Risk Management / Added Safety Cost

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 4:12 pm

Is there anyone out there who can find a valid reason to object to a requirement for all life jackets to be equipped with a whistle and a dye pack?

Whistles can be heard a long way, cost about $3/each. Likewise dye packs can spread a marker up to 250' and cost around $7/each.

Total cost about $10/per life jacket.

Anyone have any ideas on how to chase this into the regs?

Wixel Pimp · Post by **Wixel Pimp** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:24 pm

ummm...heres a reason...how about when I m wakeboarding or jet skiing why would anyone need a whistle and a dye pack ??? It s extra cost that is unnecessary.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:32 pm

Sorry, I'll clarify.

Any valid reason why a commercial aircraft that is required to carry a life jacket should not have that life jacket equipped with a whistle and dye-pack ... (all commercial marine vessel life jackets are required to be equipped)?

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:48 am

Widow,

That is not a bad idea at all. Given the cost and possible safety benefits I think that should be the case. Remember though, in order for it to become law, TC would have to do years of testing and study. They'd have to know what happens when you blow the dye pack on the moon as well as how the whistle sounds when blown by a parapalegic person.

Just making a point on how ridiculous the govt can be.

Get your idea to TC. Then sit back and watch as they take the credit for it. Either way though the end result is the same.

CD · Post by CD » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:27 am

Widow wrote:Is there anyone out there who can find a valid reason to object to a requirement for all life jackets to be equipped with a whistle and a dye pack?

Whistles can be heard a long way, cost about $3/each. Likewise dye packs can spread a marker up to 250' and cost around $7/each.

Total cost about $10/per life jacket.

Anyone have any ideas on how to chase this into the regs?

Dye paks/markers are not a very good solution as the dye may disperse relatively quickly once used... Other alternatives, such as a rescue streamer, would be a far better piece of kit. However, I would think that incorporating a requirement for a means of signalling, rather than specifying a particular method or piece of equipment, would enable the manufacturers and users to equip their flotation gear appropriately.

It's been mentioned before, but anyone can propose a change to the aviation regulations in Canada. The process is outlined here:

Requests for Regulatory Action

On an international basis, a couple of standards exist for aviation flotation equipment:

TSO-C13f Life Preservers
TSO-C72c Individual Flotation Devices

The life preserver TSO may be amended in the coming years, to be based upon changes to the SAE Aerospace Standard. I'm certain if a means of signalling is being considered for inclusion in the standard or not:

AS1354 - Individual Inflatable Life Preservers
S-9 Cabin Safety Provisions Committee

Here is another site with some discussion and evaluation of aviation life preservers:

Equipped to Survive: Aviation Life Vests

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 2:46 pm

Once again CD, you prove yourself a man (or woman!) I could easily fall for! I will look into all this when I get home too.

tofo · Post by **tofo** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:29 pm

(or woman!) I could easily fall for

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:47 pm

You mentioned the 'c' word... cost, as in 'costs more money'.

KISS_MY_TCAS · Post by **KISS_MY_TCAS** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:56 pm

Whoa, before we all start hi-5-ing each other, I thought flotation devices were only required if the aircraft flew a min. 30nm offshore (or somewhere thereabouts). Not every aircraft is required to have such equipment, but up north a lot of times the preferred option would be to ditch in the water rather than lumberjack through the forest, but with no requirement for flotation devices

.

wasYKnowFJ · Post by **wasYKnowFJ** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:35 am

I thought all lifejackets did have whistles...?

As for dye packs, I can see having them in a liferaft, but don't know about on a jacket. I would doubt a manageable-sized dye pack would be worth having, as a few ounces of dye wouldn't be enough to help being seen. Also issues of durability of the package and leaking dye would be bothersome.

What if a larger dye pack was attached to the airplane though? Might be an idea...

I personally don't like regulators finding a product, and then flatly regulating everyone to use it. I'd much rather see the benefits of the products, and decide whether or not to equip to a higher standard than what is required. Maybe that leaves holes in the system, but it does allow time for an industry to work out the bugs, and refine the products to suit.

Only over-water ops should need lifejackets, as stated above.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:17 am

whistles used to be part of my military lifevest years ago.
Did they disappear?

Also, it is beyond time that SAR beacons be mandatory on aircraft that would transmit the GPS coordinates upon a G-force equating to a crash. That gets the rescue process started quickly. i.e. the first priority for rescue.

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:27 am

Life vests carried on Canadian Passengerl Air Carriers have both a whistle and a light and conform to international standards.

Here is some information from a Canadian Supplier.

Tulmar

Dual Chamber Adult/Child
TSO-C13F

Single-donning life preserver certified to the most current standard in the aviation industry, TSO-C13F. Inflated with two 16-gram CO2 cylinders. Complete with oral inflators, water-activated sea light and optional whistle. Two-year recertification period. Vacuum packing available. Made in Canada

http://tulmar.virtuo.biz/vm/newvisual/a ... ations.pdf

confused · Post by **confused** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:38 am

I think it should be law that life jackets be worn,you would not have time to put on at the time of an accident.Injuries will also prevent you from opening the thick plastic bag.

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:01 pm

Also, it is beyond time that SAR beacons be mandatory on aircraft that would transmit the GPS coordinates upon a G-force equating to a crash. That gets the rescue process started quickly. i.e. the first priority for rescue.

Our ELT's don't do that, but we have a 24/7 sattelite uplink that transmitts position, speed, ETA continually.

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:45 pm

yeah, JC, but does the erratic nature of your professional skills demonstration confuse the satellite data?

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:37 pm

Does anyone know what happened to the Crash Position Indicator, at one time used by the CF?

http://www.ieee.ca/millennium/cpi/cpi_more.html

confused wrote:I think it should be law that life jackets be worn,you would not have time to put on at the time of an accident.Injuries will also prevent you from opening the thick plastic bag.

A very good point, and previously discussed. In the case of C-GAQW, everyone got out, but all seven life jackets were still strapped to the roof in their plastic bags.

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:11 am

Well, I took it upon myself to buy and wear a Mustang extended wear inflatable PFD http://www.mustangsurvival.com/products ... d=455&mc=8 while I'm flying. It has a whistle on it. I carry a three pack of Marine pencil flares in my pocket and a 25 meter long strip of floating plastic sheet. I bought all this stuff on my own. I get ribbed for it by passengers and pilots alike. But the people who know better secretly tell me they think it's a good idea.
The safety culture has a long way to go in fixed wing 703. Just look at the safety precations off shore heli crews and passengers are taking and compare the two: Same enviroment vastly different investment in safety.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:15 pm

glad you learned something dog ... bet you weren't wearing it two and a half years ago ... i do remember who you are by the way ...

CD · Post by CD » Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:09 pm

Good selection Dog...

A couple of alternatives to pyrotechnic flares are rescue strobe lights and laser flares...

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:24 pm

Widow wrote:glad you learned something dog ... bet you weren't wearing it two and a half years ago ... i do remember who you are by the way ...

WTF is that supposed to mean? 'Cause it sure rubbed me the wrong way. I've been advocating safety in aviation long before 2005 and I resent you insinuating otherwise.
I deleted half the stuff I typed here because I'm hoping that I'm just miss understanding the tone of your post.

200hr Wonder · Post by **200hr Wonder** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:26 pm

With the flying I am doing on Vancouver Island now and the Cadets being required ware one for any water crossing, I find my self wearing them on a regular bases and must say I feel a lot more comfortable wearing them than not. I know that if my single piston engine decides to act up I will not be scrambling to get a jacket on while trying to ditch.

In the office the other day we where discussing ferrying aircraft over the north Atlantic and I flat outside if I where to ever do it I would insist on having a full on survival suit and wearing it the entire time. The ocean can kill you so fast from cold even in the summer anything but wearing the survival equipment is useless.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:00 am

Dog wrote:
Widow wrote:glad you learned something dog ... bet you weren't wearing it two and a half years ago ... i do remember who you are by the way ...
WTF is that supposed to mean? 'Cause it sure rubbed me the wrong way. I've been advocating safety in aviation long before 2005 and I resent you insinuating otherwise.
I deleted half the stuff I typed here because I'm hoping that I'm just miss understanding the tone of your post.

Dog, I will pm you shortly, as I do not wish for you to misunderstand the intent of my comment ...

Risk Management / Added Safety Cost

Risk Management / Added Safety Cost

Re: Risk Management / Added Safety Cost