UK CAA Allows Emergency Breathing Systems
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: UK
UK CAA Allows Emergency Breathing Systems
According to Flight International this week, the UK CAA has chosen not to mandate or ban the use of emergency breathing systems on UK helicopters flying overwater, electing to make individual operators responsible for the device.
I believe that some of the passengers on oil flights use a form of emergency rebreather, but what systems are used by any of the civil operators?
The RAF and RN aircrew use the STASS (Short Term Air Supply System), but they regularly train in its use both on the pool side and in the dunker. UK offshore civil pilots regularly carry out dunker training, but do they use any form of emergency breathing system? If so, what do they use and how often do they train using it?
I believe that some of the passengers on oil flights use a form of emergency rebreather, but what systems are used by any of the civil operators?
The RAF and RN aircrew use the STASS (Short Term Air Supply System), but they regularly train in its use both on the pool side and in the dunker. UK offshore civil pilots regularly carry out dunker training, but do they use any form of emergency breathing system? If so, what do they use and how often do they train using it?
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
From: UK
Interesting point about non-trained personnel using STASS. One of the main safety equipment suppliers at Helitech was singing the praises of his particular version of STASS and explaining that it could be used by a complete novice. Not sure about that, although I will concede that I would rather have a go than drown because I was temporarily trapped in a sinking chopper.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
From: UK
I was involved in some work for an oil company about the use of breathing systems during ditchings some years ago. Such systems come in various types:
Some are effectively mini-scuba sets using regulated compressed air. The risk with these is that if used incorrectly the users can seriously injure themselves with problems like air embolisms - during the ascent from any depth it is most important that the user breathes out - otherwise the air in the lungs expands and can do all sorts of damage. With training and fairly regular use they are fine. Without such recent training they pose a significant risk.
Others systems are different where this sort of risk is reduced or eliminated - systems based upon rebreathing are an example.
This sort of risk is why there is reluctance for anyone to make a decision (including it would appear the CAA).
The experience in the UKCS has been that dunker training with decent suits and attention to detail in aircraft provision has significantly improved the chances of escaping from a ditched aircraft (without breathing systems). Well -chosen breathing systems with appropriate training will no doubt help, but I do not know of any significant experience base to show the scale of any benefits - maybe this exists in the military?
TC's case is a bit special - the police operations he works in are rather special examples - the "pax" are in many ways not really typical pax. For a start their indivdual exposure to the risk is pretty great. Secondly, they are not just involved in cruising overwater, but doing all sorts of stuff which may increase the risk of a ditching. They also operate to lower weather limits than "normal" public transport. I believe that most UK police units with significant exposure to overwater flying do more than the CAA specify, for fairly sensible reasons.
Some are effectively mini-scuba sets using regulated compressed air. The risk with these is that if used incorrectly the users can seriously injure themselves with problems like air embolisms - during the ascent from any depth it is most important that the user breathes out - otherwise the air in the lungs expands and can do all sorts of damage. With training and fairly regular use they are fine. Without such recent training they pose a significant risk.
Others systems are different where this sort of risk is reduced or eliminated - systems based upon rebreathing are an example.
This sort of risk is why there is reluctance for anyone to make a decision (including it would appear the CAA).
The experience in the UKCS has been that dunker training with decent suits and attention to detail in aircraft provision has significantly improved the chances of escaping from a ditched aircraft (without breathing systems). Well -chosen breathing systems with appropriate training will no doubt help, but I do not know of any significant experience base to show the scale of any benefits - maybe this exists in the military?
TC's case is a bit special - the police operations he works in are rather special examples - the "pax" are in many ways not really typical pax. For a start their indivdual exposure to the risk is pretty great. Secondly, they are not just involved in cruising overwater, but doing all sorts of stuff which may increase the risk of a ditching. They also operate to lower weather limits than "normal" public transport. I believe that most UK police units with significant exposure to overwater flying do more than the CAA specify, for fairly sensible reasons.
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 142
From: Warrington, UK
JKnife, TC flies for the North Wales Police. We at Merseyside are also trained and carry STASS on our lifjackets. The CAA tried to tell us a couple of years ago that we could have the STASS but we couldn't carry them on the jackets as they hadn't been approved, and insurance companies might not pay out. I, personally, decided to ignore that piece of "advice".
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: UK
Thanks to all for your replies.
It appears that the Police units use a form of STASS then, but what about the North Sea operators who operate over some pretty rough waters every day of the year? Do they not carry STASS or HEEDS, or is it just the oil comapnies that make their staff wear rebreathers?
If the CAA wont mandate the use of EBS for these guys, I take it that the companies wont enforce the use of them unless the oil companies want them to?
It seems strange that the Police units appear to encourage the carrying, use and regular training of such equipment but not those that fly over water every single day?
I wonder if the Bristow SAR units carry something like STASS as do the military SAR units?
I find it strange that the CAA wont mandate these pieces of equipment for those who spend most of their flight time over water.
It appears that the Police units use a form of STASS then, but what about the North Sea operators who operate over some pretty rough waters every day of the year? Do they not carry STASS or HEEDS, or is it just the oil comapnies that make their staff wear rebreathers?
If the CAA wont mandate the use of EBS for these guys, I take it that the companies wont enforce the use of them unless the oil companies want them to?
It seems strange that the Police units appear to encourage the carrying, use and regular training of such equipment but not those that fly over water every single day?
I wonder if the Bristow SAR units carry something like STASS as do the military SAR units?
I find it strange that the CAA wont mandate these pieces of equipment for those who spend most of their flight time over water.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,110
Likes: 1,083
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Helinut,
If I was at "any depth" in a sinking helicopter I would rather risk an air embolism than drown...
I think any passenger would agree, trained or not.
If I was at "any depth" in a sinking helicopter I would rather risk an air embolism than drown...
I think any passenger would agree, trained or not.
Apache for HEMS - Strafe those Survivors!
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: uk
STASS or HEEDS is effectively the same thing, and has been directly responsible for saving a number of lives post ditching. It's great advantage over the rebreather systems is that you don't need to actually have it in your mouth when you ditch, most of the rebreather systems cannot be "purged" of water in the mouthpiece, particularly if you are inverted.
An unexpected ditching offers little time to prepare youself and your nearest exit may not be available. The breath hold time in water at 10 degrees is around 20 seconds, not allowing for the cold shock reaction on immersion. Yes there is a small risk of air embolism if you don't adhere to the training that is beaten into you. Remember though, you have to survive to run that risk!
An unexpected ditching offers little time to prepare youself and your nearest exit may not be available. The breath hold time in water at 10 degrees is around 20 seconds, not allowing for the cold shock reaction on immersion. Yes there is a small risk of air embolism if you don't adhere to the training that is beaten into you. Remember though, you have to survive to run that risk!
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 0
From: UK
ShyTorque and KiiT,
I agree with both of you - my post was to try to explain why the CAA had decided not to make a decision. Basically, they want to avoid liability, and they think they can do it by not regulating........ They might try adopting this more widely, as far as I am concerned
I have done STASS training and am a diver, so its a no brainer for me
I agree with both of you - my post was to try to explain why the CAA had decided not to make a decision. Basically, they want to avoid liability, and they think they can do it by not regulating........ They might try adopting this more widely, as far as I am concerned
I have done STASS training and am a diver, so its a no brainer for me
