Underwater Egress Training
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 57
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by LH2
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Sven Sixtoo
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Abroad
Posts: 1,172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to emphasise the point:
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.
Had all five men been wearing PFDs
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 57
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Sven Sixtoo; 24th Dec 2007 at 11:37.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vancouver Island
Age: 57
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Near the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Survival Suits
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.
Interestingly used the best survival kit was given to us for an in field transfer, rather than the long trip to / from Aberdeen.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 16 the High Street
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
