One lesson to be learned from the NYC ditching is that a pilot may survive and later be seen walking unaided, but yet be unable to save the lives of any of his passengers. We do not yet know if he released two of the passengers, we do know that despite his best efforts and those of the marine crews first on scene, three remained in the door-less cabin for one hour until released by divers.
For anyone to extract themselves they must be concious.
In helicopters, unlike cars, there are no airbags and a crushing disrespect by the industry, for reducing head trauma, through the use of interior padding.
Yes, provision of helmets to charter passengers is problematic.
I propose that we can work towards the following common sense regime, for all pilots whom carry passengers over water:
1/ Pilots wear flight helmets
2/ In water below X degrees C, pilot to wear an immersion suit or similar to reduce effects of cold shock.
2/ be Huet practiced including the use of spare air.
3/ undergo training to rescue passengers from an inverted helicopter.
The ditching of the Bell, in Queensland a few years ago during aerial filming, resulted in incomplete inversion. We should not rely on floats to save the day.
In respect to the above helping affecting a successful extraction of passengers, it follows that the one size size fits all scenarios life raft may not be the best solution for a pilot to prevent incable passengers from drowning after egress.
Ditto the life vest in a pouch that requires the wearer to be conscious and have full use of both arms to be properly fitted.
Improvements would be:
1/ passenger life vests that require no additional donning in an emergency. So a survivor can assist the unconscious by inflating the vest of others.
2/ rethink use of life rafts that have primarily designed for survival from boating accidents where survivors are able bodied and uninjured. Also consider the use of life mats, similar to those towed behind the jet skis used by life guards. Such mats could be a missing link in the chain of survival.
3/ Create a lower level safety standard of head protection for charter passengers. What is the point of a safety standard if it is not practical or commercially viable to be adopted?
This would encourage design of a cheap helmet, for instance, a semi disposable polystyrene cap that can be worn with existing David Clarke headsets. (Helmets are turn off for some passengers but a turn on for the thrill seekers)
4/ In all large cities where a body of water is the likely emergency landing area (London and Sydney for instance) rescue services should train specifically for rescue of passengers in a floating inverted helicopter.
Despite training and assistance of others and albeit in very cold water and with a 5 knot current it (reportedly) took two divers 40-60 minutes to recover three of the victims in NYC.
This should be a reminder for both those whom legislate and those whom engage in flight over water of the difficulty in extracting the unconcious, even when all the doors are removed.
Are the commercial costs of engaging the above too onerous compared to the loss of business?
Surely charter work is being chipped away at the irretrievable loss of confidence some members of the public have when they read of passengers drowning?
Exacerbated in recent time by numerous events and their aftermaths being filmed on social media?
For example, how many more helicopters sold and joy rides taken if R44 fuel tanks had been more crashworthy a decade earlier?
Any studies on the public’s level of confidence in helicopters? Is it declining?
In the rotary world, safety agencies are at least adept at counting the dead.
As for pilots I have sympathy. For an aerial shoot, I once asked for an immersion suit for two, twenty minute duration transits across very cold water in a helicopter without floats.
On the day, pilot said that no immersion suit was forthcoming for either he or myself.
After the gig the pilot later told me he had an immersion suit in the boot of his car, but decided not to wear it when he realised I was a bit pissed off!
The reasons for his decision were a mix of commercial interest and a desire to maintain the crew bond.
In the event of a ditching, that decision to maintain the bond would have had the desired effect of equally reducing survivability for both of us!
Yes, I did not stick to my guns by refusing to fly, the show must go on, of course.
Mjb
Last edited by mickjoebill; 23rd Mar 2018 at 01:42.