hmmm, it might do some slipping on the hoisting; maybe that was
what motivated the peculiar stitching point -- to arrest this slippage of the
former S.Part, but at the expense of loading the stitching.

I'd prefer Ashley's #1029, which is an Overhand-based eye knot, the
tail brought through the Overhand's "spine" to turn around its "belly" and back
out the spine; this knot has good behavior in any loading. And the tail is
naturally well positioned for seizing (as is the Bowline's if taken to the right
part!). Or make the #1029 base a Dbl.Overhand (Strangle form), for greater
security. Were it laid line, one could just tuck the end a few times vs.
seizing.

Brion, you want a splice? -- for maximum strength? (This is over-rated; security, yeah.)
Have you tested eye splices by ring-loading them?! (I'm wincing at the thought.)

Frankly, I find the suggestion that one should somehow secure the tackle
to the eye baffling -- that eye that is bearing the MOB mass should be closed,
no?! As for hauling up someone unconscious, I'm wondering how that goes,
how the unconscious one manages to be into the device in the first place,
and all.
Or how far this rescue device can be thrown -- is it weighted?
curiouser & curiouser!

After further thought, I have decided to make a continuous loop out of 1/4" spectra single-braid using a locked brummel and bury. I will then splice the retrieval line around this loop.

Remember that this joint might be what needs to move through the D rings,
or which comes into contact with your spliced-to-sling eye (which sounds rather
unkind to the materials). Going out of your way with HMPE for a "stronger"
thinner(?) line might eat away at the strength of the attachment to it (small
diameter rope against rope)!?

To all of you out there with unused Lifeslings, I heartily recommend that you actually practice at least hoisting a wet body onto the deck. You may be surprised at how hard it is to get it right the first time.

I'm more inclined to recommend that the device's serious shortcomings --if they
come with the bowline stitched as was yours, and a regular vs. left-handed Bowline--
be brought to the attention of the USCG and maybe CPSCommision. Consider the
intended use, and : "two came mostly undone during the hoist." !!!

I heard long ago of some supposed Bowline failure for a climber rescue when his
tie-in was used qua sling, ring-loaded ; that struck me as something too far-fetched
for SAR folks to do, but maybe not. Here we see the same knot taken in the same
bone-headed way, with an end stitching that is appalling; and the USCG "approved it"
(money under the table, good ol' boy buddies at the bar doing business, or just some
pretty lax analysis ... ?).

--dl*
====