Life jackets in Offshore operations

[Aser]

After the recents accidents this year I was wondering how are you operating with pax in the offshore/airline operations regarding the life jackets.
Is there any standard so the pax must wear the life jackets in flight?
What about the crew?
Is it up to the company,the client,or your CAA require it?

Regards.
Aser

[check]

Aser,

Yes there is a standard at least on the North Sea. Everyone wears a life jacket. The crew wear a different one to the passengers normally. Oil companies or groups of oil companies decide on a standard and they are then issued to all passengers.

All passengers are given a safety brief which includes the use of the life jacket and the procedures to follow in the event of a ditching. So all those ppruner's who go offshore and are asking if this and that helicopter had floats, I suggest they stay awake long enough to watch the safety brief video/DVD. They will find the answers there.

[pistongone]

ASER,
our company(AMEC, working for Centrica amongst others) policy is we all wear survival suits, end of story! Check: i must have missed that info on my flights, and when i asked around the office none of the lads were certain about the floats issue, but the general concensus was that they probably had them! I am going out to Rough 47Bravo in a couple of days from Humberside, so i will make sure i get the brief!:ok:

[Helinut]

I don't have a copy of the relevant regs to hand, but my recollection is that the UK rules only REQUIRE that lifejackets for all are carried/available for use. However, given the rate at which things can go wrong, it would be pretty silly not to wear them, especially for pilots.
NB I mean by regs what the UK legal rules require, not oil company rules.
In the offshore situation the grunts do what they are told. it is different in "VIP" charter. There is a reluctance to get them to be worn as this implies that there is a real risk of ditching, which will make the pax scared. They don't make pax wear LJs on ariliners, do they? The reason is pretty obvious that the chances of an airliener dithcing is pretty damn low - I suspect the same would not be so true of Heles, but some times perception is more "important" than reality.
If I am doing an overwater charter job where the culture does not require LJs to be worn, I always put "my" LJ close at hand. However, I suspect I would struggle to get it on in time, as well as responding to whatever emergency was going on.

[JimL]

Aser,

In Europe and under JAR-OPS 3 there are a number of rules that are relevant:

The first is a change to JAR-OPS 3.330 which is being introduced in NPA-38 because of an accident in a single where a passenger drowned because the life-jacket was not donned. Paraphrasing the rule; for operations in PC3 it requires the operator to have a procedure which indicates to the pilot the conditions under which life-jackets are to be worn by all occupants.

The second is JAR-OPS 3.825 which establishes when the life-jackets are to be carried; and the third JAR-OPS 3.837 is for offshore operations to helidecks in a hostile environment which requires all occupants to wear a (constant wear) life-jacket - unless wearing an integrated survival suit which meets the combined function of the suit and the life-jacket.

Under the proposal for changes to ICAO Annex 6, the revised Standard is for life-jackets to be worn by all occupants when engaged in 'offshore operations' - such operations being defined as those in support of oil and gas exploitation and marine pilot transfer.

The reason for these requirements, including the change to JAR-OPS 3 and ICAO Annex 6, is a Risk Assessment which indicates that where exposure to a ditching is greater, wearing of the life-jacket is called for. This is exactly the individual decision making process that Helinut indicates in his post.

Pistongone; if you are not wearing an integrated survival suit, your Captain is probably in breach of the regulations.

Jim

[kissmysquirrel]

So, as an extra question here, when wearing the inflatable lifejackets, should they be worn under or over the seatbelts/harness. Reason I ask is because in the event of them inflating prematurely (manually or automatically) under a seatbelt, maybe you would be stuck in place. In the event of it inflating whilst worn over the seatbelt, maybe impossible to get to release the seatbelt. Interested in anyones views as to safest option and also experience?:hmm:

[Aser]

I wasn't asking about regulations but the "common practice" in the offshore industry, we all know that a stowed life jacket is not enough, like floats without automatic deployement and internal life rafts in some cases.
Anyway it's great to hear the next change in ICAO rules and JAR-OPS 3.
The actual ICAO annex 6 with the 10 minutes rule for floats requirement it's a joke.
It's also my opinion that we can't fly with stowed life jackets like commercial aircrafts as we don't have the same statistics....
I assume from the posts that in the North Sea everybody wears a life jacket. :ok:
Thanks.
Aser,
In Europe and under JAR-OPS 3 there are a number of rules that are relevant:
The first is a change to JAR-OPS 3.330 which is being introduced in NPA-38 because of an accident in a single where a passenger drowned because the life-jacket was not donned. Paraphrasing the rule; for operations in PC3 it requires the operator to have a procedure which indicates to the pilot the conditions under which life-jackets are to be worn by all occupants.
The second is JAR-OPS 3.825 which establishes when the life-jackets are to be carried; and the third JAR-OPS 3.837 is for offshore operations to helidecks in a hostile environment which requires all occupants to wear a (constant wear) life-jacket - unless wearing an integrated survival suit which meets the combined function of the suit and the life-jacket.
Under the proposal for changes to ICAO Annex 6, the revised Standard is for life-jackets to be worn by all occupants when engaged in 'offshore operations' - such operations being defined as those in support of oil and gas exploitation and marine pilot transfer.
The reason for these requirements, including the change to JAR-OPS 3 and ICAO Annex 6, is a Risk Assessment which indicates that where exposure to a ditching is greater, wearing of the life-jacket is called for. This is exactly the individual decision making process that Helinut indicates in his post.
Pistongone; if you are not wearing an integrated survival suit, your Captain is probably in breach of the regulations.
Jim

[Gomer Pylot]

I wear the shoulder harness over the vest, as does everyone else I know of. If the harness goes under the vest, then there is a possibility that the harness can get fouled under there, and make it difficult to exit. If the vest accidentally inflates, the harness just moves to the side. I've seen a couple of vests accidentally inflated, and there was no adverse effect, other than the shock to the wearer.

In the US, regulations only require life vests to be carried when further than 50 miles from a landing area, but most operators require that they be worn at all times. This makes sense to me, because when they're needed, it's often without any warning at all, such as CFIT.

[Hummingfrog]

In the UK offshore industry what the passengers wear is decided by the oil companies with due reference to the legal requirements.

This means that different companies may (and do) specify different survival suits and lifejackets along with different types of PLB. Some companies define how many layers of clothing you will wear under the suit for example 2 layers in summer and 3 in winter.

Some companies also insist that their passengers wear re-breathing equipment as well.

The training that passengers undergo is also quite rigorous with regular sessions in the "dunker" and liferafts.

I don't know of any pilot who wears his harness under his lifejacket as we all wear a waistcoat style LSJ which allows the harness to ride on top of it. The passenger lapstrap rides underneath their LSJ.

Jiml - Pistongone will be wearing the full range of designer safety equipment when he rides with CHC:ok:

HF

[JimL]

I hope this post does not sound condescending - it is not intended to be.

Thanks Hummingfrog - nothing less was expected.

Check,

For ‘offshore operations’ in a hostile environment in Europe, the Standard for Approval for (new) ‘constant wear life-jackets’, the ‘liferaft ‘, the ‘survival suit’ and the ‘integrated survival suit’ is contained in the ETSOs promulgated by EASA. These ETSOs also describe the compatibility test to ensure that the survival suit and life-jacket combination is appropriate (i.e. in simple terms, matching is required).

Aser,

Your question was understood but ‘best practice’ (don’t really like the term common practice as it implies a laissez- faire attitude) sits above the regulatory requirements and takes into account the risk assessment in a more specific environment than that considered in the regulatory risk assessment. This does lead me nicely into your comment about the ICAO 10 minute rule for floats.

One of the reasons for posting on this forum is because I have been a member of teams that have considered some of the standards that apply to operations (both for commercial and general aviation); thus it is possible for me to provide an insight into the policy and justification for rule making and rule changing where others might be constrained from speaking out.

Consider the case where an operator works entirely on the continent of Europe operating an AW139 and flying passengers in, and between, continental States. On one occasion in three years, flying is across a small body of water such as the estuary of the Rhine, Gironde or the Gulf of Corinth - would you expect that helicopter to be float equipped for that flight? A risk assessment would put the probability of some failure requiring the helicopter to ditch on the specific part of that one flight at something less than 1 in 1,000,000,000 (1 x 10-9). The exposure to the ditching event is infinitesimally small.

On the other hand, and as discussed on another thread, a helicopter engaged in offshore operations in the North Sea spends its whole working life (with few exceptions) over the water in a hostile environment - which includes being exposed to an engine failure without accountability for a proportion of the take-off and landing events. The exposure to a ditching event for the North Sea Fleet is reasonably foreseeable (in fact we have just had one).

Having established the two ends of the spectrum it is clear that any rule has to provide the arbitrary line at which the requirement of fitting of the floats becomes an ICAO Standard.

During the recent work in the ICAO HTSG, the placing of that arbitrary line was considered - particularly in the light of the recent revision to FAR/JAR/CS 29. The group considered that the fitting of floats for ‘offshore operations’ should apply - without exception (a new Standard); the fitting of floats for PC3 should remain at the gliding distance to the land; for PC1 and 2, the 10 minute rule should apply for flights over a hostile environment; but for flights over a non-hostile environment, the State should be given freedom to set the limit taking into consideration the certification status of the helicopter and the reliability of the engines.

If your particular operation is over water for a large proportion of the time (as I think it is); the risk assessment undertaken by the operator would establish: (a) the probability that the environment would become transiently hostile for some flights; and (b) even if that did not interfere with normal operations, whether it would be reasonable to expect a large number of (non-trained) passengers to be able to evacuate the helicopter if it ditched without floats fitted.

We should assume from your remarks, that the operator fulfilled our expectations.

Jim

[Aser]

Aser,
Consider the case where an operator works entirely on the continent of Europe operating an AW139 and flying passengers in, and between, continental States. On one occasion in three years, flying is across a small body of water such as the estuary of the Rhine, Gironde or the Gulf of Corinth - would you expect that helicopter to be float equipped for that flight? A risk assessment would put the probability of some failure requiring the helicopter to ditch on the specific part of that one flight at something less than 1 in 1,000,000,000 (1 x 10-9). The exposure to the ditching event is infinitesimally small.
I don't see the need for floats in this scenario.But yes if you are talking about repetitive flights, not just once a year.

On the other hand, and as discussed on another thread, a helicopter engaged in offshore operations in the North Sea spends its whole working life (with few exceptions) over the water in a hostile environment - which includes being exposed to an engine failure without accountability for a proportion of the take-off and landing events. The exposure to a ditching event for the North Sea Fleet is reasonably foreseeable (in fact we have just had one).
By hostile environment I consider a rolled helicopter without floats regardless of water temperature, if you think about non-HUET trained people.

During the recent work in the ICAO HTSG, the placing of that arbitrary line was considered - particularly in the light of the recent revision to FAR/JAR/CS 29. The group considered that the fitting of floats for ‘offshore operations’ should apply - without exception (a new Standard); the fitting of floats for PC3 should remain at the gliding distance to the land; for PC1 and 2, the 10 minute rule should apply for flights over a hostile environment; but for flights over a non-hostile environment, the State should be given freedom to set the limit taking into consideration the certification status of the helicopter and the reliability of the engines.
Here starts the problem, when we start looking just the engine reliability.
If your particular operation is over water for a large proportion of the time (as I think it is); the risk assessment undertaken by the operator would establish: (a) the probability that the environment would become transiently hostile for some flights; and (b) even if that did not interfere with normal operations, whether it would be reasonable to expect a large number of (non-trained) passengers to be able to evacuate the helicopter if it ditched without floats fitted.
I'm lucky to be flying with floats, because the operator it isn't required to do it. (I wouldn't do it in any other way)
I understand the ICAO rules are general.. but I don't see it right when you are flying 60nm over water but at less than 10 minutes from land (land that you not always could use to land) every day 10 times a day, 365 days a year with people on board without the training to evacuate, without wearing a life jacket (it's under the seat), just because we are looking at engine reliability, not thinking about tail rotors,CFIT,flight control problems, impending transmission failures etc.
The risk assessment undertaken by the operator... the CAA has to provide means ensure the risk assessment is done, not give it for granted.
We should assume from your remarks, that the operator fulfilled our expectations.
This wasn't a thread about me, but the oil industry and wearing life jackets in flight. ;)

Thanks.

[Aser]

The actual ICAO annex 6 with the 10 minutes rule for floats requirement it's a joke.
I apologize JimL, That is not a good phrase.

Would make any diference to have land at 10 minutes ?

Tailrotor
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/gtigkditch.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/DSC009444.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/050410MVC-022S.jpg

CFIT
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/p2.jpg
Some more to come...

Who knows
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/heli_188271e.jpg

I couldn't find a picture of one without floats...