PDA

View Full Version : Mandatory Lifejackets & Liferafts?


Southern Cross
24th May 2007, 08:57
Dear All

In relation to the recent announcement reproduced below, can anyone let me know whether or not it is now mandatory to carry a liferaft for a private flight over water (eg cross channel) in circumstances where it is impractical or impossible to do so (eg single seaters). Many thanks. SC

"The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has today announced general exemptions from the Air Navigation Order (ANO) for light aircraft engaged on non-public transport flights.

The exemptions cover the requirement in the ANO to carry an approved Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) and also the requirement for approved lifejackets, life rafts and supplementary oxygen equipment.

The original change was the result of consultations conducted between April 2004 and March 2005 and a Letter of Intent issued on 29 March 2005; this letter resulted in the change to the ANO this March. Details of the consultation were posted on the CAA website, where the relevant documents are still available for viewing.

The original intention of the ANO change for lifejackets, life raft and supplementary oxygen equipment had been to require suitable equipment rather than approved equipment. Whilst the carriage of lifejackets, life-rafts and supplemental oxygen will still be required, the CAA intends to issue a general exemption stating that this equipment need not be approved. Similarly a general exemption will be issued permitting a Personal Locator Beacon to be carried, in lieu of an Emergency Locator Transmitter, whilst a further review is undertaken.

For media enquiries please contact the CAA press office on 020 7453 6030. "

gcolyer
24th May 2007, 09:17
You still need to carry a life raft if travelling over large areas of water. from my interpretation it does not need to be an approved device. WHich is a bonus because you can go and buy a marine life raft instead of an "Aviation" lift raft for a hell of a lot less. The same goes for life jackets.

Islander2
24th May 2007, 09:21
Good question, and one which typifies the total confusion the CAA has managed to create with these ANO changes.

SI 2007 No 274 specifically amends the ANO to mandate the carriage in specified circumstances of fire extinguishers, first aid kits, landing lights, torches, life jackets, elt's, oxygen, etc but does not specifically mandate the carriage of life rafts.

However, the SI also amends the ANO to require that the commander of a UK-registered aircraft not flying for public transport "shall reasonably satisfy himself before take-off that the aircraft carries such additional equipment as the commander reasonably considers necessary for the purpose of facilitating the survival of the persons carried in the aircraft."

The exemption permitting the use of equipment not approved by the CAA or EASA subsequently announced by the CAA (and referred to by you) does, though, specifically refer to liferafts. You could, then, reasonably infer that the CAA believes liferafts to be mandated by that new 'commander's responsibilities' clause for flight overwater. But it's your call, since the legislation leaves it to "what the commander reasonably considers necessary."

spittingimage
24th May 2007, 09:36
There are differences, I understand, between 'marine' and 'aviation' liferafts - and it's not just price. Aviation liferafts are required to vent to atmosphere in the event of a fault. Marine not so. Therefore to carry a marine raft in the confined space of a light aircraft might just provide the excitement of a lifetime if things go horribly wrong and spontaneous self-inflation occurs. I use an aviation liferaft but I also carry an open pocket-knife ready to hand at all times over the water. Just in case.

Southern Cross
24th May 2007, 09:57
Islander 2: Many thanks for your reply. At the end of the day, since I cannot carry a liferaft I have to assume that the CAA did not mean to restrict private flights over water in certain types of aeroplane without specifically saying so. So I'll continue to make do with the lifejacket, parachute and EPIRB... Plus I will go with the actual letter of the law rather than the aids to interpretation (which as you say do refer to liferafts):

The Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2007 - 2007/274 - states:

(5) After article 52 add —


" Non-public transport aircraft - survival equipment
52A —(1) This article shall apply to any aircraft registered in the United Kingdom which is not a public transport aircraft.

(2) The commander of an aircraft to which this article applies shall reasonably satisfy himself before take-off that the aircraft carries such additional equipment as the commander reasonably considers necessary for the purpose of facilitating the survival of the persons carried in the aircraft.

(3) In satisfying himself as required by paragraph (2) the commander shall have regard to the circumstances of the intended flight, including in particular the likelihood of ditching and the availability of search and rescue facilities.".

IO540
24th May 2007, 18:50
Aviation liferafts are required to vent to atmosphere in the event of a fault

Can you elaborate?

spittingimage
25th May 2007, 05:32
Hmm. Don't think I can elaborate except to say that I read it somewhere a couple of years ago when I was in the market for a liferaft myself, have spent the last 30 mins on the internet trying to find it again and given it up as a bad job ! Sorry.
SI

IO540
25th May 2007, 06:09
One can argue about ELTs etc and anybody not carrying a raft when away from gliding range of land is a fool.

Wearing just life jackets, unless they are gliding in from FL200 in a motor glider (and thus give the rescue services a good head start), or they ditch close to some boat, they will likely be dead by the time the official helicopter reaches the scene.

It's a £1000 or so, but arguably this is the cost of expanding one's ability to go places in a plane.

Whirlybird
25th May 2007, 07:28
Wearing just life jackets, unless they are gliding in from FL200 in a motor glider (and thus give the rescue services a good head start), or they ditch close to some boat, they will likely be dead by the time the official helicopter reaches the scene.


So buy an immersion suit. Cheaper and far lighter than a liferaft, and will keep you alive until the emergency services reach you. I bought one after attending a ditching course and finding that I couldn't get into a liferaft...and that was in a swimming pool!!! It's reasonably comfortable; I wore it when flying from Oban to Barra on a very hot day, and it was OK.

Why are these lifesavers so rarely mentioned?

IO540
25th May 2007, 08:38
Probably because most British people can't get inside one if you paid them :) And if you make them wear them, they will never fly with you again.

Technically, a drysuit is a very good solution but it's strictly for the most dedicated anoraks.

Even lifejackets are a pain. I have the best GA ones, with the reasonably breathable fabric (the £100 ones from SEMS rather than the £50 ones) yet I still find nobody will wear them except for the actual water crossing. And I don't blame them.

Also I am not sure about how visible you are bobbing up and down in one of them - unless you have a 121.50 beacon tied to yourself with a piece of string, or some other means of detection.

High Winger
25th May 2007, 11:00
To consider the likelihood of ditching, the commander would need to know how many of the thousands of channel crossings by SE aircraft have ditched (with the exception of the ones that ran out of fuel).

Having made numerous long channel crossings, I must admit feeling the odds of an in flight emergency must be getting shorter and the CAA requirement has caused me to consider the issue more seriously.

In my case I consider a survival suit preferable to a life raft. I don't fancy my chances of successfully getting a life raft out of a high winger and clambering aboard, whether the aircraft remains upright or flips inverted on contact with the water.

SLFguy
25th May 2007, 11:19
I've got a red 4 man one for sale if you are anywhere near Bristol....:rolleyes:

rjakw
25th May 2007, 11:31
My views on the (non)value of a liferaft were confirmed recently by an ex SAR pilot.

He told me that of the 4 successful light aircraft ditchings he had attended where a liferaft had been carried, only two were able to get the raft out of the plane. Of the two that succeeded in extracting and inflating the raft, nobody was able to get aboard. Nobody. Apparently it is almost impossible in even the slightest sea.

His advice was:

1. Your best chance from a light a/c is in an immersion suit with a life jacket.
2. Dye or a streamer makes a big difference to visibility from above.
3. Never tow an aircraft behind a boat through the water backwards - it'll destroy it in minutes, even if travelling slowly.

To insist on the carriage of a liferaft is daft. The weight penalty reduces other options more likely to save your life.

tmmorris
25th May 2007, 12:08
High Winger - you didn't do Maths A level, did you...?

Tim

High Winger
25th May 2007, 12:46
As a matter of fact I did! - and an engineering degree. Boring, I know,:) but these days carrying out a risk assessment is considered de rigeur for even the simplest task.

Southern Cross
25th May 2007, 13:29
Therefore it seems I am a fool for flying an aeroplane outside of gliding distance to land without a liferaft, even though the machines I fly have no capability of carrying a liferaft.... hey ho. There I was relying upon lifejacket and ELT (the latter being the single most important factor in shortening the SAR time significantly according to a former Bristows SAR pilot friend of mine)....

Cheap (and multi-use) immersion suit? = wetsuit under one's flightsuit...

gcolyer
25th May 2007, 14:08
I've got a red 4 man one for sale if you are anywhere near Bristol....:rolleyes:


Funny man...shall I let the police come and pick it up with me :eek:


Apparently it is almost impossible in even the slightest sea.


I disagree. Having served 6 years in 29 Commando I have done this many a time. There is certainly a knack to it. I would say the issue in getting in to one after a ditching is possible injuries or shock. Obviosuly the rougher the water the harder it is.

It is definatley worth while trying to get on some sort of course, or swim a dingy out in the sea and try to get in to it fully clothed. Even better, if you are a club member and the club has a liferaft. When it is time for the raft to have it's inspection book a swimming pool for half a day and inflate the raft. That way you can make use of the inflated life raft. It annoys me to have to inflate a raft for inspectiona and not get any use out of it.

Fuji Abound
25th May 2007, 15:19
Be very careful with a dry suite to zip it closed before the ditching.

If you forget, by the time you are in the water, it will be too late. :)

IO540
25th May 2007, 16:22
Don't inflate a raft for fun - the inflation process involves a lot of cooling of the gas coming out of the bottle and this makes the rubber brittle, which is not a good thing in the long run. When the overhaul company (e.g. SEMS) tests a raft they inflate it using normal air, not by emptying the gas bottle into it.

Regards getting into a raft... there is a big spectrum of people out there, so please don't generalise.

To be perfectly honest many people are so unfit (or simply inflexible, through age etc) they can only just get into an aeroplane. I fly a TB20 and very much enjoy flying with some definitely senior citizens, yet some of them can only just get in or out of it, and a TB20 is no challenge at all for somebody able to lift one foot about 2ft above the other one.

Looking at today's ageing GA scene (at 50 I am one of the youngest) it's obvious that many pilots would not get out of their plane in a hurry, and getting into a raft is much less likely. I have no illusions about the survival chances of some of my passengers - if they ditch, they will most likely go down with the plane.

I reckon that if you picked an adult off the street at random, they would find it at least slightly difficult to get into a GA piston plane - well maybe except a C182. Into a raft? Not much of a chance. So many people these days are so overweight they can barely walk up steps.

But this does not in any way negate the value of a raft, for those who are reasonably fit and flexible. There is indeed a knack to getting into one - if you start off in the water; you have to "roll in" more or less with the whole body in one go and not try to climb in in the obvious way (upper body first) because it will just tip over backwards, onto you. Anybody who messes about on the water (dinghies, windsurfing, etc) especially in any reasonable sea state will know what I mean.

Ideally one would try to get it inflated close to the aircraft so one can step into it, but this assumes you can all make a rapid exit. Out of a PA28 (or any other single door plane) carrying 3-4 people, forget this option.

The sea state is a valid flight planning option too. Would you fly over sea when it's blowing F10? Ditching in that would be exciting enough, never mind getting out.

The great thing about a raft is that it can just sit on the back seat, ready for use. The U.S. Survival Products ones weigh under 10kg which in terms of W&B is probably about equal to the size of the lie in your female passenger's declared weight :) Drysuits will absolutely not be worn by 99% of people especially "normal" passengers, so their benefit is theoretical.

ContinentalC85
26th May 2007, 16:00
Regarding the use of a PLB , in your average GA aircraft , is one required
if crossing the Channel at the shortest route ( Fokestone / Cap Gris Nez)
- mid Channel puts me pretty much 10 minutes from land in either direction.
For someone who makes this trip once or twice a summer a PLB is another hit to the pocket

Whirlybird
26th May 2007, 16:18
I did the ditching course with a mixed group of people who were on a safety course organised by...Gasco, I think. But none were all that old (ie mainly appeared under 60) and none looked that overweight or unfit. Some actually looked like they worked out, and/or were quite at home in the water, and OK when asked to swim a couple of lengths fully clothed. In fact, I personally managed this easily, and wasn't even out of breath...which annoyed some of the male members of the group, but that's another story. Nevertheless, when the liferafts were thrown into the pool, virtually everyone had trouble getting into one. A few eventually managed it and dragged the rest of us in. Being fairly light, I was quite easily dragged aboard, but I doubt if I'd ever have managed it alone without specific training or loads of practice. I don't think anyone felt they'd be able to manage it in the sea, with waves etc, if doing it for real. That's when I personally abandoned putting my trust in a liferaft, and asked SEMS about getting an immersion suit.

gcolyer
26th May 2007, 16:20
ContinentalC85

I would certainly take one. 10 minutes flying is quiet a hefty swim. Do you think you could swim that in cold strong waters? especially after the shock of ditching and possible injury?

IO540
26th May 2007, 17:06
WB - how big and what model was the raft you were climbing into?

Whirlybird
26th May 2007, 18:07
IO540,

SEMS had several, and I tried 3 or 4 of different sizes and types, though I don't remember the details. The only one I could get into was one designed for one person - basically a kind of airbed with a cover. I liked it, and did actually consider getting one, especially as it was light enough to carry in a C150, and SEMS reckoned that at a pinch it could hold two light people, ie me and the female friend I used to fly with a lot. But I eventually decided that an immersion suit would be a better idea. However, to stick to the point, I couldn't get into any of the "normal" liferafts. And while I'm no great athlete, and smaller than most people, I'm at least averagely fit and agile.

noblues
26th May 2007, 22:25
On a Le Touquet trip last week I did a 'practice lost procedure' with my student off the dover coast, I then asked 121.5 how long it would take to get a helicopter to us mid channel?

Answer: Search and Rescue Heli would be crambled from Lee on Solent, taking up tp 15 mins, plus transit time.

I would say Lee On Solent to Dover area could take at least 25 mins by Heli, so you could be swimming for 40 mins. In the winter the chances are you would be dead from exposure without an imersion suit or getting into a raft.

(I suspect the French have SAR in Calias possibly quicker to mid channel?).