WA Moves Away From Rocket Flares – But Commercial Maritime Rules Still Stand

Western Australia’s is removing parachute rocket flares from the required safety equipment list for recreational vessels from 1 September 2026 – and it has generated lots of discussion across the marine sector.

Under the new WA rules, recreational boaters will instead rely on approved red hand flares, orange smoke flares, Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs), Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs), and Electronic Visual Distress Signals (EVDS).

While much of the public debate has focused on whether electronic devices are “better” than traditional pyrotechnics, the more important issue may actually be regulatory inconsistency between recreational and commercial maritime operations in Australia.

Recreational Rules vs Commercial Requirements

At present, the rules for recreational vessels are determined individually by each state and territory marine authority.

Commercial vessels, however, operate under national legislation administered by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), along with international maritime conventions such as SOLAS. And that is where the divide currently exists.

Despite WA’s move toward EVDS acceptance for recreational boating, AMSA still requires approved pyrotechnic distress signals aboard regulated commercial vessels.

That means:

• Commercial operators must still carry approved pyrotechnic flares.

• Offshore racing yachts operating under Australian Sailing safety categories still require parachute flares in many circumstances.

• International vessels operating under SOLAS standards continue recognising rocket flares as a primary distress signal.

In practical terms, parachute rocket flares are far from obsolete in the broader maritime industry.

Why AMSA Has Not Fully Transitioned to E-Flares

Electronic distress technology has improved significantly in recent years. Modern EVDS units are:

• safer to store,

• reusable,

• environmentally cleaner,

• and eliminate many fire risks associated with pyrotechnics.

As I discussed previously in my 2025 article examining the rise of E-Flares in Australia, many recreational operators – particularly small vessel owners and personal watercraft users – have increasingly supported electronic distress signals due to their simplicity, reduced fire risk, and ease of use.

One area of particular interest has been their potential use around life rafts and confined emergency environments. Traditional pyrotechnic flares generate intense heat, smoke, and burning residue, all of which can create additional hazards inside inflatable survival craft. E-Flares, by comparison, offer a cool, smokeless, reusable signalling option that may reduce secondary risks during an emergency.

However, the concerns raised in that earlier discussion remain highly relevant today. AMSA’s caution is largely based on operational reliability and international standardisation.

Traditional rocket flares still offer several advantages:

• extreme visibility over long distances,

• immediate recognition by mariners and aircraft,

• proven performance history,

• and no dependence on electronics or batteries.

Most importantly, they remain a globally recognised distress signals.

Questions surrounding daylight visibility, international testing standards, and search-and-rescue recognition continue to slow wider regulatory approval of E-Flares within commercial maritime operations.

For commercial maritime regulators, changing safety standards is not simply about introducing new technology – it requires:

• international compliance,

• testing standards,

• search and rescue recognition,

• and alignment with SOLAS obligations.

That process moves slowly for good reason.

The Difference Between Alerting and Locating

One point often overlooked in the debate is that emergency equipment serves different purposes.

An EPIRB or PLB alerts authorities and transmits your position. A flare, however, remains a direct visual signal to nearby vessels or aircraft. Commercial operators understand this distinction clearly. In many rescue situations, especially offshore, visual identification remains critical during the final stages of locating survivors.

This is one reason why pyrotechnic flares continue to remain embedded within commercial maritime safety frameworks worldwide.

A Layered Safety Approach Still Makes Sense

Many experienced operators – both recreational and commercial – continue to support a layered approach to distress equipment:

• EPIRBs,

• PLBs,

• VHF or HF radios,

• EVDS devices,

• smoke flares,

• and traditional pyrotechnic flares.

Each serves a different purpose. Electronic systems provide rapid alerting and positioning. Pyrotechnic flares provide unmistakable visual distress signals. Neither system fully replaces the other.

The Bigger Question Ahead

WA’s decision may well signal the direction recreational boating regulations are heading nationally.

But until AMSA, SOLAS, and commercial maritime standards formally adopt electronic visual distress devices as full replacements for pyrotechnics, Australia will continue operating under two separate safety philosophies:

• one for recreational boating,

• and another for commercial maritime operations.

Whether that gap eventually closes will depend on future testing, international approvals, and operational confidence from rescue authorities themselves.

For now, rocket flares may be disappearing from mandatory recreational carriage in WA – but they remain very much alive in the commercial maritime world.

Capt. Cal

Sail Your Own Course.