Light aircraft and lifejackets [Archive]

Pilot DAR

30th Apr 2009, 02:11

I always wear a manual inflating life jacket for flight over water, and during float flying in particular. Automatic inflation is a hazard in the cabin. The Mustang lifejacket I have can be changed between manual and automatic by the wearer. I also carry an automatic "stick" which lives in a waterproof bag, but once immersed, inflates into a life jacket collar. I could take it with me, give it to a passenger, or throw it out to someone else.

Bear in mind, that if you're flying over water cooler than you would choose to swim in, a lifejacket might not be enough. Wear a proper insulated floater suit. There are many types, each with specific characteristics, choose carefully, and get the right one.

If you think that you might have to escape into the water, figure out what the cabin will be like upsidedown in the dark. Can you feel your way out? Do you know where to kick to get the windshield or side window out?

There's lots to learn...

Pilot DAR

BackPacker

30th Apr 2009, 08:17

This is the one I have.

AFE GA-2 aircrew lifejacket : Default - Airplan Flight Equipment (http://www.afeonline.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=36_131&products_id=1544)

And yes, manual inflation.

The only reason for having an automatically inflated vest on a sailing yacht is that if you were hit by the boom or something else, and thrown overboard unconsciously, it would inflate automatically and keep your head out the water so you can breathe.

The chances of being thrown overboard, unconsciously, from a light aircraft are nil. If, after a ditching, you are unconscious you don't stand a chance with or without lifejacket. And if you're conscious an inflated jacket is going to restrict your ability to do anything (exit the aircraft, climb on the wing, help someone, swim a short distance, climb in a liferaft) immensely. That's apart from the consideration of having your vest automatically deployed in a submerged cabin.

Fright Level

30th Apr 2009, 08:27

Definitely manual inflation. Even the airlines remind you "do not inflate until you have left the aircraft" for reasons stated above.

Buy them from a chandler, the same items are usually much cheaper. I bought exactly the same as above but from Marinestore when they had an offer for £50 each vs £100 from "aviation specialists".

Final 3 Greens

30th Apr 2009, 09:25

Operating around the UK, life vests are not enough.

An immersion suit or raft is required to avoid death by exposure, for most months of the year, unless rescue is very quick. So how practical is it to provide/use one or the other?

In managing the risk, reducing the time exposed to the risk is probably as important as having the life jacket.

Having said all that, manual inflation is the best choice and my preference would be for an aviation specific vest, such as a 'slim' or 'waist' type fitting, to minimise the interference with normal flying activites. These are more expensive, but IMHO, worth the extra cost - also I would argue less likely to snag on the door framce etc when evacuating.

gasax

30th Apr 2009, 09:33

I'd second the suggestion of an immersion suit, a modern helicopter transit suit with built-in insulation will give in excess of 2 hours even in the northern North Sea.

Manual inflation lifejacket, but most importantly it MUST have a crotch strap. Without that strap it is likely to be useless.

Rainboe

30th Apr 2009, 10:30

robin

30th Apr 2009, 11:13

Thanks everybody, very useful. We are talking light aircraft doing several cross channel trips to France from Kent and Hampshire to Cherbourg and Channel Islands. A manual jacket will do. This is for occasional fun use across busy shipping lanes, so an immersion suit is not desired.

Do you think the aircraft knows that it is only the channel and that the flight is for 'fun'? The guys who died last year were only 8 miles offshore but without an immersion suit only one lucky one made it.

For Hamphire to Cherbourg, or Penzance to Scillies, or Wales to Ireland the best to have is lifejacket, liferaft and suit. There may be issues in some aircraft where weight and balance means a raft cannot be carried.

I was at a lecture recently where it was said that the rescue services like the lifejackets we wear - it makes it easier to find and recover the bodies.

cessnapete

30th Apr 2009, 11:42

A few years ago I had the misfortune of a swim in the Med after engine failure in a Mooney. We had made a last minute descision to cut a corner and transit 110nm of sea.
We wore Transair manual inflation jackets,(worked perfectly) but carried no other location devices as we had not planned any overwater flying excepting for the last Cap Griz Nez-Dover to UK. We ditched about 12miles from Italian coast, midsummer with outside temp of 30+
Helicopters were in the vicinity within 20mins but were unable to find the two of us although passed within a mile or so several times. Luckily an Air/Sea rescue boat passed within 150 mts. of us and we were pulled on board.
We were in the warm Med for only 45mins but were starting to shiver uncontrollably.

From this experience if you plan to fly overwater, even the short Channel crossing, expect and be equipped for the worst case.
Always carry a PLB with GPS, visual location devices if pos. flares/sea dye, liferaft, and wear your lifejacket. Without an imersion suit in UK waters your survival chances are heavily reduced.

BackPacker

30th Apr 2009, 11:49

On the one hand I have to agree with robin, that even with the shortest Channel crossing (Dover-Calais) you are not always in gliding distance of land, and have to be prepared to ditch if something goes wrong. And with the water temperature there, you will at the very least suffer from severe hypothermia before the rescue services reach your position.

But on the other hand, this whole private flying thing is a security trade-off. You cannot buy every imaginable gadget that will increase your chances of surviving every imaginable threat. Because, realistically (short of flying commercially) that will mean:

Twin engines
Dual GPS plus the usual primary and standby com/nav equipment, Instrument rating
Deicing capability
In-cockpit weather, stormscope
TCAS or PCAS (Zaon XRX-like), preferably fed into the GPS moving map
Mode-S
BRS and a personal parachute
Bone dome
ELT in the aircraft plus a PLB on your body, all properly registered of course
Immersion suit over a nomex flight suit, gloves
Life vest with spray hood, crotch strap and water-activated light
Life raft
Signaling mirror, rescue knife, rescue whistle
Shark repellent, bear rifle
Water dye
Flares
Smoke signals
Emergency rations and water
First-aid kit
...and probably a dozen or more things I didn't think of.

And of course the training and currency to use all this properly. ME, IR, maritime, polar, desert, jungle survival training, egress/parachute training, firearms training, unusual attitude/spin training and whatnot.

This is clearly unrealistic for most PPLs and GA aircraft. So you have to look at the level of risk you're willing to take, and the budget (both monetary and space/weight) you have to mitigate the most relevant risks, and then make a decision.

Or let's look at it another way: your chances of dying in a traffic accident on your way to the airfield are probably worse than your chances of dying from ditching/hypothermia/drowning following an engine failure over the Channel.

PompeyPaul

30th Apr 2009, 12:28

For cross channel flying you need a:

1. Aviation life jacket (one you select when to inflate)
2. Life raft

I wouldn't go cross channel flying without either of those 2 pieces of equipment. If I had to drop either, I'd drop the life jacket every time and go with the life raft. That's just my own risk assessment, but I'm not a professional H&S guy.

Or let's look at it another way: your chances of dying in a traffic accident on your way to the airfield are probably worse than your chances of dying from ditching/hypothermia/drowning following an engine failure over the Channel.
At the CAA safety briefing evening I ask the representative about this. He refused to answer but said the information was out there to work out, and I remember a discussion on pprune about this.

I did find a website that reported GA was 20x more dangerous than driving. I can't find that website anymore, although

National Statistics Online (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208)

The national statistics offics informs us that there were 48 fatalities per 100 million vehicle km.

The CAA representative said the GA had 1 fatality per 10,000 hours (for aircraft, Gryrocopters were 1 fatality every 2,500 :eek: which dashed my taste for gryo flying).

I work on a cruise speed of 100kts average, which means for GA 1 casualty every 185200 km. Multiply by 48 to get number of KM for GA casualties and you end up with 48 fatalities in every 88896000 GA KM.

So for GA it's 1 fatality every 88,896,000 GA KM
For cars it's 1 fatality every 100,000,000 Vehicle KM

So GA is around 10% safer than driving.

Of course, go drink driving, flying VFR in IMC etc and those average QUICKLY and very RAPIDLY change.

Also, obviously, this is just talking about deaths, losing arms & limbs etc is something else. I'd be suprised if the rough statistical average didn't translate though...

RatherBeFlying

30th Apr 2009, 13:26

These three are the vital items. Having spent time in cold water (white water canoeing), I absolutely would insist on an immersion suit to keep you alive long enough for rescue services to find you.

One lady slipped off a wing into the Hudson and was almost lost to hypothermia -- had the rescuers not been already on the scene, she would most likely not have made it.

A PLB with GPS capability will have them looking in the right place. A signal mirror and dye pack are nice to haves, but the PLB is the key piece to their finding you promptly.

Some immersion suits may have floatation capability, but lifejackets help keep your head above the waves. Yes, crotch straps make a big difference.

Close to shore and rescue services a life raft will not make that much difference; also in many GA ditchings, life rafts are not successfully deployed. However life rafts are easily spotted, but I would still go first for the PLB.

See EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE - Outdoors Gear, Survival Equipment Review & Survival Information (http://www.equipped.com/) for real world testing and experience.

bookworm

30th Apr 2009, 13:29

The CAA representative said the GA had 1 fatality per 10,000 hours

Too high. But your sums have gone wrong somewhere anyway.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap780.pdf

The overall reportable accident rate [for for small conventional aeroplanes engaged in non-public transport operations] for the period [1998-2007] is 179.0 per million hours
and the fatal accident rate is 11.7 per million hours.

The fatality rate from the graph in that publication is between 15-20 per million hours.

The fatal accident rate is therefore probably of the order of one fatal accident per 10 million nm, or 1 per 20 million km.

Road Casualties in Great Britain, Main Results: 2007 (http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227864/385862/rcgbmainresults07.pdf) reports 2714 fatal accidents in 510 billion vehicle km, or about 1 per 200 million km. That's about a factor of 10 less than GA.

Fuji Abound

30th Apr 2009, 13:30

Ditch the jackets - for any serious over water flights in these climes they will only keep the body afloat until it can be retrieved.

Either buy an immersion suite (a dinghy dry suite is a better bet) or a raft or both and make sure you know how to get into the raft.

Thats it.

bjornhall

30th Apr 2009, 14:22

Nevertheless, survival time in cold water, without an immersion suite or a raft, is still better with a life jacket than without one. One would feel awfully silly expiring from hypothermia after 15 mins when the helicopter arrives after 20, if with a jacket one would have lasted 25...

Then it's up to the pilot whether or not they want to undertake the crossing with only a life jacket... I see no problem with people taking such risks, as long as they are aware of them. Normally an engine failure in a single means "could be dangerous, but usually a mere inconvenience", over the cold sea with only a jacket it means "most likely fatal". If one likes those odds, fine then.

Fuji Abound

30th Apr 2009, 14:31

Nevertheless, survival time in cold water, without an immersion suite or a raft, is still better with a life jacket than without one.

The jacket will keep you afloat, it doesnt reduce the risk of hypothermia. In that far, it is better than nothing, particularly as with clothes you may not be able to tread water for as long as it takes to die of hypothermia.

I see no problem with people taking such risks, as long as they are aware of them.

Nor no I, but if there are passengers they usually have no idea of the risks to which they are exposed, hence my point that since the jackets will probably not do the passengers much good a raft would seem a sensible precaution for their sake, but an informed risk a pilot without passengers may be happy to take.

BackPacker

30th Apr 2009, 14:33

The fatal accident rate is therefore probably of the order of one fatal accident per 10 million nm, or 1 per 20 million km.

Since I brought up the subject, I might as well defend my stance. I was not talking about the generic GA accident rate vs. car accident rates, but the specific GA accident of having an engine failure out of gliding distance of land, and dying either because of impact forces during the ditching, drowning or hypothermia. How many GA accidents fall under that category, and how many engine failures, forced landings, CFIT accidents, midairs, landing mishaps and such do happen over land, where all the money spent on life vests, exposure suits and life rafts is not going to make a difference?

So if you have a thousand euros to spend, arguably, it should be spent on a safer car, car driver training, emergency/forced landing practice, IMC training and maybe some other things (an Allen Carr book perhaps) before acquiring a life raft makes sense for the average GA pilot. Looking at pure cost/benefit, that is.

At least a PLB will help you in case of a forced landing over land too.

The jacket will keep you afloat, it doesnt reduce the risk of hypothermia.

Yes it does, but indirectly. With a jacket you don't have to thread water. This means you can huddle together as a group and stay as still as possible, so that the thin layer of water around you that you have so carefully warmed up, doesn't wash away that easily.

Tip: if you ever do find yourself without an immersion suit, but with a life jacket in cold water, tuck your trousers in your socks, put elastic bands or something around your sleeves and also try to seal your neck the best you can. Don't let that warm water wash away. And put something, anything, on your head to prevent exposure. Even a plastic bucket is better than nothing.

englishal

30th Apr 2009, 14:52

It is not always so cold in the Channel. Example, on a hot summer's day with sunshine warming up the top layer of the sea and skin, someone could easily survive for 12 hrs without a survival suit on.....but maybe less than a couple with no lifejacket on as they'd probably drown from exhaustion. I'd like to think the pickup time in the channel would be less than an hour.

In the summer I'd go with life jacket and raft (and PLB). In the winter I'd like to wear an immersion suit, though I must admit for my last crossing to the Channel islands in March I didn't bother.

Piper.Classique

30th Apr 2009, 15:01

So what do you take to fly over 150 nm of wall to wall pine trees? No clearings in sight from 2000 ft.......
Personally I prefer crossing water any day, and that's with no liferaft :ouch:

Fuji Abound

30th Apr 2009, 15:21

Yes it does, but indirectly. With a jacket you don't have to thread water. This means you can huddle together as a group and stay as still as possible, so that the thin layer of water around you that you have so carefully warmed up, doesn't wash away that easily.

Oh goodie, you had better hope the extra five minutes makes all the difference.

I use to dinghy sail in February. I have seen helm and crew in the water both with and without wet suites before dry suites became the norm. I have also pulled them out. It is frightening how quickly hypothermia sets in and the effect on most people of being in the water with or without a jacket - and my experience is of people comfortable with being in the water and expecting to be be swimming. There is a whole different world landing on it when you dont expect to do so, adding into the equation the trauma, eggress from the aircraft possibly with some injuries and the move from a warm cosy enviroment with clothes not suited for swimming.

I dont think you will be looking for elastic bands somehow!

It is not always so cold in the Channel.

If you look at the table it is very revealing how long it takes even the Channel to warm up and how little the seasonal change. It would be easy to fall into the trap of thinking on a warm May day the sea will be equally as warm.

So what do you take to fly over 150 nm of wall to wall pine trees?

Not too many of those around here but since you ask:

1. An extra engine,
2. A Cirrus,
3. The record of pine landing is not too bad, but a long length of rope, a rifle and a sat 'phone might come in handy.

:)

bjornhall

30th Apr 2009, 16:26

So what do you take to fly over 150 nm of wall to wall pine trees?

As always: A life jacket and a PLB. So you can safely land on a lake. My view is that you don't wear a life jacket because you're out of gliding range with land; you wear it because you're within gliding range of water. But on the other hand, my home airfield is right on the shore, so I wear a jacket for every flight, regardless. The SAR helo is constantly at 15 mins readiness at the same airport.

These days, over land, a cell phone would probably work even better than a PLB... Coverage is generally outstanding if you pick the right operator, even better if you're abroad so you can roam to whichever network works where you are, and the fully decked out ones have a GPS as well... You could just email them your location, complete with a screenshot from Google Maps... ;)

Don't have a source handy, but I seem to recall survival time in moderately cold water was significantly longer with a life jacket than without. Being able to huddle up and stay still makes a big difference.

inverted4

30th Apr 2009, 18:59

Interesting thread this one. Just to clear up a few facts. Hypothermia is often the misdiagnosed reason for peoples demise in cold water. Even in arctic waters it takes roughly an hour for hypothermia to reduce people to unconsciousness. The order of problems with cold water immersion are as follows.

1) Cold shock, time to affect 1 to 3 mins (massive increase in pulmonary ventilation, i.e severe hyperventilation and massive increase in heart rate and blood pressure often leading to drowning or cardiac arrest)

2) Swimming failure (triggering of the diving response when the skin around the eye socket and forehead are in contact with cold water. This triggers the trigeminal nerve leading to bradycardia- reduction in heart rate and apnea-breathing stopped) time to affect, 10 to 20 mins. This is being generous, most deaths occur within 5 mins of attempted swimming in cold water without survival suit

50% of deaths occur in these 2 stages

THEN
3) hypothermia between 30 to 60 mins
Even after all that if you do get picked up, 20% of the deaths occur due to post rescue collapse, which can occur up to 24 hours after rescue.

Oh, and before I forget 55% of open water deaths around the UK occur within 3 metres of safety, 42% within 2 metres.

The only way to improve your chances is to

1 Wear a survival suit (up to 6 hrs of protection, though a poorly fitting one letting in just half a litre of water will see its thermal protection reduced by 30%)

2 Floatation device (with spray guard) to improve the posture in the water and reduce water ingestion

3 GPS equipped 406 Mhz PLB

Anything else is a bonus
Ps If you should find yourself in the water without a survival suit, DO NOT swim. Adopt the HELP position or Heat Escape Lessening Posture, basically the foetal position and try not to move.

In my opinion the survival suit is far more important than a dinghy if forced to choose, ideally I would have both, but that isn't always practical in a light aircraft of course.

Hope this is of use, if anyone has any questions on this subject that I may be able to help with, PM me

Fuji Abound

30th Apr 2009, 23:00

In my opinion the survival suit is far more important than a dinghy if forced to choose, ideally I would have both, but that isn't always practical in a light aircraft of course.

How many people do you know who own a survival suite? Of those how many do you know that own enough survival suites for them and their passengers? Of those how many do you know that insist they and their passengers put their survival suites on?

Leaving that aside, the USAF amoung others would not agree with you.

Survival suites or dry suites are a great idea - but in reality most find them uncomfortable and most are unwilling to invest in 4 suites.

On the other hand once in a liferaft the raft will work better than a suite. You are out of the water and wind, so compared with a suite the heat loss may be comparable or less, and remaining afloat without inhaling too much water is not a risk.

Finally the average aircraft owner or group is likely to be prepared to invest in a raft or rent one when required but very unlike to invest in four suites.

I accept those who argue that getting in the raft is an issue. It is a great deal easier if the raft can be deployed before the aircraft sinks which is entirely possible. Landing in a big swell may result in loss of life in any event so in conditions where the occupants are likely to survive the landing the evidence would seem to suggest a good chance of the aircraft floating for at least a short while.

Take a look at the surface temperature data for the Channel for each month starting in January. The temperature in May is les than 3 degrees warmer than in January. Mid channel the difference is less still.

8.2

7.7

6.5

9.1

11.1

13.7

15.2

17.4

17.3

14.6

12.1

9.6

11.9

Life expectancy in sea temperatures of 10 degrees or less is one hour or less without protection.

The USAF advice remains:

Your best protection against the effects of cold water is to get into the life raft, stay dry, and insulate your body from the cold surface of the bottom of the raft. If these actions are not possible, wearing an antiexposure suit will extend your life expectancy considerably.

inverted4

30th Apr 2009, 23:45

I think you may be missing my point. Yes, a dinghy is a great survival aid but you have to be able to get in it. 50% of casulaties succumb within 10 to 15 mins from cold shock and swimming failure having never got in a life raft in a cold water scenario. Pointless having a raft floating off over the horizon with no one in it. There are plenty of light aircraft that do not have the room for a raft or may help to tip it over the weight and balance limit.
As for survival suits being uncomfortable, that is true in a military situation where they maybe worn for many hours but most light aircraft flights will be much much shorter than that. You mention cost, but with all these items it is possible to hire them for the duration of the trip.
Like most things in life you need to make a personal choice as to what works for you. If you can guarantee and predict the situation you are likely to find yourself in if the worst happens and you can step into a dinghy without getting wet, then good luck. However, if there is any risk of getting wet then a survival suit will enhance your survival chances greatly. Ideally you then have a chance of getting into a dinghy as well and deploy the PLB and 5 mins later you get hauled out the water in time for tea and medals.

RatherBeFlying

30th Apr 2009, 23:55

I fully agree that life is much better in a Winslow or equivalent life raft than floating about in a survival suit.

The problems are:
Getting the life raft out of your average GA a/c -- keeping in mind that evacuation of the occupants before it sinks comes first as it does little to no good to have the raft out if the a/c sinks with people inside :uhoh:
Inflating it
Preventing it from blowing away once inflated
Getting in it.

The big advantage of the suits is that they're already on.

Of course if you're flying in the Carribean, the raft may be the better deal.

For Channel crossings, one tactic is to pick up your companions on the other side after they've used the Chunnel or a ferry. That way the raft can be in the copilot seat and you don't have a number of people in a panic situation.

Good rafts are not cheap, nor are survival suits. Perhaps a diver / surfer drysuit would be less costly, but don't forget that you must then provide the insulating layers.

mad_jock

1st May 2009, 00:30

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/252043-crossing-english-channel-sep-2.html

Have a look on this thread.

Alot of top advice from the RNLI and I presume if you contacted the RNLI again they would be delighted to help out

Fuji Abound

1st May 2009, 07:08

I think you may be missing my point. Yes, a dinghy is a great survival aid but you have to be able to get in it.

Probably not given I said:

I accept those who argue that getting in the raft is an issue.

Getting the life raft out of your average GA a/c

Have you seen the modern compact rafts. I doubt there is much problem getting the raft out with some planning other than with aircraft you wear.

Inflating it

You pull the cord.

Preventing it from blowing away once inflated

Mine has a lanyard on it.

50% of casulaties succumb within 10 to 15 mins from cold shock and swimming failure having never got in a life raft in a cold water scenario.

I would love to see your evidence for that assertion please. Do you have a link?

I would agree the only way to deal with every situation is to use jackets, a dry suite and a raft. However, my point is for most cost, comfort and practicality are all factors. From personal experience jackets and a raft work well for me.

Droopystop

1st May 2009, 08:12

The document people are scrabbling for (I think) is this one.....

Probable Sea Survival Times (www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/1995/oto95038.pdf)

Basically you don't die from hypothermia, you die because of cold shock or latterly the inability to protect your airway (ie drowning). Table 5 makes for sobering reading.

I wear a membrane type survival suit every day at work for up to 8 hours. Not terribly comfortable but you get used to it. An immersion suit is a different beast and is designed to provide insulation and water proofness and reduces you dexterity to the point you wouldn't be able to fly.

We wear a lifejacket that has a PLB and day night flare. It also has a spray hood (essential).

All that is essential for prolonged over water flight imho.

Liferafts are only any good if they can be deployed and you have had some practice in using them. Launching one off a boat is very different from deploying one whilst you are in the water trying to stop waves washing into your face. Would you go back into a sinking aircraft to recover the raft and where do you attach the lanyard to? That is why modern helicopters have their liferafts fitted externally and all helicopter liferafts have to be deployable from outside. Oh and the helicopter is designed to float for at least long enough to ensure evacuation.

It is my considered opinion that if you end up in the drink wearing just a lifejacket and summer clothes and there is anything more than 10 - 15kts of wind you are pretty much dead. It is unlikely that even a SAR helo will get to you in time.

But the chances of it happening............?

Fuji Abound

1st May 2009, 10:18

Droopystop

I am sceptical you fly the average spam can and have seen the current compact rafts. Please assure me my sceptism is misplaced?

I agree that in some light aircraft handling even a compact raft is difficult. This is particularly true of small tadem aircraft.

However, a significant majority of the fleet is either side by side two or four seaters.

In the event of a ditching place the raft on the passengers lap and ask them to brace themselves over the raft arms forward and in front of the raft so the raft is held between their ribs and fore arms. The handle on the long edge of the raft should be forward and the hand placed through the handle. After ditching the raft should be available to egress the cockpit with the passenger.

In the event of pilot alone place the raft on the side seat. I use a D press to release shackle to attach the raft to the belt. Granted on egress the raft must be released from the belt.

In the event of an inversion escaping with the raft is an issue but other wise their should be few problems.

As I indicated earlier most light aricraft float for a short while. In fact I have read of very few cases where this was not so. There is usually time to climb onto the wing or some other part of the structure and deploy the raft.

To reiterate for complete piece of mind a suite, raft and jacket makes sense. I would buy a dinghy dry suite. They are far more comfortable, very flexible and breathable. Make sure you have a few insulating layers on underneath - wolly bears are ideal pulled over the rest of your clothes. I have been in the water in February for long periods and remained warm and comfortable.

However dry suites are not for everyone. I am convinced that unless you are willing to make the investment in a suite the raft is really the next best thing. IF you successfully evacuate with the raft and are able to get into it, it provides you with the very best chances of survival if there is any delay in your being retrieved.

I have watched many aircraft set off over the sea. I see very few pilots and passengers clambering into dry suites. I know of many who have a raft and many that dont.

I would give away all my camels were I to come down in the channel for a raft even if I had jackets.

Michael Birbeck

1st May 2009, 11:02

I asked an experienced British ferry pilot (with an Atlantic ditching on his C.V.) whether I should wear a dry suit on a flight to the Shetlands. His answer was revealing in that he said that water temperatures anywhere around the British Isles were such that at any time of year he recommended wearing a dry suit.

His wry comment was simply that, at the very least, wearing only a life jacket would ensure your body is more likely to be recovered in the unlikely event of a ditching, thereby simplifying legal and insurance formalities.

Droopystop

1st May 2009, 12:12

Fuji,

You are quite right, I don't fly spam cans any more, although I am familar with them and the little life rafts (although I have never used one - I gather they are not easy to get into). I am merely sceptical that a 2, 3, 4 people in a small aircraft will remain calm and collected in a ditching scenario.

2 up in front raft in back - would you have the time to get it on your pax's lap and ensure they know what is likely to happen and what they are going to have to do? I would also question the sense of someone having a substantial lump on their lap that is going to want to keep going at 50 odd knts when the rest of the aircraft stops suddenly. I guess if one has a plan that is well thought through and everyone is briefed on what to do in the event........ then I suppose you have a better chance of using the life raft. I still think that most people will end up in the water with the raft still sat on the back seat.

I am not saying don't have a raft - they will protect you from exposure but most importantly are easier to spot by SAR assets. But it is almost inevitable that one is going to end up in the water. The fact that 50% of people succumb to cold shock comes from the document I linked to above. If you are in the water for more than about 10mins you ability to clamber unaided and fully clothed into a small raft is very much reduced, even in the summer. That is where the survival suit comes in.

For those who don't carry a raft and rely on the lifejacket, here's the likely scenario:

You mayday picked up by ATS you are talking to.
ATS relays message to ARCC at RAF Kinloss. (3 or 4 mins)
ARCC plots position, assesses the most suitable asset and either calls them directly (Military SAR helicopter) or contacts the appropriate Coastguard MRCC. (at least 5 mins)
SAR Helicopter scrambled (5 - 15mins)
Transit time (up to 1 hour, but more if local SAR helicopter is busy elsewhere)
Search phase (maybe minutes if lucky, could be hours)
Rescue phase (5 to 10mins for 4 people)

Given that you are likely to be unable to prevent yourself from drowning within 30 mins on anything other than a calm day.

But I suppose on short hop across the channel, you are probably more likely to win the lottery jackpot than drown.

LH2

1st May 2009, 14:47

Nothing new to add to what´s been said already but just to reaffirm the following points:

* Manual lifejacket always, as thought on HUET courses.

* A lifejacket by itself is only useful to help with recovery of the bodies (I'm not being sarcastic).

* An immersion suit means the concerned body will hopefully still be warmish by the time it's recovered.

* A liferaft means the warmish body will also likely be conscious (if a bit groggy from the sea sickness pills) and will be so much easier to spot from the air.

* For the odd cross-channel trip, you may accept the small risk involved and just chance it without a suit and a liferaft. On the other hand, if you are planning a series of crossings, I would get both and brief the whole plane load on how to use it.

IO540

1st May 2009, 15:30

Life raft is a mandatory thing for me if over water.

Drysuits (variously called other things) are impractical in light aircraft and only anoraks are going to wear them. Normal passengers will take a huge amount of persuasion and probably won't fly with you again.

Flying needs to be enjoyable as well as safe. If one makes it into some kind of masonic initiation ceremony then one will just give it up after a while because it will be so much hassle.

I do wear a life jacket (and passengers too) on the long x/channel crossings e.g. straight down to Caen, or anywhere longer. But if flying from the south coast to say Germany, airways i.e. at FL100-150, one spends barely minutes out of glide range of land.

There are life rafts and there are life rafts. Most likely the best ones are the RFD ones but they are too heavy for most people to move. I had one on loan; I think it weighed about 15-20kg and a smaller person would not be able to move it. I have a Survival Products one which weighs about 8kg I think, and costs under £100 to overhaul which I do every 2 years. It permanently lives on the back seat, in easy access, and importantly is never loaned to anybody.

bjornhall

1st May 2009, 17:40

* A lifejacket by itself is only useful to help with recovery of the bodies (I'm not being sarcastic).

Perhaps not sarcastic, but overly simplistic, IMHO. It depends! Look again at the document linked to above; in calm weather, with a life jacket only, expected survival time even in 13 degree temperature is over an hour. Approaching 18 degrees, which does happen in late summer even at our latitudes, expected survival time is reaching 2 hours. Transit time for the SAR helo can be anything between 3 minutes and several days, depending on where you ditch.

For me, my most likely ditching location would be within 5 minutes flying time from the airport. By the time the helo arrives, probably within 20 minutes of the ditching, I might already be dead, or I might just be a little wet. It depends!

So just a life jacket can be enough, depending on the circumstances. On the other hand, without a life jacket, you're done for. So I'd say, if we bring nothing else, let's at least bring the jacket.

Maoraigh1

1st May 2009, 22:52

Your clothing will provide some insulation. Water trapped close to the skin will warm up. How long you survive will depend on your clothing, and will vary from person to person.
I almost always wear a lifejacket. I would not wear a survival suit on every flight if I had one.

draughtsman99

1st May 2009, 23:57

I know little about flying but have pulled a few people from the water in the Firth of Clyde.
One of the first Lifeboat calls I took part in was to search for a civilian reported upturned dinghy.(they 'thought' they saw something in the water!!)
Given all the time lags reported above, ie, initial help call, coastgaurd verification, lifeboat call out, the casualty had been in the water for at least 15 minutes from time of first alert until we were on our way. The search took about 30 minutes before one of the crew spotted 'something in the water about 200yds away. 'Something' was an upturned dinghy and 3 sport fishermen in the water.
There was a 65 year old and his 2 sons of around 40 and 30
The old man wasnt too bad and the tubby 40 y.o was cold but OK and recovered quickly. The skinny 30 y.o. was in worst condition and had to be hospitalised.

This all took place in February - god only knows what the water temp was.Waves were only about 1 foot at the time.
No lifejackets but they held onto each other and, most importantly, the boat.
The boat gave a bigger target to see and gave them something for support.
The older guys poor circulation prevented him from losing heat too fast as did the layer of fat on the tubby one. The athletic younger guy suffered most but all recovered.

What was the subject again??
Ah yes, lifejackets.

Well a good layer of fat or poor circulation and something that floats to hang onto worked for these guys that day. So a dinghy type all in one suit and floating cushons with lanyards might be enough if mony, weight or space is a problem and help is at hand. (a waterproof mobile phone might help as well)

Immersion suit, beacon, manual lifejacket and a full life raft if customer compliance, money, space or weight is not a problem.
Better still - keep flying ;)

bjornhall

2nd May 2009, 06:58

Better still - keep flying

Best advice thus far! :ok:

Fright Level

2nd May 2009, 13:05

This thread has me seriously considering investing in a liferaft but what is the difference between one from an aviation shop like this:

http://www.flightstore.co.uk/images/products/RFDPILOT/1009-1-1.jpeg

and one from a chandler like this:

http://marinestore.co.uk/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/MD210190.jpg

except of course, the chandler is almost half the price?

IO540

2nd May 2009, 13:34

That RFD one is nice but damn heavy. Consider a scenario where it is on the back seat and the others in the plane are not that strong, and cannot move it.

Stuff in pilot shops is priced more than non-aviation stuff elsewhere, which accounts for a further price difference.

Either raft will save your life if you get into it - somewhere in the civilised world where somebody is actually looking for you. Carrying the cheap one is infinitely better than carrying nothing, or just wearing life jackets.

A handheld ELT/EPIRB will make the location much quicker.

RatherBeFlying

2nd May 2009, 13:55

A decent raft will cost you serious money; but for cold water, I'd go for the top raft.

Aviationsurvival.com,Winslow FAA Approved TSO'd Life Raft, The worlds best aviation life rafts, Winslow is FAA Approved for Aviation FAA Part 91, 121, 135 (http://www.aviationsurvival.com/aviation4_038.htm)

OK for the Caribbean if you want to pinch a couple kilobucks:

http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&Product_ID=10627&DID=19#desc

The following review makes it clear that most other rafts are not much better than beach toys:

EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Aviation Life Raft Reviews - Rafts Tested (http://www.equipped.org/avraft6.htm)

Don't forget that in rough, cold water, thermal protection will likely play a large part in whether you get in the raft of your choice.

IO540

2nd May 2009, 13:59

Those Winslow rafts are very nice but have you seen the weights? Even the smallest is about 20kg. Not something you can just grab on your way out. I think they make a lot of sense on a boat, or in an aviation situation where there will always be a number of people around.

I've never ditched but IMHO what matters is whether you get into a raft to start with.

Once inside, and assuming it has a canopy, you will survive for many days.

Fuji Abound

2nd May 2009, 17:06

The following review makes it clear that most other rafts are not much better than beach toys:

Where does it make it clear?

I dont suppose that site was "Sponsored by Winslow"?

RatherBeFlying

2nd May 2009, 17:32

I dont suppose that site was "Sponsored by Winslow"?Doug Ritter of EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE - Outdoors Gear, Survival Equipment Review & Survival Information (http://www.equipped.com/) calls it the way he sees it and I believe was the first to live test aviation rafts in a wave pool. Some of the animated gifs of rafts flipping as you attempt to board are instructive. Aviation Consumer has also tested life rafts and has similar views.

IO540

2nd May 2009, 18:23

I think any small raft will flip back on top of you if you just try to climb straight in. Try it in a pool and you will see :)

It would take a pretty big (heavy) raft to be able to climb straight in. I guess the 30kg+ ones will do that.

Those which are more manageable in the light aircraft context have to be entered either straight out of the aircraft, with the raft inflated but held on to using the cord, or you have to know the technique for getting into it if you are in the water to start with.

Fuji Abound

2nd May 2009, 18:28

RatherBeFlying

Some interesting material here now that I have pointed myself at the correct site. Well worth a read - thanks.

DaveW

2nd May 2009, 19:19

It would take a pretty big (heavy) raft to be able to climb straight in. I guess the 30kg+ ones will do that.

I understand that the ease of boarding has very little, if anything, to do with the packed mass of the raft; a key factor is likely to be the size and placement of the water pockets on the underside of the raft.

For those who advocate normal clothing, a jacket and (especially) a raft as the answer to all circumstances, consider the fact that at some times of year - including UK Spring - you may well have lost the use of your hands (due to cold) in under one minute in the water. How will you board any liferaft then?

There are several cooling curves out there that show this, some of them showing mean water temperatures in Southern UK waters. This may turn out to have been a factor in the fatalities from the twin that ditched off Cherbourg recently; 3 POB and only one managed to swim to and board the raft.

As an aside, many of the confident statements in this thread run counter to experiences taught during UK military survival training. One would think they'd know.

Edit: This has been discussed several times on the Flyer forums (which unfortunately seem to be down at the moment) - if anyone's interested in the take on the subject from over there, a search on "immersion suit" (not "suite" :ok:) will find some relevant threads.

IO540

2nd May 2009, 21:10

only one managed to swim to and board the raft.

IMHO, this is a poor outcome, because - unless the raft has the water pockets and the cheap ones don't - you will have to be a fast swimmer to catch it if there is any wind. I do a fair bit of windsurfing and catching up with things in the water is not easy if there is wind blowing.

many of the confident statements in this thread run counter to experiences taught during UK military survival training.

I don't think one is being over-confident; rather we seem to have two groups of pilots: those who do nothing (or carry just life jackets) and those who wear a drysuit, rations for 14 days, a speargun for the sharks, a waterproof satellite phone... :)

The military do a lot of what they do and have to enforce strict rules on everybody.

IMHO it is worth having a debate as to what the casual private pilot should do. One thing I am sure of is that if you buy a 30kg raft you will not get it out of the plane in a hurry. Especially if it's a single door type, with somebody sitting next to the door, etc.

DaveW

2nd May 2009, 22:05

One thing I am sure of is that if you buy a 30kg raft you will not get it out of the plane in a hurry.

Agree.

However, anybody who suggests that there are only two, somewhat opposed, alternatives does trivialise the dilemma I have to say.

The point is, if you DO enter the water (which, for a sensible Channel crossing is very unlikely, I agree), what are you going to do?

Well, first you obviously need to get out - suits, jackets and dinghys are of no use if you drown within a deformed or even inverted cockpit.

Then, you need to make sure you stay afloat - even if injured or in shock. So you need a lifejacket. A subconcious assumption that you may step off a wing to rescue, whilst remaining perfectly dry, permeates threads like this, I find. Yes, you might - but what if you don't? Being in the water, even a few seconds, is exhausting - as open water training will soon reveal.

Then, you need to be protected against the elements until help arrives - and inevitably this is where the decision regarding liferaft or immersion suit (or nothing...) arises. To me, that depends on how confident you are that you'll get a dinghy - however small and light - out with you. Having done the dunker numerous times, I'd be hard pressed to think that your chances are greater than 1 in 2, even with everything else going your way. Any injury or disoreintation, then I reckon unless the dinghy is attached to you then you'll forget it - and when you do, will it then be available for you to go back? If you do get the dinghy out, will it (a) blow away (b) fail to inflate (c) inflate, attached to the aircraft by lanyard, but sink when the aircraft does (d)... well, you get the point.

"Finally" (as if this were a series process), you need to be findable by SAR, which is where a PLB etc comes in.

This month's LAA magazine has a very good article in it regarding the Andark dunker, and it makes some excellent points. What it doesn't discuss in great detail, though, is what the military training does - WHY you need to be protected against the environment whilst awaiting rescue. Suggesting that a SAR helo transit time could be as little as 3 minutes is, I suggest, dreaming. As is thinking that remaining still in the water, dressed in normal street clothes, will keep you warm.

This is a complicated subject, and people do need to make their own decisions - but those decisions do need to be properly informed and I don't think that this thread so far has done that very well.

bjornhall

3rd May 2009, 07:45

SAR helo transit time could be as little as 3 minutes is, I suggest, dreaming.

Since you say that, I guess I need to explain what I meant then.

The airport I fly from (ESGP) is right on the coast. The CTR stretches out over the archipelago, with one of the departure visual reporting points right on the shoreline and an arrival VRP a couple miles out over the sea.

The commonly used training areas are over the coastline, or out over the sea. The TMA floor is 1,500 ft, and while a transit is easy to obtain you have already descended below the TMA as you approach the VRP.

What this means in practice is that probably at least 20% of GA arrivals, and probably almost half of the PPL training arrivals, are out of gliding range from land for a couple minutes every flight. That exposure is far higher than the occasional crossings over to Denmark or Norway.

The airport also happens to be the regional helo base, with one SAR and one HEMS helo at 15 min readiness H24, as well as three police helicopters that are usually either in the air, about to leave or have just arrived.

That is why I can say that if I ever have to ditch, the most probable location is just outside the CTR. That gives a SAR helo transit time of about 3 minutes, and a response time of some 20 minutes (much faster if the police helo happens to be in the air nearby).

Of course, were I to ditch half way to Denmark or in some isolated lake up north, totally different response times would apply.

So, again, it depends.

While that is just a particular example, another general point there could be that ditchings could happen even on flights that are not "over water crossings"; being just off shore, with no place to land on the shoreline, could also result in a ditching. As well as the obvious example of the isolated forrest lake. Being just 30 seconds flying time from land is still a pretty long way to swim, with clothes in cold water...

It would be unrealistic to imagine carrying rafts and wearing suits on every flight, even those that are not an "over water crossing flight". But one could at least make sure to always wear a jacket, when one is anywhere near water. In addition to a PLB, which would be useful in a forced landing on land as well.

bjornhall

3rd May 2009, 08:11

My take on this, FWIW:

Always wear a life jacket, on every flight, regardless of where you're going (ok, Arizona might be an exception). Make your passengers wear one as well.

Always carry a PLB, unless you only fly over open farm lands constantly within sight of people (not likely!).

For over water flights, a reasonable chance of survival requires an immersion suit with proper clothing beneath, a raft (that you may or may not end up being able to use), and some signalling device in addition to the PLB (dye, streamer, etc). Anything less is gambling. Myself, on my rare over water crossings, I do gamble; life jacket, PLB and a raft is all I take. But then again, I only do that in the summer, and I don't do it often.

BackPacker

3rd May 2009, 13:50

(much faster if the police helo happens to be in the air nearby)

Just curious. Do those police helicopters have a hoist or some other means to pull you out of the water? Or are they just going to hang there watching (filming?) you succumb to hypothermia?

Of course it helps if they can locate you quickly and mark the position for the SAR helo, but I assume for that purpose a random aircraft pulled out of the circuit would do just fine as well.

bjornhall

3rd May 2009, 14:30

The police helicopters can be fitted with a hoist; sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Pinpointing the location for any other helo or for boats would of course help as well.

But I still believe the best advice is: "keep flying". ;)

Rainboe

7th May 2009, 11:21

Very sobering, and most interesting! Thanks for all the input- it is far more complicated than I imagined. Depending on the time over the Channel, I think we may have to invest in a liferaft. Even the large 48 seat ones are not easy to get into from the water! I don't see how a 4 man raft can possibly be entered without tipping over.

We have a 2 seat side-by-side microlight with an all over, front hinged, bubble canopy. Aside from wondering how exit can best be gained from an inverted position on land, presumably in a ditching situation with a fixed undercarriage, you are likely to be inverted? Are there any suggestions as to what the best course of action is? If the plane is inverted, I would expect the canopy to be stuck closed?

BackPacker

7th May 2009, 12:28

I don't see how a 4 man raft can possibly be entered without tipping over.

It helps a lot if you've been on a maritime survival course. There are right and wrong ways to enter a raft. Furthermore, a decent life raft has 'water pockets' on the underside which slowly fill with water when the raft is right side up, acting as a counterweight for people entering on one side, and as a buoyancy aid/wind drift limiting device.

Once safely in the raft, there are a number of vital actions to be undertaken. You are not safe yet. Most likely these vital actions (deploying the canopy if applicable, deploying the sea anchor and such) are stenciled on the inside, but you've got to remember that you need to do them once on board.

Aside from wondering how exit can best be gained from an inverted position on land,

Invest in a 10-euro life hammer with an embedded safety belt cutter. Smash the canopy, crawl out sideways. Without a life hammer something else pointy might do the trick. Your keys in your fist, with one particularly sharp one sticking out between two fingers will probably work too, although you need to expect a few cuts.

presumably in a ditching situation with a fixed undercarriage, you are likely to be inverted?

I am by no means an expert but the data I have seen suggests the following, assuming a controlled, almost-full stall landing in reasonably still water, or in a relatively good position wrt. the waves.

The aircrafts undercarriage will eventually impact the water first, leading to the nose digging into the water, completely immersing the cockpit. Generally the windshield will hold and the aircraft will decelerate very quickly and then rise back to the surface backwards, eventually coming to rest right side up, with the nose somewhere like 30-45 degrees down. (Remember the engine weighs a lot but the cowling with all its holes provides no buoyancy.

If you have a bathtub-style microlight, DA-40 or Cirrus, or something similar (with overwing doors, a relatively high door sill above the wings, and virtually no holes or anything below the height of the wing, the aircraft will take a relatively long time to fill with water in this position, even with the doors/canopy open, as the door sill is above the waterline. I think there's even a case of a guy jumping out of the aircraft into the water, then climbing onto the tail to keep the aircraft level so that his wife in the RHS would not get wet. They managed to keep the cockpit completely dry that way for over 30 minutes, as I recall.

Of course, land with a speed that's too high, or be unlucky with the waves or when the windshield doesn't hold when the aircraft digs in, all bets are off. Same for a high-wing Cessna and to a lesser extent the PA-28 (with no door sill to speak of).

RatherBeFlying

7th May 2009, 13:58

My favorite emergency exit tool is the Hinderer Rescue Knife. It has a window punch and is substantial enough to be used as a pry bar.

Gerber Hinderer Rescue Knife - A Firefighter and Paramedic's Review - EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) (http://www.equipped.com/hinderer_rescue.htm)

I always want to have it with me in a car or aircraft. Fortunately I don't have to deal with security theater when I fly:E

Shoestring Flyer

7th May 2009, 14:18

The issue of breaking a Lexan/Perspex allover flip up canopy when inverted be it on land or inverted in the water is a major issue which I have looked into but have not yet found a solution.

1.The 15Euro Lifehammer is I believe useless for braking lexan. It was designed for breaking car windows, nothing more and doesn't have enough weight in the head.
2. The Hinderer Rescue knife whilst I am sure it is an excellent piece of all round kit is still just a knife and I just can't see you breaking a canopy with it or even prying a jammed canopy in an inverted aircraft with all the weight of the plane above you open.

If anyone has tested an excellent tool for breaking Lexan/Perspex I would love to hear from them.

IO540

7th May 2009, 15:18

I doubt you will be able to break polycarbonate windows, other than by kicking them out but this will work only the window is designed to serve as an emergency exit and the window material is merely stuck in with silicone sealant or similar.

BackPacker

7th May 2009, 16:29

Hmmm. Never thought of that. Indeed aircraft windows are different from car side windows and you're going to need a big hammer with a very small tip to break/smash them.

If you have a DV window and a knife with a serrated edge (like the rescue knife mentioned), can you use the DV window as start of your cut, and cut a reasonably-sized hole within a reasonable time?

RatherBeFlying

7th May 2009, 18:47

I had the misfortune to witness a fatal glider accident and can report that glider canopy material does break.

F-15s are another matter as a pilot informed me the canopy is bulletproof; however the ejection system removes it when required.

Rainboe

7th May 2009, 20:49

Fighter cockpit transarencies usually have explosive cord in them to shatter them so the ejector seat can pass through.

The microlight has an all over polycarbonate transparency with no DV cutout, and a front hinge. It is locked in place with two rotating hook handles engaging into teeth at the rear of the frame of the transparency. This arrangement has got me thinking about easy opening in a deformed frame situation when the locking arrangement may not release, and whether it will be possible to open it inverted in water. I wondered about the hammer you see for bus windows and whether it would work on that material. I did idly wonder as well whether you could egress in the air with a parachute- would it be possible to open these front hinged canopies at low airspeed- i.e. do a Battle of Britain-type exit by rolling upside down and opening and dropping out? A parachute may help there!