Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by PilotDAR »

I always carry my cell phone,
Me too. It's in a waterproof bag, clipped to the lifejacket - 'cause it's not going to do you much good soaking wet. My plan worked sort of, my phone stayed dry, and worked for more than a day, but at the bottom of the lake, it was ripped from my lifejacket during my violent exit. My wife phoned it for a couple of days, but it eventually died.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ruddersup?
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by ruddersup? »

Question - tell me about any seaplane water accidents that have happened that were not pilot error. Hope someone has some data on this. I'm thinking we should concentrate on the main issue, as I see it, first. If the pilots don't improve their accident record we will not see a decrease in deaths, IMHO. Were the pilots doing something that they thought "should" be okay? Was there some doubt in their mind that what they were trying to do was, well a little risky. Or in most of these accidents were they above their ability with just a slight surprise added to the situation. PiloDAR you are more, than any of us, aware of this, oops factor. I'm not sure if proper training or advice would have prevented your accident, only you know that.
Chief pilots can sit down tomorrow with their pilots and have a heads up discussion and pick the brains of the most experienced staff and be blunt with what you can and can not do. Lower time pilots can ask questions and contribute to the discussion. Perhaps the Chief Pilot is not the most experienced staff member so leaning on the experienced ones is a good start. (hope there on no old and bold pilots). Talk is instantaneous and effective. If your mentor says you should not do this or that, it will hit home more than reading a Transport Canada Safety letter. There are some operators out there that have not had any serious accidents.
Wonder why? World's best pilots, probably not but very very professional.
I'm probably sounding corny but I'm sure the statistics will back me up with where the problem lies. Life jackets are like a Dr. treating the illness with pills and not focused on preventing it. Those pills just might work but if they don't we'll give you another pill.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by PilotDAR »

I agree that most water accidents are the result of pilot error, or perhaps omission - aircraft hits submerged floating obstacle? I've flown off the Fraser river at Pitt Meadows, and the thought of hitting a log terrifies me! The accident which caught me was under ideal flying and water conditions, with an attentive pilot, whom I was training. Though I was wearing my seatbelt and lifejacket, I certainly was not expecting to be in the water injured in ten seconds!

Sure, accident prevention is the highest aspiration, and the notion of providing more information to newer pilots, that they might benefit from my experienced wisdom, is why I type here. If I can help to prevent an accident, I'm there.

But, If my best effort will not prevent the accident, then the next best thing to do is to reduce the severity of the outcome when one happens. 42 years of flying, and 26 years as a firefighter give me some insight about severity of outcome too.

If we could prevent accidents entirely, think of what we would not need in planes: Emergency exits, first aid kits, fire extinguishers, ELT's, seatbelts, and, lifejackets. Until we can assure zero accidents, it seems that we may still need these, and they are of no use, if they are not where you need them, when you need them. So, aspire to zero accidents, but until you're there, best to assure that the emergency gear is available. A lifejacket in a sunken plane is of zero use, if you have escaped and are at risk of drowning.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ruddersup?
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by ruddersup? »

PilotDAR - I think you are bounding your chest a little too hard. Explain what happened to you and how you could/can
prevent it from happening again, then maybe we all can all learn from your flying mistake or was it a mistake? I'm assuming wearing a life jacket saved you but what could have prevented the accident. I think you know where I'm coming from. Pass it on.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by PilotDAR »

Happily for me, I was not the pilot flying, and I can truthfully say that I do not remember the accident, aside from a couple of one second life flashing before my eyes kind of things. When the TBS interviewed me, they provided me with more information, than I was able to provide them. The TSB said that there would not be a report. Conditions were perfect, the landing was very good (I do remember touching down very nicely), and we did not hit anything other than the water. I can truthfully state that I do not know what the other pilot did, which put us into the water. The only takeaway lesson is that water handling of aircraft at landing speed must be skillfully taught - that landing had been my student's 25th or so, in two days of water training with him, and I was about to send him solo on the water following the landing which ultimately did not work out so well. Is it a mistake, if something bad happens so fast that you have no opportunity to correct it before it goes wrong? perhaps it is, don't let bad things happen fast while you're flying!

My most vivid couple of second memory of the event was coming to, hanging onto the wing on my left, with my right hand, trying to stay afloat. I could not figure out why my left arm would not move, and could not inflate the lifejacket. Knowing I was sinking, I found the mouth inflater, and blew a few puffs into it. Seeing the yellow pillow start to inflate was enough to reassure me. I woke up four days later, with an exosceleton on my leg (they really do drill 1/4" holes right through your leg :shock: ), and doctors imploring me to wiggle my toes. After that, I learned that my fellow pilot had also survived, with the aid of his lifejacket.

So yes, after three months in hospital, I will declare myself entitled to bound my chest about how one good decision I made enabled me to save my life, when that same decision has a very good chance of saving other lives too.

In times past, I would search for people in the water. I found several, who were wearing lifejackets, they were all rescued alive. I did find one fellow who went in without a lifejacket. I saw him through the ice the next day, flying back to the search site. I landed, put on an ice rescue suit, took and axe, a rope and two OPP divers. We walked out, I chopped a hole in the ice, and we pulled him out. Had he been wearing a lifejacket when he went in the day before, he would still have been warming up that morning, instead of being examined by the coroner. That poor fellow should not have had an accident either - lesson, be sure the ice is thick enough, and wear a lifejacket if there is doubt (applies to any mode of transport).

I know that wearing lifejackets is not cool - neither am I.
---------- ADS -----------
 
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by C.W.E. »

Maybe it could be called " The Darwinism rule " ??
---------- ADS -----------
 
Cliff Jumper
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by Cliff Jumper »

I'm totally with ruddersup, meatservo and treykule on this one.

The real lesson here is just stop crashing. I don't know why everyone finds it that hard.

I personally never wear any safety equipment. No seatbelts, and definitely no stupid PFD. Why would I? I don't crash. It's that simple.

How many float plane pilots have you heard of that drown after NOT being in a crash.

Exactly. ZERO !!

Now, compare that to how many have been trapped underwater in the cabin because they got trapped in their seatbelt or by an inflated life jacket. That number is so high, that I can't even keep track.

But, it's your choice. If you don't know what you're doing, you should probably use some safety equipment; but for the rest of us, it's just another hazard waiting to kill us.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by PilotDAR »

I don't crash. It's that simple.
So you're never a non flying pilot? Lucky you! in 42 years of flying, I had never crashed, until I was an instructor.

I think not crashing is the highest aspiration, I have risked my life for years to teach pilots how not to crash, and one time, I fail.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Cliff Jumper
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by Cliff Jumper »

My apologies. I thought my post was so absurd, that it would be obvious that it was a joke.

Were the other posts serious? Surely not?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by PilotDAR »

I have heard a number of pilots whom I (otherwise) really respect, disavow the value of lifejackets. Happily for me, a few other pilots whom I also respected explained to me in a quiet, logical explanation how a lifejacket had made a life or death difference for them. Then, when I started paying attention, I saw more events where it made the difference.

As a marine instructor for the Fire Department, lifejacket use even near the water, let alone on one of our vessels, is mandatory, for health and safety rules. Surely, a boat crewed by emergency services personnel should best positioned as possible to rescue each other, should someone fall overboard, but we must set a good image for the public who see us working on the water. We can hardly endorse lifejacket use, if we're not using them! 'Same with planes, I choose to wear one, I could hardly not provide one to a passenger! Indeed, I have declined to carry a passenger, simply because I did not have a wearable lifejacket available for them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ruddersup?
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:10 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by ruddersup? »

I am not saying don't wear a life jacket but thinking it will not be a substitute for pilot error. It would be sad if it turns out to be a detriment.
I think that the net amount of deaths will remain the same as without mandatory pfd's but we wont know until stats are compiled over the years to come. However less accidents will have an immediate impact on stats.
I am speaking as a fairly experienced charter operator and the training for single engine seaplanes is left up to the operator. I was happy with this when I was operating but now it's putting some doubt in my mind. The thought of Transport getting involved in this sends a cringe up my spine however. I don't think there is any standard for single engine seaplane operations. It's been a while since I've been active with an OC. but if anyone is up to speed on this let me know.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by PilotDAR »

Nothing is perfect, all we can do is work toward better. An occupant of an aircraft wearing a lifejacket will never be the cause of an accident. It is true, that a prematurely inflated lifejacket, or one snagging during egress greatly increases risk. I do not accept that a properly worn lifejacket which does not delay egress is a risk. It is a cost, and a benefit, but not a risk. Indeed, even when flying wearing a lifejacket for overland portions of water flying, I feel a little better, as I'm wearing an airbag I could instantly deploy if I anticipated a rough land landing. I'm not an airbag fan, but hey, anything could help!

If, in the mean time, we want fewer accidents, we want much more experienced pilots. Excellent! I'm all for it. Gee, I nearly died helping a pilot become more experienced, so my money [life] was where my mouth is! So newbie pilots fly a lot more non passenger flights to build experience without putting pax at risk. Excellent again! But that flying costs lots of money, particularly if that newbie wants me right seat for advance training. If the newbie pays for that extra training and experience with their magic money, they will want to recover that in much better starting pay. So let's have the float flying industry offer newbie pilots, with extra good pre-employment training and experience, much higher pay, and make flying safer.....

Then you can prove me wrong, and demonstrate how lifejackets were never needed 'cause no one crashed - perfect!
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
BigWillyStyle
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:06 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by BigWillyStyle »

I think it's a good idea. I wore a non-automatic inflatable when I was flying a Norseman out of a remote lodge, and I got no end of Americans drawling "Jeez, I don't think I like it when the Captain is wearing a life preserver". Do that in a Okie accent and you've got it. My response was that it is going to be mandatory eventually, so get used to it. I carried a small emergency kit with 2 separate independent ways to start a fire, knife, seatbelt cutter and first aid kit, strapped to me like a drop-leg holster, because during an upset, there is zero time to grab anything. I practiced grabbing the cutter with my eyes closed a number of times until it was muscle memory. Cannot recommend it enough.

https://www.voodootactical.net/molle-ge ... pouch.html
A few other thoughts...

I've done the upset training with Webster, and it is worth every dollar. It ought to to mandatory and annual IMO. After flying amphibs for 1000 hours, I can honestly say that it is possible, after a long hot rough day, to forget the gear. It can happen. And then you are upside down. So after you do the upset training, sit in your airplane, and practice it a hundred more times. Trust me.

206s, unless the back doors are extensively modified, should not be on floats. Full stop.

Another poster mentioned the 2 minute rescue air bottle. I have one, and I tried it under controlled conditions in a pool, and it is not a good idea when you are upside down. You'd think so, but without plenty of practice, it is more trouble then it's worth when you are upside down. Get out first, get to the surface, get sorted out, and then use the rescue bottle to retrieve trapped passengers if able.

I agree with other posters that better exits and better decision making tends to make all of this seem superfluous and excessive, but in my experience, every little bit helps.

My 2c.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I got out of aviation so I could afford a yacht big enough to pull up beside Doc's!
DonutHole
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by DonutHole »

The available tso'd jackets are intended for one time emergency use, not for daily wear.

Reading the rule though it looks like you can have them in a belt attached to the passengers waist. Fanny packs are about to make a comeback
---------- ADS -----------
 
ragbagflyer
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Somewhere rocky or salty.

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by ragbagflyer »

Appologies if this point has been discussed; I browsed the thread quickly but didn't see anything about what I'm about to ask.

According to the recent gazette;

1 (1) The definition personal flotation device in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (see footnote 1) is repealed.

That definitions is

personal flotation device means a personal flotation device that meets the standards set out in the Canadian General Standards Board Standard 65-GP-11, entitled Standard for: Personal Flotation Devices, published in October 1972; (vêtement de flottaison individuel)


So the way I read it, it appears up to the operator to select an approriate constant wear life preserver, which is surprisingly refreshing. That means we can buy somewhat economical mustangs or alternate brand of inflatables, vs $350 plus switlicks, .

Interestingly looking at Canadian General Standards Board Standard 65-GP-11 and the superseding 65.11-M88, I can't see any mention of a certification/inspection insterval, which begs the question, did we ever have to replace/send away the life preservers we were already carrying around at their placarded 5-10 year inspection interval or could an air operator perform their own visual inspection and return the existing life presevers to service?

Furthermore, if a company were to adopt the incoming standard ahead of the required adoption date next year, could we do away with the old style entirely?
---------- ADS -----------
 
"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." - Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes)
Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1976
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by Heliian »

ragbagflyer wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:35 am Appologies if this point has been discussed; I browsed the thread quickly but didn't see anything about what I'm about to ask.

According to the recent gazette;

1 (1) The definition personal flotation device in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (see footnote 1) is repealed.

That definitions is

personal flotation device means a personal flotation device that meets the standards set out in the Canadian General Standards Board Standard 65-GP-11, entitled Standard for: Personal Flotation Devices, published in October 1972; (vêtement de flottaison individuel)


So the way I read it, it appears up to the operator to select an approriate constant wear life preserver, which is surprisingly refreshing. That means we can buy somewhat economical mustangs or alternate brand of inflatables, vs $350 plus switlicks, .

Interestingly looking at Canadian General Standards Board Standard 65-GP-11 and the superseding 65.11-M88, I can't see any mention of a certification/inspection insterval, which begs the question, did we ever have to replace/send away the life preservers we were already carrying around at their placarded 5-10 year inspection interval or could an air operator perform their own visual inspection and return the existing life presevers to service?

Furthermore, if a company were to adopt the incoming standard ahead of the required adoption date next year, could we do away with the old style entirely?
It references ch 551 of the airworthiness manual for the standard for pfd's, as long as it meets those standards.

It must be maintained as per the same instructions, life vests still have to be sent away for recertification to the manufacturer or approved facility. Inspections will also need to be done iaw your msa/manufacturer ICA.

No. You'll have to use approved ones and maintain them. You can't just have a bunch of cabelas specials.

I recommend the pouch or fanny pack style.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ragbagflyer
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Somewhere rocky or salty.

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by ragbagflyer »

Heliian wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:01 pm
It references ch 551 of the airworthiness manual for the standard for pfd's, as long as it meets those standards.

It must be maintained as per the same instructions, life vests still have to be sent away for recertification to the manufacturer or approved facility. Inspections will also need to be done iaw your msa/manufacturer ICA.

No. You'll have to use approved ones and maintain them. You can't just have a bunch of cabelas specials.

I recommend the pouch or fanny pack style.
I did some further digging and talked to TC.

I'm still not convinced current life jackets need to be sent away for recert because of
602.59 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate an aircraft unless the operational and emergency equipment carried on board the aircraft

(a) meets the applicable standards specified in the Airworthiness Manual; and

(b) is functional.

(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in respect of the following operational and emergency equipment:

(a) survival equipment;

(b) a personal flotation device;
That exception is being removed but until it is I don't think any recert dates would be binding because PFD's fall under the exception to meeting the standards in the airworthiness manual.

When that exception is repealed PFD's must fall under the airworthiness manual, but the airworthiness requirments for PFD's are broader. See the screen shot showing PFD requirements from chapter 551. Where "Life Preservers" and "Individual Floatation Devices" must have CAN-TSO numbers, Personal Floatation devices need only to meet the CAN/CGSB-65.15-M88 or UL1180 Type II standard.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attachments
Screenshot 2019-06-03 15.26.24.png
Screenshot 2019-06-03 15.26.24.png (226.24 KiB) Viewed 3334 times
"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." - Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes)
vcanews
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 1:20 am
Contact:

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by vcanews »

How often do sea planes end up upside down in the water " not " caused by pilot error?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by PilotDAR »

How often do sea planes end up upside down in the water " not " caused by pilot error?
Sometimes, seaplanes do sink, even while just taxiing or at the dock. If a floatplane sinks, it'll most likely invert too.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1976
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by Heliian »

ragbagflyer wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:30 pm
Heliian wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:01 pm
It references ch 551 of the airworthiness manual for the standard for pfd's, as long as it meets those standards.

It must be maintained as per the same instructions, life vests still have to be sent away for recertification to the manufacturer or approved facility. Inspections will also need to be done iaw your msa/manufacturer ICA.

No. You'll have to use approved ones and maintain them. You can't just have a bunch of cabelas specials.

I recommend the pouch or fanny pack style.
I did some further digging and talked to TC.

I'm still not convinced current life jackets need to be sent away for recert because of
602.59 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall operate an aircraft unless the operational and emergency equipment carried on board the aircraft

(a) meets the applicable standards specified in the Airworthiness Manual; and

(b) is functional.

(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply in respect of the following operational and emergency equipment:

(a) survival equipment;

(b) a personal flotation device;
That exception is being removed but until it is I don't think any recert dates would be binding because PFD's fall under the exception to meeting the standards in the airworthiness manual.

When that exception is repealed PFD's must fall under the airworthiness manual, but the airworthiness requirments for PFD's are broader. See the screen shot showing PFD requirements from chapter 551. Where "Life Preservers" and "Individual Floatation Devices" must have CAN-TSO numbers, Personal Floatation devices need only to meet the CAN/CGSB-65.15-M88 or UL1180 Type II standard.
Yes, until the regs come into force, you can still just have whatever. Yes, those are the standards for the pfd's that must be used. These standards are clear in what can be used.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”