Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

[PilotDAR]

Sure, a person can impede their exit (and risk other people too) by prematurely inflating their lifejacket, or not opening their seatbelt, or a number of other foolish errors. And, yes, some people will. But we have to give everyone the opportunity (equipment) and basic training to help themselves. For those who have not taken egress training, there is a training element where you attempt to swim and exit with an inflated lifejacket - it's really difficult!

I remember coming to, hanging on to a sinking plane, unware or where the other pilot was, and calling out for him, as I planned to help him - I couldn't even help myself, it was all I could do to blow up my lifejacket by mouth, because my shoulder was too badly broken to enable me to pull the cord, and my other arm was busy holding on to the plane. I don't remember much after that.

So consider that you're the pilot, you're sharp, you were wearing your uninflated lifejacket, and you got yourself out, 'cause you've done the egress training. You're a little injured, and you're really cold now. You had three pax, where are they? Better hurry to find them. You find the first one floating nearby, but they are not responding to you. They are also wearing their lifejacket ('cause it's a requirement). You can swim to them, and you can inflate their lifejacket. Now, even if they can't take care of themself, they are floating safely, and findable later, while you help the others. How would you feel if you simply could not keep all three of your injured pax afloat for lack of their wearing lifejackets, and someone drowned?

[enbt]

In a floatplane accident, you are statistically much, much more likely to be trapped upside down in a cabin full of water than you are to be ejected. No doubt that in the rare ejection situation having the jacket already on is going to help. My issue is that they are using the many examples of people being trapped and drowning to justify the use of constant wear lifejackets, which doesn't make sense to me. It's a political move to make it look like something is being done, and which most people will accept at face value without a second thought.

I agree that everyone can and should give a good briefing, demo the proper use of exits, belts etc, and tell them not to inflate a constant wear jacket inside. But I feel we will be tempting people to use it improperly by giving them a piece of safety equipment (life jacket) for use in an emergency situation (like being upside down in the water), and then expecting them to have the presence of mind to delay using it until they are out. That is a lot to expect of someone who has rarely/never flown in a floatplane. I'm not aware of a situation yet where a plane full of people has gone over with everyone wearing a jacket, but I can already picture the outcome.

[enbt]

DAR, I appreciate your perspective as someone who has been through a real life situation. I don't know the specifics of your incident, but I am interested to know how you came to be ejected. Did a seat belt fail, or was the event just that violent? I presume the ejection path would be forward? On most floatplanes that would take you through the path of the prop, which may or may not still be spinning at that point. Most floatplane upsets I know of happen at fairly low speed and the impact is very much survivable - it's the getting out part that is the hard.

[PilotDAR]

My ejection was immensely violent, by the time I left the plane, the nose was no longer attached. My seat belt was ripped out of the plane with me wearing it.

Graduates of an egress course know that it's very unlikely that anything will leave the plane in your possession, unless you're wearing it before you leave. That counts for a violent ejection, or a slow rollover. You think you can find the lifejacket pouch, and take it - no you can't.

I was stunned at how disorienting an inverted cabin can be, let along under dark cold water. My first lesson in this was decades ago, when I had to swim into an inverted 185 at the dock to assist in righting it, I was amazed at how difficult it was to orient myself in the cabin, and I entered entirely on my own time, through a door I opened. Whe more pilots take the egress training, and begin to present their observations, the theme will shift to an understanding that wearing the lifejacket, and using it as intended is the most safe thing to do.

[TailwheelPilot]

I agree that the logic to require life jackets is a little out there. People drown in overturned seaplanes - only 2 of 27 fatalities in overturned seaplanes managed to get out of the cabin, 25 fatalities did not even get out. If they want to improve things they should have gone with improved or additional emergency exits - but that would cost a boatload of money for most types (if not each airframe).

I did an egress course a number of years ago. A few people, being reminded to grab the life jacket immediately before getting wet, brought it out with them but no one consistently grabbed the life jacket. That was in a clear, warm pool. Now that I have a constant wear life jacket I wear it whenever flying a seaplane with a four-point harness. I could see it perhaps being a little uncomfortable with a shoulder strap, although that is another issue. Where I got my float rating I had to wear the 'pouch attached to the waist'-style life jacket. A tiny bit in the way at times, but not a big issue and very quick to put on and off. Other than the logic, the only thing that I do not understand about this is why private seaplanes are exempt (and personally I would include all commercial seaplanes for consistency).

The theory of pilots doing egress training to help save the 25 fatalities that did not exit the overturned seaplane is at least flawed in some circumstances, like mine. I am not a strong swimmer, part of why I already wear a life jacket when flying floats. My mother was a lifeguard and I have heard from her and others how dangerous it can be being within arm's reach of someone panicking in the water. For my immediately family, sure I would risk my life to help them. For a stranger right after a traumatic event in cold water? Probably not.

At best I could help open doors, but on many seaplanes (ie piston Cessnas) if the doors are latched from the inside they cannot be opened from the outside. If they want float pilots to save people they should require training to life guard standards, if not higher since life guards typically do not rescue people from confined spaces. And since we generally operate from cold water, requiring wet (or dry) suits would also help. And SCUBA gear.

TC requiring jettisonable doors to be removed from Beavers in the past makes this all sound like hypocrisy. They should have been promoting their installation. I have flown a type with jettisonable crew doors (single pilot, so a passenger beside one door) that would fall off with the pull of a lever. That operator had had four or five come off over 20 years. All, except maybe one, happened because the door had not been latched and heavy braking plus reverse swung the door forward hard to twist out of the hinges - not because the jettison lever was pulled.

Small, portable oxygen cylinders readily accessible in the cabin would probably also make things a little easier, although I have never tried those.

[TWSC]

I agree that the logic to require life jackets is a little out there. People drown in overturned seaplanes - only 2 of 27 fatalities in overturned seaplanes managed to get out of the cabin, 25 fatalities did not even get out. If they want to improve things they should have gone with improved or additional emergency exits - but that would cost a boatload of money for most types (if not each airframe).

I did an egress course a number of years ago. A few people, being reminded to grab the life jacket immediately before getting wet, brought it out with them but no one consistently grabbed the life jacket. That was in a clear, warm pool. Now that I have a constant wear life jacket I wear it whenever flying a seaplane with a four-point harness. I could see it perhaps being a little uncomfortable with a shoulder strap, although that is another issue. Where I got my float rating I had to wear the 'pouch attached to the waist-style life jacket. A tiny bit in the way at times, but not a big issue and very quick to put on and off. Other than the logic, the only thing that I do not understand about this is why private seaplanes are exempt (and personally I would include all commercial seaplanes for consistency).

The theory of pilots doing egress training to help save the 25 fatalities that did not exit the overturned seaplane is at least flawed in some circumstances, like mine. I am not a strong swimmer, part of why I already wear a life jacket when flying floats. My mother was a lifeguard and I have heard from her and others how dangerous it can be being within arm's reach of someone panicking in the water. For my immediately family, sure I would risk my life to help them. For a stranger right after a traumatic event in cold water? Probably not.

At best I could help open doors, but on many seaplanes (ie piston Cessnas) if the doors are latched from the inside they cannot be opened from the outside. If they want float pilots to save people they should require training to life guard standards, if not higher since life guards typically do not rescue people from confined spaces. And since we generally operate from cold water, requiring wet (or dry) suits would also help. And SCUBA gear.

TC requiring jettisonable doors to be removed from Beavers in the past makes this all sound like hypocrisy. They should have been promoting their installation. I have flown a type with doors crew doors (single pilot, so a passenger beside one door) that would fall off with the pull of a lever. That operator had had four or five come off over 20 years. All, except maybe one, happened because the door had not been latched and heavy braking plus reverse sent the door forward far enough and hard enough to twist out of the hinges - not because the jettison lever was pulled.

Small, portable oxygen cylinders readily accessible in the cabin would probably also make things a little easier, although I have never tried those.

That's the nail on the head. If TC mandated a change in emergency exits then coupling that with mandatory lifejackets makes a lot of sense, but like you pointed out that'd be a ton of $. I feel like the only way to be able to swing that would be have some type of government subsidy to the small operators to help with retrofitting costs seeing as small operators make up something like 90% of the commercial operations in the country and probably don't have the cash for such a task. 25/27 is a huge number for not being able to get out so I can't see this improving survival from a sinking aircraft until the actual ability to get out is addressed.

[valleyboy]

whitewater rafting PFD

Does not work because of positive buoyancy and the same goes for an aircraft. If you are under the boat or in an aircraft you need to egress first. You are not considering my post like the aircraft there is a harness system that keeps you inside (hopefully)

Buy the manual Mustang or EAM, if you can afford the marine vehicle

I was actually referring to commercial operations, possibly volume pricing discounts would help but operators would not like these because of cost and theft and in my mind nothing else makes sense. You certainly don't want PFD's that are already in positive buoyancy because of egress and as a past float driver I see no advantage to compulsory wearing of PFD's, I only wear a device if I'm doing white water but never when I'm pleasure boating. Ironically functional devices are not approved and that old PFD stuffed under the seat satisfies the legality issue.

I think the next logical government step is to demand survival suits. The only function of a PFD in cold water is to make it easier to find the bodies. I'm all for safety but again the government over reacts and goes with the lobbyists with poorly thought out regulations. Just like approach ban and the new FTD rules.

[PilotDAR]

whitewater rafting PFD

Does not work because of positive buoyancy and the same goes for an aircraft.

My understanding of white water PFD's (and I own one) is that they have less bouyancy than a life jacket, and are intended to allow you to swim down to exit. That's the difference between a lifejacket and a PFD.

Having every person wearing one or the other, and using it properly will save lives, and save search and rescue expense. I spent 26 years as a firefighter and on behalf of the police, searching for persons in the water. I found every person who entered the water wearing a lifejacket or PFD, I found zero people who entered wearing none (well, a couple I found a day or so later, too late for them). I covered the operating expense of the airplane, which was often many hours checking a whole quadrant of Lake Simcoe, just to be sure.

Lifejackets save lives, and as is said, if you think safety is expensive, try an accident. I have more than my fair share of experience with one of those.

I cannot convince everyone that lifejackets should be worn, but I'll keep trying. No one will ever convince me that they need not be worn while flying floats, or in a small powerboat in anything other than the most calm conditions.

[Heliian]

PFD's, I only wear a device if I'm doing white water but never when I'm pleasure boating.

Well, that's not very smart.

[valleyboy]

Well, that's not very smart.

-- what would you expect -- I'm a pilot

I guess at what point do you draw the line. From the extreme logic it's always black and white. Extending the logic here expressed by some I can only draw the conclusion that all flights over water and approaches over water require donning of life jackets, mae west or PFD's be required. So on decent even into Toronto and landing towards the north, see where I am going with this.

I suppose one could approach this like seat belts and sure life jackets save lives or at least give you better odds but in a lot of places in Canada if there isn't immediate help it will be a recovery and not a rescue. We stress egress training but how do you train passengers. Sure life jackets save lives but there is also an element of false security because the problem is more complicated. Unlike a land incident where a seat belt saves you in the water you can't just suffer until someone pulls you out.

Safety is paramount but decision making and making the right choices or just not being a c'boy will reduce dramatically the need to actually use the various safety equipment in an aircraft. This brings me into the area of restraint. The restraint systems in just about all "small" aircraft is just not safe. Ideally a 5 point system but a 4 point would work. This even goes into the auto industry (now they compensate with air bags) but without bags they are not all you need.

[PilotDAR]

just not being a c'boy will reduce dramatically the need to actually use the various safety equipment in an aircraft.

You'd think, but not so sure. There are times I have been goofing around in a seaplane (okay, I call it skill building), I wore all the protective equipment. There have been times where I have been flying, and knew that the would be no help for a day or two if I had a problem, and I was really careful. I wore the protective equipment, and did not goof around. Then I was right seat in perfect conditions, no "Swiss cheese" holes anywhere to be seen, let alone lining up, and I wore the protective equipment, and whammo, I needed it! It was a factory three point harness which I ripped out of the airframe, perhaps a four point would have held a little better, but I'm not so sure.

The only difference in protective equipment I wear while water flying is: for very cold water flying, a dry immersion suit, and lifejacket. for flight a long way from civilization, a Switlik lifejacket with pockets filled with an overnight worth of things I would need if the plane sank with everything, and I swam to shore. But, in all cases, a lifejacket.

Yes, a five point harness is the very best for safety - standard in a Caravan. (Hint, if you're flying a Caravan, take a tywrap, and curl the fifth strap between your legs into round rather than flat, and gently tywrap it that way, it's much more comfortable!).

Prior to my taking the egress course, a briefing I received while flying floats with another pilot, included the primary elements of the egress training. I recognized that after I took the course myself. Good on that other pilot for sharing the wisdom - it took an extra minute pre flight - any flight can afford that! I know that we don't like to scare passengers with a good safety briefing, but it's better to be realistic, and have the passenger take the briefing seriously, because you gave it with care. How many of us pilots have been asked by a passenger if we are going to give them a parachute? My reply is "no", 'cause you don't see me wearing one either! But when I'm wearing a lifejacket, I expect my passenger to want one too!

[FADEC]

Even if you don't fly commercially, get egress training and always wear a life jacket when flying over or onto water.
You won't even notice it after the first few times.
Get one designed for constant wear and without automatic inflation.
Buy a model for which replacement cartridges etc are available; keep them up to date.
I bought mine in the US; same model as Canada without mandatory French, and half the price. I have one for every seat.
Anyone who flies with me over or onto water wears a lifejacket or doesn't fly with me.
I give an egress briefing to everyone.
I have the yellow lifejackets in pouches to be legal; they will likely never be used.
Get a vest of many pockets and put your survival items in the pockets; you won't likely have a chance to grab things in a crash.

[Meatservo]

.
I have the yellow lifejackets in pouches to be legal; they will likely never be used

Hopefully your new ones won't, either!

[ruddersup?]

I'm finding myself agreeing with life jackets will not be effective in saving lives and for sure will put huge fear in most passengers before climbing aboard and panic is a certain if...…. I also see a huge law suit coming blaming the airline that they were not trained properly or the equipment did not function or fit properly or wasn't certified annually or ??????? I suppose without life jackets this is the same case also. Another can of worms however.
Should start with better pilot training because most, if not all, are pilot error. No room for Sky King attitude and it is prevalent and those reading this, I hope, are blushing right now. You know who you are.
Experience is a must, attitude must go.
Easy egress has to be mandated. Most seaplanes do not sink after upsetting and we must face reality that we can't cover every situation. I see unnecessary delay in dawning life jackets and I doubt if the "average" passenger can even exit the inverted aircraft after getting briefed if better egress is not mandated and that's with or without a life jacket. Of course the frequent passenger might not be the "average" passenger and would fit the profile for a successful egress and life jacket wearer. It's their option to wear their own life jacket too. Perhaps frequent flyers should be encouraged ????? to buy their own.
Pilot egress training? Probably.

[C.W.E.]

How often do sea planes end up upside down in the water " not " caused by pilot error?

[PilotDAR]

Easy egress has to be mandated

What would this be? If this were accomplished perfectly, what would have happened? I have the authority to mandate that a modifier presenting a modification to me for approval make egress "easy". The design standards prescribe requirements, what else should I be looking for?

Should start with better pilot training ......Experience is a must,

Yes, how much experience? How does a pilot accumulate this experience? Inexperienced pilots should fly only under instructor supervision for the first XXX hours to gain adequate experience? Yes, but it may be difficult for many candidates to afford....

I see unnecessary delay in dawning life jackets

Me too, best done at the dock, prior to flight, with a safety briefing, so there will be no delay later when every second will count.

life jackets will not be effective in saving lives and for sure will put huge fear in most passengers before climbing aboard .......….

having a huge fear of being trapped in an inverted plane, or drowning following egress is a super idea, and every person should have it. To me it equates closely with having a huge fear of being smushed in the cabin because you were not wearing a seatbelt.

Not wearing a lifejacket makes about as much sense as not wearing the seatbelt, and depending upon the pilot to holler "put your seatbelt on right now!!" just before the crash!

How would I, the lifejacket wearing, egress trained CPL float pilot feel after the accident, having to say to the bereaved family member, "well, I told him that the lifejacket was in the pocket, and he should try to find it if we end up submerged - 'guess he did not find it.....". I could only live with myself knowing that the other occupant had as much going for them as I did. I agree that it's not practical to give pax egress training at the dock, but the critical elements can, and should be briefed.

I can live with myself, as the other pilot with me when we crashed, was also wearing a lifejacket when we went in, and he survived too.

[trey kule]

I know it sounds flippant but if seaplane operators want to save lives, stop crashing.

I mean that quite seriously. This flogging around on the coast in 1/4 mile and 100VV (VFR) needs to stop.

The life jackets sound like such a good idea. And for pilots they are. But not for pax.
Who is going to get out of a 1/2 submerged upside down 206 back seat?
We forget that pax are not going to experience an accident on the water the same way as a pilot will.
Lots of dead people found in helicopters who drowned strapped into their seat.

We could do more if we simply had a card in the plane asking pax to report pilots, and a quick explanation of how to assess ceiling, lowflying, and visibility. Yes, there would be erronous and false accusations, butin the long term Ithink it would do more for paxsafety than lifejackets. And as pretty much everyone carries a cellphone now......

Lastly, the immersions course is fun. Lets not confuse that with being able to learn without the experience. I have been out of float ops for a very long time, but I cant recall any operator that included egress discussions and practice (procedures in the plane). The courses are just to much fun. We compare the egress course with doing nothing in training.
Or has that changed?

[Meatservo]

I know it sounds flippant but if seaplane operators want to save lives, stop crashing.

I mean that quite seriously. This flogging around on the coast in 1/4 mile and 100VV (VFR) needs to stop.

The life jackets sound like such a good idea. And for pilots they are. But not for pax.
Who is going to get out of a 1/2 submerged upside down 206 back seat?
We forget that pax are not going to experience an accident on the water the same way as a pilot will.
Lots of dead people found in helicopters who drowned strapped into their seat.

We could do more if we simply had a card in the plane asking pax to report pilots, and a quick explanation of how to assess ceiling, lowflying, and visibility. Yes, there would be erronous and false accusations, butin the long term Ithink it would do more for paxsafety than lifejackets. And as pretty much everyone carries a cellphone now......

Lastly, the immersions course is fun. Lets not confuse that with being able to learn without the experience. I have been out of float ops for a very long time, but I cant recall any operator that included egress discussions and practice (procedures in the plane). The courses are just to much fun. We compare the egress course with doing nothing in training.
Or has that changed?

He's right, you know.

[shimmydampner]

I mean that quite seriously. This flogging around on the coast in 1/4 mile and 100VV (VFR) needs to stop.

While I agree with this sentiment, you're conflating CFIT with float plane upset on water accidents. I do agree with your point about egress in aircraft like the 206 also. I've often thought about how realistic a person's chances are of making it out of any inverted, partially submerged small float plane if they are not seated directly beside a door. In my mind, your odds drop off dramatically if you are not.
However, I could not disagree more with encouraging passengers to think they are some sort of back seat TC enforcement officer. I don't for one second believe that 99% of passengers could tell the difference between 3 miles visibility and 2, or 1 and the risk of jeopardizing a pilot's job is too great when that pilot may have been operating safely and close to, but on the right side of legal. Furthermore, it doesn't go to the root of the problem. Passengers have always been free to complain if they felt their pilot was flying unsafely. That's not the issue. The issue is pressure on the pilots, either from the customer, the operator or themselves. If there is a clear understanding between all three parties that nobody wants to end up on the news tonight, we either stay on the ground/water if conditions are not legal and safe to depart, or if we run in to those conditions en route, we don't press on and instead find a safe place to get back on the ground/water. In my experience, having that conversation ahead of time not only eliminates an awful lot of pressure, but also puts passengers at ease and instills confidence that the pilot will not jeopardize their safety.

[trey kule]

Actually, I believe a lot of CFIT float plane accidents end up in the water.
You make a good point about pax perception. I always carry my cell phone, and pix are invaluable.
I think most pax carry phoneS as well.
Perhaps agood flight tracking system might help.unfortunately, such things tend to be retroactive rather than proactive.
The other thing is the accountable executive should start to be....accountable.