Underwater Egress Training

[dhc2widow]

Hi all,

I did a quick search for underwater egress, and only came up with a bunch in the rotorhead forum and one in the private flying forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=43000 - interestingly, an article about Bryan Webster, for whom I now work).

My primary interest is with commercial floatplanes, so I'm bringing this up here in the hopes that this is the appropo forum.

As substantiated by the threads in the rotorhead forum, underwater egress training seems to be standard for most pilots ... I'm curious about the application here, or how it has been mandated and for whom exactly.

But I'm also curious if there are any countries' legislation and/or unions' collective agreement which require egress training for commercial float ops?

To understand why I might be asking, you can visit this thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=277832

I do hope to see discussion about underwater egress training in general, experiences and opinions.

[Hawk]

dhc2widow... madam, thank you for your contribution. I have reviewed your threads in other forums on the same issue. The content on the surface appears to have relevance to Safety issues so for the interim, your thread here in Safety and CRM forum may continue under the following provisos.

You do not post in Safety and CRM forum any further direct link to a commercial web site. (already deleted by moderators in your post above). Secondly, you or any other PPRuNe registered name, do not post a link to a petition that is already running in another PPRuNe forum or any other website without the prior approval of PPRuNe administration.

The Site allows a single issue on a single forum as policy and does not allow any direct link to commercial websites.
Thank you
S & CRM mods.

[dhc2widow]

Thank you for allowing it to stay, and I apologize for my lack of decorum.

Perhaps it will help if I elaborate my concern.

I believe, as I'm sure most (if not all) of you do, that safety is of utmost importance, and that risks should be mitigated as much as possible.

The use of seaplanes for commercial transport is not exclusive to Canada, or indeed North America. I think that it would bear out that their use is most often in places where the weather can be extremely variable, as can the water conditions for take-off and landings. When seaplane accidents occur, more often that not, the a/c ends up in the water ... and very often inverted. The occupants become trapped, and even if uninjured, end up drowning because they are unable to escape or unable to escape and don their life jackets.

I believe that inflatable PFDs should be handed out like boarding passes for commercial seaplane flights, and that pax (and pilots) should be required to wear said PFDs in all phases of flight. This would be a very good step in mitigating the risk of drowning.

However, certainly here in Canada, the government is unwilling to make this mandatory. That being said, I believe that you, as pilots, must take the steps to keep yourselves safe. To my amazement, there are still seaplane pilots out there who do not wear their PFDs and so I ask myself, why?

Well, I think a big part of it is not understanding the risks themselves. Hence my questions about underwater egress training. By reading the comments about HUET in the Rotorhead forum, it is clear how beneficial it is deemed by these pilots.

And for the record, I was interested in, and promoting, egress training long before I was offered a job.

[mad_jock]

In the UK for certain jobs operating offshore it is indeed manditory to complete the training. And manditory depending on sea temp to wear a suit lifejacket and personal locator beacon.


We don't have many floats in britain compared to CAN and the few that I have seen everyone has been wearing a lifejacket but these were private aircraft.

To my knowledge we have no commercial float operators in the uk.

[BelArgUSA]

Hola dhc2 -
xxx
Very little to mention about wet ditching training I get from my airline pilot background, where concerns and circumstances are definitely different from seaplane operations, where you, Canadians, have definitely more expertise.
xxx
I live in Argentina, and often go to Brasil for time off, and I am attracted by that country's vast "unexplored" areas. I have been twice in a seaplane as a passenger. Both times the pilot knew I was a pilot myself, and asked me to be the "designated" co-pilot up front with him. There was NO BRIEFING to passengers. Once was in a Twin Otter with floats, in the Manaus area, in the middle of the Amazon basin, departed from the river, and landed a couple of time on rivers near native villages, and the other time was in a C-185, in the South of Brasil (Matto Grosso) in an area called Pantanal, a paradise for fauna, flowers and fishing... on little lakes and rivers. Except for the weather you have in Canada, not exactly same as Brasil's temperatures, I believe the nature of seaplane operations are quite comparable in both places, except you dont have nasty fishes like piranhas and hungry "jacaré" (crocodiles). In Brasil, for many areas, a seaplane is the only daily or weekly contact with civilization, medical evacuations, mail or important supplies.
xxx
Ditching for airliners is rare, sometimes succesful, sometimes not.. One sticks in my mind, is the B-377 Stratocruiser ditching half-way between Hawaii and the US West Coast in the 1950s, everyone got out ok, but it was well planned circumstances. More recently, the Ethiopian B-767 ditching off the beach in Kenya (hijacking), many people were killed by the impact. Also can mention a Nord 262, ditching after takeoff from LAX...
xxx
Seaplane operations are different. Yes, the passengers concern is about getting out of the wreck in the water, then if they can swim... or would be nice to have a life preserver around the neck. People who can swim, like me, other than cold temperatire of water, I am not afraid of being "in the water", but people who cannot swim, are already afraid of flying, and probably scared of water as well. Combined terror factors, might kill all chances of a survival.
xxx
From time to time I play in swimming pools, with crewmembers in training, and some (very few) cannot even swim to join a rubber raft floating in the center of the pool. I can see, even though they are pilots or flight engineers, than jumping in the water without a life jacket is not fun for them, and they do not trust me or another crewmember who is swimmer, to be able to assist them to get to the raft.
xxx
I agree with you, wearing a life preserver as a precaution might be a nice thing to do in a seaplane, and brief passengers "not to inflate" them until out of the plane in an emergency. When I was a teenager, then private pilot, I did fly a Super Cub from France to England and back across the narrow stretch of water, and yes, my passenger and I wore a life preserver for that flight.
xxx
Your idea is not wrong, to have passenger do the same. In practice, I do not know how Transport Canada would consider to make it a rule... Personally I would go along with that suggestion.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[dhc2widow]

This is from a letter I recently wrote to Transport Canada/Minister of Transport:

At this time, we further wish to recommend that commercially operated floatplanes (or those being used to transport workers) have a mandatory requirement for an ELT beacon which works underwater; passengers on commercially operated floatplanes (or those being used to transport workers) be required to don their inflatable life jackets prior to boarding, and that such life jackets be equipped with whistles and dye markers/streamers or other means of visually aiding location; equipping said life jackets with Personal Locator Beacons.


And this was the response from the office of the Minister:

I have noted your suggestions regarding the use of life preservers on seaplanes. You may be interested to know that under the direction of the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council, two working groups evaluated issues related to the provision and use of flotation equipment onboard aircraft. The working groups recommended that life preservers be available immediately during flights taking off from and landing on water, with an advisory recommending that the life preservers be worn.

Based on the recommendations regarding survival equipment, the advisory material produced will include the recommendation that life preservers be worn on seaplanes, and that seaplane operators acquire life preservers with additional means of signalling, such as those you have suggested, including whistles, dye markers, streamers and personal locator beacons.


And my response to the response:

We are pleased to hear that Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council has discussed the use of floatation devices, however, do not feel that a simple recommendation that “life preservers be available immediately during flights taking off from and landing on water, with an advisory recommending that the life preservers be worn” is enough. As evidenced by this accident, there is seldom time or opportunity to don a life preserver after the fact. We feel that often, even pilots do not understand the importance of this safety measure. Therefore, we would like to further recommend that commercial floatplane pilots be required to take an underwater egress course in order to obtain their licences.

[IRRenewal]

To my knowledge we have no commercial float operators in the uk.

Try putting lomond and loch and seaplanes in google and see what comes up

[mad_jock]

Cracking news I had heard a rumour they were going for it.

Last I heard they were discussing the need for a support vessel to be at both ends of the trip.

[dhc2widow]

A support vessel? Do you know why?

[mad_jock]

It was something to do with fire fighting and rescue.


I really don't know much about the whole thing.

But I will be going to try the service out

[dhc2widow]

I would be interested to know what kind of pre-flight briefing they give ... it is very positive, in my mind, that they have thought about support vessels for safety purposes.

[mad_jock]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP168.PDF

Is the UK standards document. Chapter 11

For you to carry commercial pax you must use a licensed aerodrome. It must have a heap of requirments which are in the above document.

There are all different types of resources which must be present for it to operate. All licensed aerodromes near water in the UK have to have a rescue boat of some form.

As for the brief the flight ops inspectors who inspect very regularly will not only have approved the brief to be given but will also ensure its complied with.

UK is quite tight on those sort of rules some would say too tight when compared to the FAA's requirments

[werbil]

Hi,

I am a commercial amphibious float plane pilot in Australia.

There is no requirement for underwater egress training here. It is something I would like to do though.

Our requirements for wearing life jackets in amphibious aircraft and seaplanes are as follows:


CAO 20.11 5.1.8 Where life jackets are required to be carried in accordance with paragraph 5.1.4 each occupant of a single engine aircraft shall wear a life jacket during flight over water when the aircraft is operated beyond gliding distance from land or water, as appropriate, suitable for an emergency landing. However, occupants need not wear life jackets when the aircraft is taking-off or landing at an aerodrome in accordance with a normal navigational procedure for departing from or arriving at that aerodrome, and occupants of aeroplanes need not wear life jackets during flight above 2 000 feet above the water.


I do wear an inflatable life jacket and 406 GPS PLB at all times when flying over water - if somethings not quite right I want to be able to concentrate on the job at hand not be distracted by where the safety gear is.

W.

PS What was the outcome of the inspection on the 985? I have a personal interest as I am an amphib piston beaver driver.

[dhc2widow]

Thank you for the responses.

After speaking with Bryan Webster, I learned that he has provided egress training to the operator of the newly minted Loch Lomond Seaplanes.

Similarly to the UK rules linked above, in Canada, most passenger-carrying commercial ops must use a licensed aerodrome ... it is that "most" which I find a little difficult to bear.

It looks as though the Aussie rules as per life jackets are not much different ... they have to be there, but you don't actually have to wear them unless you are about to have an "unscheduled" landing. If you are about to crash ... how much time do you have to think about getting your PFD (from wherever it may be, wrapped in plastic in a sealed bag snapped to the roof, or whatever)? Here in Canada, many of the float pilots I've spoken with, agree that PFD's should be handed out like boarding passes ... accidents can happen during a scheduled take-off and landing as well as in-flight.

I am very glad when I hear of float pilots who ALWAYS where their PFDs. I have heard stories here of operators not allowing pilots to where their PFDs for fear of frightening the pax!

Is there egress training available in Australia?

werbil: We just received the final engineering report from the TSB a couple of days ago, and are still reviewing ... however, it does not seem that they have identified what caused the engine to fail, although several "anomolies" have been cited.

[Solar]

dc2widow
If you search under HUET training you should find training organisations for underwater egress.
HUET training is mandatory for offshore workers.

Helicopter Underwater Escape Training.

In the UK RGIT Aberdeen are one of the better known ones.

Solar

[werbil]

Egress training is available in Australia - I think it is required for helicopter offshore oil/gas platforms and offshore marine pilot transfers (company requirements).

If an operator stopped me from wearing my jacket they would be looking for a new pilot. Sometimes guests make comments - if they do I make the "funny noise want to concentrate on job not jacket" comment - after that they're usually keen for me to wear it.

In our piston aircraft passengers are required to wear helicopter jackets (pouch clipped around the waist designed for rapid donning of the jacket). For a number of reasons jackets are kept in the seat pockets of our turbine powered aircraft.

werbil

[dhc2widow]

Can anyone comment on how HUET training would/or would not be effective for floatplane pilots? The only thing that I can think of that might be particularly different, would be escaping the fuselage itself - do heli's have the same problem with the doors not being openable underwater - i.e. people becoming trapped inside?

werbil: Why is the PFD doning different between the piston and the turbines?

[LH2]

Can anyone comment on how HUET training would/or would not be effective for floatplane pilots?

I have only very limited expertise in this area, but I have undergone offshore survival training, including HUET. I am also a light aircraft pilot and one-time ambulance tech (a long long time ago).

Personally I can't see any major difference in the risks floatplane and heli pilots are exposed to, and I believe the former could benefit just as much from the training and equipment given to rotaty operators and passengers.

Please note that this is not limited to lifejackets. In cold waters such as in the North Atlantic, it is said their only function is to make it easier to find the bodies (which in itself is reason enough to use them) as without proper protection you will be incapacitated the moment you enter the water. Survival suits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_suit), air pockets, liferafts, trained and correctly briefed personnel are imprescindible. For starters, underwater egress will only be successful if you are sufficiently protected from the effects of cold waters (cold shock, cramps, hypothermia), and have sufficient breathing air for the time you will spend immersed.

As a recreational pilot, I would not contemplate flying single engine over water colder than 23C without all the above protection. In the course of my professional duties, I would also refuse to fly as a passenger in similar circumstances.

do heli's have the same problem with the doors not being openable underwater

Some heli emergency exits are of the push-out type, which makes them impossible to use until enough water has entered the aircraft, reducing the pressure differential between both sides.

Hope this helps

[werbil]

dhc2widow,

The donning policy is company policy.

Turbines are far more reliable from an engine failure perspective - in Australia many single engine turbine aircraft can be approved for single engine IFR passenger charter. They also acheive a better climb gradient and rate of climb, and also glide better - more altitude equals more time to select a suitable landing area and for passengers to don life jackets.

Our DHC-2 don't have anywhere really accessible to all pax to stow jackets whilst our C208 aircraft have seat pockets in very close proximity to each pax.

werbil

[Sven Sixtoo]

Hi

The UK military experience with helicopter uncontrolled ditching is that nearly everyone who has done HUET training has lived and nearly everyone who hasn't has died.

HUET is (in my bit of the UK mil) mandatory for overwater flight at night, mandatory for all crew, and desirable for all overwater flight. Additionally, we are close to insisting on air supplies being worn for all overwater heli flights (the equipment for passengers is still under trial / certification).

I would have thought that the same rules would be appropriate to a flying boat or floatplane.

Sven

[j-mac]

Hi there this company operates in west coast of scotland lochlomand seaplanes miight be of some help
j-mac

[dhc2widow]

Werbil: Your explanation of why your piston a/c pax are req'd to don a PFD whilst your turbine pax are not so req'd, is understandable. The greater risk has been mitigated.


As a recreational pilot, I would not contemplate flying single engine over water colder than 23C without all the above protection. In the course of my professional duties, I would also refuse to fly as a passenger in similar circumstances.

This would be a very smart choice. As some of you have already gleaned, my husband was a passenger (being transported to work) on a commercial DHC-2 equipped with Edo 58-4580's, when it "disappeared" in 2005. His work sent him into different remote logging camps by floatplane almost daily, and he had had his fair share of scares. The week before the accident he had taken the classroom portion of an underwater egress course (the pool portion had had to be postponed). I remember him being excited about it, and talking to me about what he had learned - things like making sure you get the door open before the a/c hits the water. He owned a Mustang Survival jacket for both work/recreational purposes, and he always wore it when he flew in and out of camp.

Of the five men on board, only my husband's body was ever recovered, washed up a few days later on the shores of a well-populated island barely 5km from take-off. His autopsy showed he had suffered extensively from hypothermia before slowly drowning in the 8-10C water. He had been alive, basically uninjured and probably concious for several hours. When the a/c was recovered from the ocean floor five months later, it was found empty of the other souls - but all the life jackets were still sealed and strapped to the roof. The co-pilot door (where it is believed my husband had been sitting) was skewed in the frame, indicating it had been open on impact.

Had all five men been wearing PFDs (the pilot himself could not even swim), all other things remaining the same - including my husband's experience with egress training ... I feel 100% certain that all five men would still be with us today.

The UK military experience with helicopter uncontrolled ditching is that nearly everyone who has done HUET training has lived and nearly everyone who hasn't has died.

HUET is (in my bit of the UK mil) mandatory for overwater flight at night, mandatory for all crew, and desirable for all overwater flight. Additionally, we are close to insisting on air supplies being worn for all overwater heli flights (the equipment for passengers is still under trial / certification).

I would have thought that the same rules would be appropriate to a flying boat or floatplane.

My point exactly. I have been in discussions with the local industry safety associations in an effort to promote the training, both for pilots and frequent pax. If anyone has advise on how best to work with these types of organizations, I would appreciate the help.

[LH2]

Just to emphasise the point:

Had all five men been wearing PFDs

It wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to their survival chances.

It's the cold that kills you, not drowning. This is why we have survival suits (which hopefully keep you dry) and at least in the Norwegian North Sea sector you are required to be wearing at least three layers of warm clothing under it, or you're not flying. That is also the point of liferafts--you could float for days on an immersion suit, but you'd be losing more heat that you can generate, whereas a liferaft keeps you warm (and makes you more conspicious.)

In very cold waters, any drowning of an unprotected person is the result of cardiac arrest induced by cold shock. Even if you were to recover that person immediately, you would still have a stopped heart to deal with.

For a better idea of the state of affairs elsewhere, you may want to contact the Sjøfartsdirektoratet (Norwegian Maritime Directorate) for pointers to the relevant safety legislation and access to copies thereof. Contact details are found at the SFD's home page (http://www.sjofartsdir.no/en/).

[dhc2widow]

Well, you have to know the particulars of WHERE the a/c went down in order to understand how it WOULD have made a difference ... but five men huddled (helping to keep each other warm) together FLOATING (not panicking) and calling for help (five voices, not one) less than 2KM from shore, almost in the path of a ferry which passed within minutes of the crash, and the four different people who actually heard the impact ... This one would have been different.

[Sven Sixtoo]

There are numerous requirments for survival following an uncontrolled ditching.

The first is to survive the initial immersion. If the water is below about 10C, there is a significant chance of the shock of immersion doing for you. Therefore you need a drysuit to keep the water away from your skin.

Next you need to get out of the aircraft. Well-designed harnesses, exits of a suitable size (jettisonable doors?) and position appropriately marked (water-activated emergency lighting?), a clean environment (no debris to snag in, no snagging hazards on your clothes, minimal snagging hazards on the airframe) are all important. Underwater escape training is high on the priority list at this point. If you can't escape immediately, you need emergency breathing equipment and tools to cut yourself free.

Once you are out you need a lifejacket to help you quickly to the surface and to keep you afloat thereafter. You need insulating layers under that drysuit to keep you from dying of hypothermia. A dinghy will help hugely in this regard by getting you out of the water and into a protected environment. The dinghy has to come with you as you exit the aircraft so we are back to issues around cockpit design, snagging hazards and so on.

Finally you need to be found. A SOLAS / ICAO approved personal locator beacon is the key to this. Flares and lights help. A dinghy is a much better search target than a man in the water.

All the above costs money to buy. Some of it has to be thought about right from the design stage of the aircraft. It all costs more money and time to maintain. It's inconvenient and uncomfortable to wear and complex to use - and you have to use it correctly first time in a situation of extreme stress. So there is a big burden of training, education, attitute orientation and ultimately regulation.

I am lucky in that the military accept the problem and spend the money to provide the resources to equip and train us properly in all this. I can understand that for a commercial operation at the margins it may be difficult, that for some commercial operations it may be socially unacceptable, and for a private operation the extent of the problem may simply not occur to the crew.

I applaud the desire behind this thread to improve one aspect of post-impact safety. But do remember it is a big problem with many elements, and unless most if not all the elements are in place, survival chances remain low.


Sven

Edited to add:

Actually the first requirement is to remain concious throughout the impact and immediate post-impact stage. That requires a survivable impact, a robust airframe, crashworthy seating, head protection and so on. The problem just keeps getting bigger the harder you think about it.

[LH2]

Excellent explanation, sir. :D

[Something witty]

Another possible problem is secondary drowning from inhaled sea spray irritating the lung lining and the body's defensive mucus causing drowning. I am sure that cold shock, hypothermia etc are swifter killers but a longer-term survivor unprotected from spray by either life jacket spray hood or life-raft roof may die from this instead.

[dhc2widow]

There is actually some question as to whether this may have been what caused the drowning of my husband, it is very difficult to differentiate ... although he was wearing a floater coat, after several hours hypothermia had set in and he had presumably become unconcious ... leaving him to have possibly drowned in the way you've described. One of the many reasons why lifejackets should be equipped with things like whistles and dye markers ...

[Treg]

My company is one of many around the world that delivers HUET training to helicopter crews and their passengers. The training undertaken is pretty standard throughout all training centres, and first time trainees often remark about the training in the same way, "I didn't think I would become so disorientated... my heart rate was up quite a bit before we rolled over, etc" We often remind trainees that their experience was derived from a controlled situation and in warm water, and reinforce the need to mentally prepare for the worst case scenario with every flight. Last year we received a request from the Red Bull Air Race pilots to provide them with training. This was completed using standard HUET equipment with some modifications to simulate their environment - all pilots and rescue crews of Red Bull believed the training was essential and it is now included in their budget for this season.

[mad_jock]

Does anyone else remember the days of the old RGIT dunk tank?

Unheated and I think the filters for it were outside.

Made me shiver just thinking about it.

[go-si]

Went out to the North Sea rigs once, was told that the survival suits are very useful for finding the bodies but not much more.

Interestingly used the best survival kit was given to us for an in field transfer, rather than the long trip to / from Aberdeen.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Go-Si

Your survival suit, properly zipped up, would have made a HUGE difference if you ended up in the North Sea. I have done drills with a suit in +4 (North Sea in January) - nasty. I have done drills in +9 (South Atlantic in January) without a suit - utterly catastrophic.

Mad Jock

The RGIT tank, when it was introduced, was state of the art. The idea of providing a facility that actually simulated the real world - wind, waves, dark, cold - was revolutionary. You were better trained than you knew!

Sven

[mad_jock]

And there was me thinking it was cold because an Aberdonian was paying for the heating.

It was extremely good training, and in a strange way very good fun.

Why did they stop the near death experence and start doing its current form.

[3 o'clock]

The reason for warm water and more user friendly equipment is two-fold:
1 - people actualy learn more in warm water, instead of just wanting the experience to be over quickly - good for skills retention too.
2 - Health and Safety, and Industry requirements of the world we live in.

[anotherthing]

A dry suit or once only will help reduce the onset of hypothermia, but will not not keep you alive for too long in cold waters, although having one is obviously preferable.

Anyone who dives in waters around the UK will tell you that even when working (i.e. swimming) you will start to feel the cold.

Someone floating on the surface will get colder quicker. There are some very good dry-suits out there for diving... the best ones tend to be fairly bulky and would not be suitable for flying!

The best bet is to get out of the water onto a raft, either a personal one man raft, or a larger one. This will also help against secondary drowning in larges sea states and also presents a bigger target for visual acquisition by rescuers, rather than the head and shoulders of someone floating in the water.