Somesuch,
For more that a decade it has been recognised (research in Canada) that the time to escape from an inverted Puma-size helicopter exceeds the breath hold time. For that reason, the HOSS committee provided a two stage policy: the first stage would be a temporary fix to provide passengers with enhanced breath hold with the use of EBS; the second stage (long term) would be to produce a side floating capability which would preserve an air-gap in the cabin permitting evacuation without full submersion. All of this has been contained in research reports for some time but, following the introduction of EASA, was collated into a single document and published by the CAA.
As far as I can see (and anyone who reads the report can as well) the CAA intends to provide operational limitations which recognise these (long-standing) choices: the seating will be restricted unless the breath hold time for the passengers matches the escape time (the objective standard). In practical terms this translates to: side floating without the aid of EBS as a final solution; and, EBS (as a temporary solution) until side floating has been achieved (or remains impractical). The Standards for EBS (Category A and Category B) in contained within CAP 1034. If there has been an advance it is that deployment has been seen as problematical and complex and unlikely to work in other than a ditching case (i.e. water impact in a survivable accident). In the absence of a requirement for certification, this CAP serves as guidance for those parties who wish to purchase and take advantage of EBS to mitigate the operational limitation on seating capacity. As I said previously, the oil companies in Canada are already employing devices which (I am told) meet the Category A standard.
With respect to EBS, for the time being compulsion does not exist neither is there a process of Approval. Make of that what you will!
As I said previously, there is likely to be an airspace requirement (similar to that for the EC225 operational restriction) that will mandate the operational limitation on the UK continental shelf. What more is there to say?
Terminus mos,
Your statements, as always, are provocative in the face of the evidence. With respect to side-floating; passenger testing was carried out in the early 2000s and the evacuation drills were found to be practical - read the original report; it also answers your questions on the principles of side-floating.
The working groups who have been involved in this work have been in existence for almost two decades but their will has been thwarted by various parties, and events such as the advent of EASA and the transfer of responsibility (which itself resulted in five lost years); there is little here that is new except a willingness by the CAA to make this happen and take the appropriate actions.
If the oil companies have alternative to these measures, the question should be asked, why did they not put them in place?
Jim