Life jackets ...

[avturboy]

How many passenger lives have been saved by the use of a life jacket supplied on commercial flights; I wonder what the number is as a percentage of total passengers carried?

Given the constant search for ways to improve operating efficiency I wonder how long it will be before the provision life jackets is questioned on basis of cost, weight, time, etc ...

As a passengers ourselves how much safer do folks here feel knowing that there is a like jacket beneath their seat?

Anyone know if this is perhaps already being discussed?

[Espada III]

If I recall from the Hudson River ditching, very few passengers donned life jackets. This surprised me as even though some could have swum to shore, many would have drowned if the plane had not floated.

[PhineasC]

Iirc there have been situations where lifejackets have done more harm than good:

AirDisaster.Com: Special Report: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 (http://www.airdisaster.com/special/ethiopian961.shtml)

I cannot comment on the quality of the source.

It would be a brave airline that announced it was removing safety equipment.

[localflighteast]

I thought the problem with the ethiopian crash wasn't the lifejackets themsleves but the fact that they didn't follow the instructions to wait until leaving the plane before inflating them.

I'm willing to be corrected on this one but aren't there some airlines in N. America who have gotten rid of life jackets? On certain flights?

[PhineasC]

Yes, as the plane sank those who had inflated their life jackets had problems getting to the exits

[PTR 175]

Re some US airline not having life jackets on some routes.

This is correct. They have a removal seat cushion with two straps that is a flotation aid.

[easyflyer83]

The US seat cusion thing is mainly in response to the fact that there is so much domestic flying and so little open water.

I think the response by the OP comes down to the fact that there are very few ditchings that occur. In a pre-planned ditching, however successful or not, there is a chance that you survive the impact. Regardless of your chances thereafter, a life jacket would help to some extent in keeping you afloat. The pre-planned scenario is pretty rare due to the reliability of aircraft. Unplanned ditching usually means a crash.

There are however the cases where aircraft over run or crash just prior to landing where water surrounds the airport. In a pre-planned emergency the crew may find it prudent to prepare for a ditching aswell or in an unplanned scenario and at that stage of flight there is a pretty good chance that alot of the fuselage will remain in tact and there MAY be time or a passenger's presence of mind to don a life jacket.

One passenger cited the Ethiopian hi-jack example where many inflated their life jackets prior to impact causing deaths. Passengers are always told not to but because many don't listen couples with the chaos of the situation some passenger may indeed inflate it. So whilst you can categorically say that early inflation of lifejackets in the Ethiopian example impeded on peoples chances, some of those that did survive may have survived because of the lifejacket inflated after impact at a time when injury meant they couldn't easily stay afloat.

In conclusion, I don't think lifejackets are particularly useless but that they are rarely required. As someone already said, it would take a brave airline to remove them.

[Wodrick]

The cynic in me believes that they assist body location after a ditching crash.

[easyflyer83]

Not if they weren't inflated before impact...........which they shouldn't be. I'd put that myth in the "brace position to break neck, quick death" file.

[Octopussy2]

Even if they only save a tiny percentage of lives, I have to say it would be pretty bloody irritating to survive a plane crash, only to drown for want of a life jacket...

[WHBM]

Someone can maybe correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the FAA regulations omly require lifejackets if aircraft get more than a certain distance from the coast, which is far more than the glide-down distance, and that US carriers typically keep a small sub-fleet of so-equipped aircraft for "overwater" flights to Caribbean Islands etc. Otherwise it's the removable seat cushion, goodness knows how effective that is. This is why the Hudson ditching passengers didn't have lifejackets, and why Sully didn't call for lifejackets to be deployed in the final descent - they weren't on the aircraft. t must come as a considerable surprise for US visitors to Europe to see a lifejackets briefing on every overland flight.

When you look at actual ditchings over time, this seems a nonsense, as all in recent decades have been close to land, during approach or departure; I think the last open sea incident where lifejackets would have been mandatory may be the ONA DC9 ditching in 1970, getting on for half a century ago now.

[givemewings]

I think you'll find the Hudson aircraft did have lifejackets onboard. Most of the passengers probably just didn't put them on- after all, the FAs said they had no idea they were going to ditch until it happened. Many airlines only train the FAs to call for lifejackets in a planned ditching. Others may have looked out the window and seen that they were on the river and figured they wouldn't need a lifejacket.

See image here: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/2010/sullenberger-hudson.jpg

Wodrick, unless a body is trapped in wreckage it will usually float after 5 or 6 days. If you mean making them easier to spot, well, it would, but that's not the reason they are there...

The lifejackets onboard the Ethiopian 767 were the old type where you put your arms through the strap and quite difficult to undo since they had a one-way tightening strap, not a plastic 'click' buckle like they do now. Many pax simply could not get them undone when they floated to the top of the cabin.

[Hotel Tango]

And, having survived a ditching in the Atlantic in January and smugly bobbing up and down in your life jacket, just how long will you survive the freezing water temperature?!!

[givemewings]

Longer than if you didn't have one.

Lifejackets have been shown to almost double survival time in colder temps, given that the floater can do just that and conserve their heat energy by not having to keep their head above water. A group can also more effectively assume a HELP (Heat Escape Lessening Position) and support injured members of the group in the middle. Doubt you'd be able to do that with a group getting tired and not wearing lifejackets.

[TightSlot]

I'm curious - Are some of you actually suggesting that life-jackets have no useful function and should be removed?

[avturboy]

I'm curious - Are some of you actually suggesting that life-jackets have no useful function and should be removed?

I'm the OP, I asked the question because the way bean counters are running our lives I wonder how long it will be before some does the cost benefit analysis and makes a financial case for removing them.

Like it or not there is a price put on human life in various situations we encounter in daily life. So I expect that someone somewhere will have worked out much can be saved by taking the weight of equipment off aircraft, the cost to supply and maintain etc ... and balancing this against the cost in loss of life.

It would no doubt be a move that attracted some adverse publicity, but I'm sure that in time someone will decide that there is money to be saved and will give it a try ...

[Hotel Tango]

I'm curious - Are some of you actually suggesting that life-jackets have no useful function and should be removed?

Most definitely no. I'm all in favour of them, after all there are warmer waters too!

Lifejackets have been shown to almost double survival time in colder temps

Absolutely. However, in my particular example, that would only delay the inevitable by about how many minutes? Unless of course the ditching has taken place next to a vessel.

[grounded27]

Watch the airlines pick up on this thread and sell the life jackets with the headsets.

[dazdaz1]

I recall from one of my past (similar topic) posts, I received a reply from a poster who stated that the inflatable emergency slides x the number of them have to have the capability (when detached from a/c) to support out of water the maximum number of persons on-board. Having said that, the statistics have never looked good for a sea ditching of a big jet and survival.

Daz

[PhineasC]

If at any point they could have been shown that they save a life they have a useful function, the issue is if the marginal benefit they provide justifies the additional cost.

There was a suggestion that passengers be provided with some form of hood with an oxygen supply that they could wear should they need to evacuate the aircraft, I think this was dismissed on cost and complexity grounds. Given the choice between a hood and a life jacket I’d choose the hood, but I don’t know how much extra I’d be prepared to pay for the privilege.

Watch the airlines pick up on this thread and sell the life jackets with the headsets. :)

[WHBM]

I'm curious - Are some of you actually suggesting that life-jackets have no useful function and should be removed?
I do think, TS, that US "domestic" carriers have already done so.

[Tableview]

I would say that relatively few accidents are survivable, and of those, not all would allow time for correct donning of lifejackets and evacuation. Even if that happens, it does not guarantee survival.

Thus we have to place a value on human life versus the cost of carrying, supplying, and maintaining the lifejackets. That's impossible, and for that reason I suspect that most airlines, and certainly those operating over or close to water, will continue with lifejackets, however pointless they might seem.

[Load Toad]

Most accidents aren't survivable - where are your figures backing that up?

[Tableview]

You are taking a part of my statement and using it out of context. Let's just say that (for example) 80% of accidents (that's a figure I've seen) are potentially survivable, we have to consider many other criteria which would determine whether lifejackets would help after a survivable accident, such as cabin layouts, structure, evacuation procedures, terrain and climate.

The posting was specifically about life jackets and their role, not about the potential survivability of accidents in general. Life jackets are only relevant if the crash/landing occurs on water.

[FlyingGoggles]

I have to admit, knowing lifejackets are there, does make me feel a bit safer.

All I can say on them being removed is, I hope the airline owners didn't watch the BBC show Come Fly With Me...

Omar's Life Jackets - Come Fly With Me - BBC One - YouTube :)

[frequentflyer2]

Approaching BHD over Bangor Bay and Carrickfergus I'd rather have them under the seats ready for use.

[PTR 175]

I am an ex aircraft technician. This will explain my habbits.
I still check under the seat for my life jacket. Twice I have found it missing, shame on the person who stole it:mad: and it has held up the departure of the aircraft. Once with North West and the other time with United. The Cabin crew on both occasions did not believe me and checked and then a new one had to be bought in by one of the maintenance staff.

So if you were on any of those two flights, sorry.

[PAXboy]

Agreed PTR 175, I also check. Only once have I not found it - on a RYR. The CC was surprised and said that she would bring me one. I was not surprised when she didn't!

I decided to see what would happen and let the flight continue. Naturally, no jacket or further comment. I decided not to complain as that would entail letters on my part and nothing on anyone elses' - CAA etc.

So I don't travel RYR anymore but I check my seat every time on every carrier and, if I again find it missing, I will prevent the departure.

Do I think jackets are helpful? In a low energy ditching - Yes.

[Pontius Navigator]

I also check for a life jacket but really think they are a waste of space, especially for an open ocean ditching. Aircraft used to carry large dingies that could accommodate 30+ people. Four or five would suffice for most aircraft. Initially these were open with buoyancy chambers. Then a self-inflating canopy was added which would give you a secure and warmer environment and a real chance of survival. Ships still use these.

Now, with over 300 passengers you would been 10 or more dinghies. Most passenger aircraft now use the door escape chutes as life rafts. The approved way of using these is to hang on in the water until you die.

Modern aircraft have ditched and everyone on board has survived. Usually they had survival suits and proper dinghies.

[easyflyer83]

Many aircraft types still have the life rafts (dingies). The slide rafts meanwhile are only designed to be held onto on certain aircraft types whereas on others they are actually rafts.

[MarkerInbound]

US reg is up to 50nm from shore, only "floatation" is required. More than 50nm you must have vests and rafts. There's a waypoint, LAIRE, placed so that if you're going KSEA-PANC you can go direct LAIRE direct ANC or direct LAIRE direct YVR and stay within 50nm of the shore on a 3 hour leg with one waypoint. I can certainly glide 50 miles from altitude.

Thus we have to place a value on human life versus the cost of carrying, supplying, and maintaining the lifejackets. That's impossible,


The FAA does this all the time. I can't recall what they price a human life at but I remember a number around 2.5 million. The reason the revised US flight and duty time regulations don't cover cargo operations is the FAA it was cheaper to have one cargo aircraft crash every ten years than to require the additional crew members.

[Dairyground]

So there seems to be some degree of consensus that life jackets will remain, and that they may have proved to be of value on rare occasions in the past.

Another item apparently carried on every flight that seems to have limited use is the crash axe. Has one ever been deployed other than to demonstrate to security that it is pointless to confiscate sharp-edged instruments from flight crew?

And if the axe is justified, is the flight deck the best place to keep it for any reason other than keeping out of the hands of the SLF?

[avturboy]

Thus we have to place a value on human life versus the cost of carrying, supplying, and maintaining the lifejackets. That's impossible, .......

My understanding is that there plentiful situations in everyday life where a value has to be put on human life, insurance companies, road planners, doctors, to name but a few ...

It may be that some folks will find it an unpalatable topic of conversation, but they take place regardless.

[radeng]

I wonder how far you can take such an argument. Oxygen masks? Decompression is pretty rare and seems to be accompanied by a fairly controlled rapid descent to where the lower pressure isn't a problem.

First aid kit? If it's fairly comprehensive, it needs changing every so often.

Fire extinguishers? How often is there a fire which the extinguisher in the cabin puts out?

I wonder what else the bean counters could come up with to save a penny...

[avturboy]

I wonder how far you can take such an argument. Oxygen masks? Decompression is pretty rare and seems to be accompanied by a fairly controlled rapid descent to where the lower pressure isn't a problem.

First aid kit? If it's fairly comprehensive, it needs changing every so often.

Fire extinguishers? How often is there a fire which the extinguisher in the cabin puts out?

I wonder what else the bean counters could come up with to save a penny...

All good points, everything has a price ... just watch what happens in the coming years. The agressive approach to managing costs, delivering shareholder value etc.. etc.. will drive these questions to be asked.

[PAXboy]

avturboy has put his finger on the very phrase that has swept through commerce since the late 1980s: Shareholder value

It used to be: Look after the customer - and the customer will look after you. Now it's look after the shareholders, then the main board, then the CEO/CFO and to heck with everyone else.

[ExXB]

However ...

A lot of things mentioned are not discretionary. ICAO/FAA requires them to be on the aircraft. Bean counters cannot simply remove them.

While some may hark to a different era, they will likely remain required forever. Even in Regulation hating states there is no way anyone is going to put their xxx on the line and suggest removing a 'safety' item. No way, not ever.

[givemewings]

We were discussing this last week, several of the crew on my flight (flying 5 years or more) had all successfully used fire extinguishers to put out fires onboard. Anyone who wants to remove those from the aircraft is nuts!

I reckon the worst thing you can deal with onboard is a fire, once it gets ahold you are pretty much screwed. I remember reading a line somewhere (think it was Boeing) that said from ignition to landing, if anything over 12minutes and the fire is uncontrollable, you might as well call it a day and write your goodbye notes..

Wrt rafts, some of you are getting confused between 'flotation only slides' and 'Slede/raft'. The former are not intended to be used in ditching but MAY be used as a last resort, in the manner described, for pax in the water to hold onto. The latter are designed to keep you dry and out of the water and are equipped with survival gear. Sliderafts must be able to carry the entire capacity of the aircraft plus overload. (A common capacity on large aircraft is 60, and 80 at overload, in case one of your other slides is damaeg etc)

The round dingies are probably mroe seaworthy, but IMHO having done a ditching drill and deploying them out the o/w exits on a B737, you'd be on the bottom before you got them all away. For the purposes of getting a few hundred panicking passengers out of an aircraft, the slideraft is probably going to work better. The dingies are only as good as the crowd control used when setting them up for loading.

Of course the chances of surviving anything open water are low- but I can think of several cases where aircraft overran into water and the sliderafts were used.

The Hudson river case, someone asked about, the rear slides did not deploy because the procedure says you don't use them in ditching since the door sills are underwater. Ditto for the overwings, they are slides only not rafts IIRC...

[avturboy]

OK so I am the original poster .... and I am NOT a company bean counter ... far from it ... but the question is ... as a proportion of passenger miles travelled how many lives have been saved by the successful use of personal life jackets ...

[radeng]

It used to be mandatory that marine radios underwent a formal 'Type Approval', usually overseen by the Administration of each country where it is be sold. In Europe, a manufacturer can now self certify, and the self certification is good for any EU country. So you could see pressures on the international bodies at some time in the future....

[WHBM]

The Hudson river case, someone asked about, the rear slides did not deploy because the procedure says you don't use them in ditching since the door sills are underwater. Ditto for the overwings, they are slides only not rafts IIRC...
Indeed, many of the pax seemed to come out by the overwing exits, and were standing on the wings (hopefully balanced on each side). But apart from the idiots who brought their suitcases with them, the most notable thing in the photographs was lack of lifejackets by anyone. In Europe the lifejacket briefing would have been given just a couple of minutes earlier on such a domestic, supposedly "not over water" flight. But in my recollection the majority of actual ditchings have not been out in the open sea at all, but on water close in, typically actually within sight of the runway; even the Ethiopian 767 in the Indian Ocean had the runway in sight.

[PAXboy]

The usual progression that I have observed - in all walks of life not just air transport:


Something goes wrong and people die.
The boffins come up with a safety procedure/device.
The politicians respond to the newspapers by mandating this with the (near useless) cry that this "must not be allowed to happen again."
Device and procedure is mandated.
Years pass.
Nothing goes wrong and this particular failure does not happen again.
Years pass - decades sometimes.
Folks talk about removing the device and/or procedure.
< fill in the blanks >
'It' happens again.
More people die.
In the inquiry it is found that numerous voices in the company had been warning about the problem but they were ignored. In the USA you can start with Shuttle Challenge rin 1986. In the UK, you can start with the Kings Cross Tube Fire of 1987. Both of these were unique 'new' failures but are well known examples of the ability of people to ignore facts.

Very often, to be fair, this happens because each emergency has so many variables that you cannot plan for all of them. Modern world pax (particularly USA) want everything guaranteed but in life - It Ain't Necessarily So ...

With US 1549 they had more than just a fine crew, they had a river to hand that was ebbing and made it look (in the pictures) like a lake - if it had been in flood, then there would have been choppy waves and pax would probably not have been able to stand calmly on the wings. Indeed, if the water surface had been very rough, the a/c might have put her nose under very quickly and dived.

Removing life jackets? Someone will. My own view is that, in local waters then they are a real life saver. In open water, the event that brought the a/c down probably precludes their use.

When talking about weight and cost, don't forget that carriers have successfully resisted installing misting water sprinkler systems - but still sell heavy flammable bottles of alcohol!

[givemewings]

AS I metioned before, I think one of the FAs on the flight said she hadn't realised they had even ditched as the 'landing' was so smooth (:ok: to the pilots!)

So, either they called for jackets on opening the doors, or the pax saw out the window and just put them on.

You can clearly see pax with jackets on in this picture. Since it was so cold a lifejacket would have definitely improved their chances if they fell in- luckily they could stay on the wing in most cases til boats arrived.

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2009/01/15/plane-crash.jpg

In one photo there's even a guy with his lifejacket on 'upside down'! Didn't know it was possible til then! :E :}

[PAXboy]

That picture demonstrates perfectly the smoothness of the river surface. I would suggest that must have been a key factor in keeping the a/c afloat for so long. It sank very slowly, had there have been waves lapping in the door, it might have gone down much faster.

[WHBM]

As I recall, the Hudson A321 was still afloat, with the forward door sill above water level, 24 hours after the ditching, tied to a pier.

Those pax are in a raft and have jackets on one side of the aircraft but not the other, and the wings are by now underwater whereas initial photos showed many standing on them; I wonder if the jackets had been supplied from the rescuing vessels.

[Pontius Navigator]

'Slede/raft'. . . . latter are designed to keep you dry and out of the water and are equipped with survival gear.

The round dingies are probably mroe seaworthy, but IMHO having done a ditching drill and deploying them out the o/w exits on a B737, you'd be on the bottom before you got them all away.

Of course the chances of surviving anything open water are low-.

I don't recall seeing any mention of dinghies on civilian aircraft for many years. As you say, deploying and boarding even on a small aircraft like a 737 takes time and in open water . . .

[Dont Hang Up]

Taking away the life jackets as a simple cost and weight saving is never going to play well - so I do not see it happening that way.

I think a more interesting question is whether replacing life jackets with smoke hoods as the under-seat safety equipment would potentially be a life saver. There have been cases where smoke-hoods may have saved lives. But I know that many have expressed doubts on the ability of passengers to use them properly.

[strake]

...the most notable thing in the photographs was lack of lifejackets by anyone.[/quote

The NTSB report made it clear that at no point were passengers instructed to don live vests. Ten passengers did however and seventy plus took seat cushions with them citing that the instruction to do so (and hold them by crossing their arms) had seeped into their conciousness over the years. It was also a much easier task to accomplish given the fast moving circumstances.


In terms of the efficacy of the live vests - the original question I think, the NTSB had this to say in their report

[quote]Survival factors investigators also found that passengers had significant problems in donning the life vests that were stowed under each seat.

It would appear that this difficulty was not only specific to passengers on this flight.
The NTSB concludes that the current life vest design standards contained in TSO-C13f
do not ensure that passengers can quickly or correctly don life vests. Therefore, the NTSB
recommends that the FAA revise the life vest performance standards contained in TSO-C13f to
ensure that they result in a life vest that passengers can quickly and correctly don.

[WHBM]

The NTSB report made it clear that at no point were passengers instructed to don live vests.
I wonder what the US Airways QRH ditching page says.

I'm guessing quite a bit of that small rectangular flotsam around the aircraft is discarded seat cushions.

[strake]

I wonder what the US Airways QRH ditching page says.


It would appear that the USA QRH for ditching is based on actions to be taken from cruise height and one engine operable....

[givemewings]

Pontius, if by 'dinghies' you are referring to the hexagonal, double chamber rafts then yes they are still carried by some airlines in Australia onboard B737 (and other circa 100/150 seat aircraft) usually fitted to aircraft which have slides only at main doors yet fly beyond the permissible distance from land which exempts their carriage.

One company I worked for was only required to carry them on two routes- in that case the dinghies were stowed in the seat rows immediately aft of the overwing exits as they were too large for the overhead lockers. Others are permanently located in pull-down ceiling stowages. Both kinds I've been trained on are the type with a lanyard which when pulled releases a pin from the gas inflation bottle and they pretty much inflate instantly.

Re: Hudson/NTSB... the fact that one guy had his lifejacket on completely upside down tells me the difficulty is probably not with thejacket itself but the lack of attention to the safety card/demo of how to actually put it on. Compared to the 'old' lifejackets, today's "over the head, on strap round the waist" models ar eprobably as simple as you're going to get without resorting to marine "solid" types.

The red objects on the water are lifejackets from ferries; the yellow ones are aircraft type. I've never seen an inflatable lifejacket on a public ferry, they always seem to be the solid type (not changed much since they were used on the Titanic etc, it seems)