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

TWSC
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:16 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by TWSC »

TailwheelPilot wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:59 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 797
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4059
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 »

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.
---------- 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 »

valleyboy wrote: Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:31 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 797
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4059
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 »

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!
---------- ADS -----------
 
FADEC
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2565
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by Meatservo »

FADEC wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:33 am.
I have the yellow lifejackets in pouches to be legal; they will likely never be used
Hopefully your new ones won't, either!
---------- ADS -----------
 
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
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'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.
---------- 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. »

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: 4059
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 »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4763
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by 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?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2565
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by Meatservo »

trey kule wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:57 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
shimmydampner
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by shimmydampner »

trey kule wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:57 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4763
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Mandatory life jacket wearing coming for most seaplanes

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4059
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: 4059
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: 4059
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 -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”