Mickjoebill
As I'm originally from the UK I did offshore refreshers just when the Shark rebreather came out, we had to do the "dry" test first then used the "boil-in-the-bag" rebreather in a similar fashion to the HUEBA training we get over here in Canada i.e. face down in the water, then at a lower level < 1 metre albeit in the HUEBA training you're in a flight seat and turned upside down (you have to be able to deploy the HUEBA in a capsize situation).
I remember the extra effort required even after 8 years since my last UK refresher at NUTEC Aberdeen just in the pool to use the Shark rebreather even just under 1 metre of water pressure. Since 1 meter = 1/10th of an atmosphere I wouldn't want to try a fight against 10 metres = 30 feet which is what they reckon the depth was at when 2 survivors escaped but only one miraculously survived without HUEBA/rebreather pocket.
I recall the rebreather using your own breath only. I just wonder how effective they would be with cold water shock, also at such depths. Perhaps the small air cylinder is a relatively new thing or my memory is getting dusty.
I have done two HUEBA training courses now, one just after they were finally brought in after 491 (they were in the works for over 6 years) and again just last year during my BST-R (Canadian survival course refresher). The secret is to use the face mask which we strap to our arm, the nose clips IMO are a waste of time. Another reason for the face mask is to see where you're going better and if there are any fuel leaks, which happened in 491, to prevent damage to your eyes.
The military have been using HUEBAs for many years and they have saved many lives. Their requirement was based on hostile territory flying over sea and a higher risk of ditching. The civilian industry requirement is more to do with the extended flight times in relatively hostile territory (sea state, icing conditions, lightening strike potential etc.) and more lately due to the S92A lack of MRGB run-dry capability, which IMO deems it unsuitable for Cat A classification.
The key is reducing the risk of ditching to as long as reasonably practicable (ALARP), but in the event that this happens I'm glad we have the HUEBAs now. Hopefully after the TSB report recommendations these will be adopted by all helo ops, not just those in the Grand Banks.
There is a fine line between realistic training and increased risk to trainees. If a more stringent medical was put in place perhaps we could introduce cold-water shock awareness, deployment of HUEBA in the HUET, and a general increase in fitness level required for offshore certification. Sadly though our aging oil and gas workers (including myself) would experience a high failure rate, costing the oil companies a huge amount of money to train up new blood. IMO this is probably the main reason why this will never go ahead.
It is up to the individual to decide if he/she is willing to take the inherent risks associated with our industry based on their own self-management of health and fitness. Things are improving albeit slowly and it unfortunately takes tragedies such as 491 to make them happen. That's just the way big oil works.
There is a much more detailed thread on this tragedy, perhaps the moderators will merge the two of these.
Safe flying
Max