Dye-pack

[Widow]

Any good reason why ALL AIRCRAFT MUST CARRY A DYE-PACK should not be a reg?

[grimey]

It may be good idea for float planes, but I don't see what good it would do a crop duster in SK. I realize you're talking about the accident in BC, but equipment requirements shouldn't be blanketed on everyone, they should depend on the nature of the operation. If someone isn't going to be overflying water, it's just another thing to break, maintain, have an inspector go apeshit over it being missing, etc...

[Widow]

It may be good idea for float planes, but I don't see what good it would do a crop duster in SK. I realize you're talking about the accident in BC, but equipment requirements shouldn't be blanketed on everyone, they should depend on the nature of the operation. If someone isn't going to be overflying water, it's just another thing to break, maintain, have an inspector go apeshit over it being missing, etc...

Ok, adjust it to read "All aircraft which may navigate over large bodies of water" ... it is a cheap and easy way to make things safer.

[mellow_pilot]

Wouldn't it make more sense to put the dye pack in the survival gear (ie raft, or lifejackets)? No sense putting it in an airplane that's at the bottom when the survivors are floating away. That would solve the regualtory problem of who needs it, who doesn't. Make it part of the req. for rafts.

[Widow]

Wouldn't it make more sense to put the dye pack in the survival gear (ie raft, or lifejackets)? No sense putting it in an airplane that's at the bottom when the survivors are floating away. That would solve the regualtory problem of who needs it, who doesn't. Make it part of the req. for rafts.

Since float planes don't require rafts, the dye pack should be on the outside of the plane. Coast Guard helicopters are already using them.

[cyyz]

Since float planes don't require rafts, the dye pack should be on the outside of the plane. Coast Guard helicopters are already using them.

So wouldn't it be easier to make float planes carry rafts? I'd feel safer with a raft then a dye pack...

[Widow]

So wouldn't it be easier to make float planes carry rafts? I'd feel safer with a raft then a dye pack...

I think the thing is, a float planes' floats should float after a forced landing on water. Even if the plane ends up flipping and there is substantial damage, the floats are designed with various compartments to keep the plane afloat. If the floats aren't going to keep it afloat, then getting out a life raft isn't likely to happen either. A dye pack on the other hand would give immediate visual evidence of where the crash site was.

[mellow_pilot]

I don't know about that, I've seen plenty of pictures of float planes resting comfortably 3 feet under water next to the dock.

Maybe the raft isn't the answer, how about lifejackets. That's what the US Navy uses. (as well as the Canadian Forces if I remember correctly, only our dye doesn't attract sharks)

[goldeneagle]

A dye pack on the other hand would give immediate visual evidence of where the crash site was.

Any time something is going to be regulated as 'required' or 'prohibited' on aircraft, there is a process that is followed to reach various conclusions. One of the major steps in the process is a 'System Safety Assessment'. The SSA is a formal document, and required as part of the documentation package for just about any type of certification item. In the case of safety gear, a major part of the SSA is anlaysis of the consequences of accidental deployment. I've never heard of an assessment being done for something like a dye-pack, but, if it was to be done today, the following items would be among those listed and analyzed. If one was attempting to get an approval for installation across the fleet the safety assessment document would be the first one requested by the certification authority, and for a trivial installation, it may well be the only document they look at.

The first thing would be the probability of accidental deployment, with some statistics to estimate how many accidental deployments would occur across the operational fleet over a span of 10 years. Next would be an anyalysis of the corrosive nature of the dye, along with the type of short and long term airframe damage that will occur as a result of exposure to the dye from accidental deployment. The summary in this section of the SSA will include statistics to determine approximately the number of people which will be killed across the fleet as a result of carrying the dye pack, due to the damage inflicted on the fleet thru accidental deployments. This would be trivial and easy if the dye in question has no corrosive qualities.

The second section of the SSA will include an analysis of historical incidents, with regard to answering a single question. Would the equipment in question changed the circumstances such that the likelihood of survival would increase? In the case of a dye pack, it would increase the chances of accident site discovery, not sure it would have much affect on surviveability. This is the important section if you are looking to mandate installation across the fleet. If this section doesn't show definitively that a significant number of folks that perished over the years would have been saved by the device in question, then the chances of getting a 'mandatory' stamp on the device approach zero.

The final section of the analysis will be a cost/benefit analysis comparing the results of the prior sections. The item in question could be 'approved for use' if there is not a significant measureable number of deaths attributed to the installation (directly or indirectly). The item could end up 'required by regulation' if the cost benefit shows a substantial increase in overall safety thru surviveability. The item could be prohibited if the item is deemed to have a more negative impact overall.

A very good example in a similar vein is the presence (or lack thereof) of flares in aircraft survival kits. Many years ago, a safety assessment determined that accidental deployment would cause a significantly higher number of deaths than would be prevented by having flares in the survival kit. The regulations classify flares as dangerous goods, and restrict the conditions under which they can be carried. It probably doesn't sound right if you happen to be a surviving passenger in a remote location after an incident, but, it's a case of the greater good must prevail. Accidental deployment of flares in flight is going to be a catastrophic event. If every airplane was required to carry them, we'd have more people killed by the safety equipment than we see saved by them over time. In reality, flares are prohibitied unless the operator has authority for carrying dangerous goods, and flight crews have dangerous goods training. There are restrictions on where/how they can be carried.

An even more surprising one, is the emergency locater transmitter (elt). When the initial SSA was done for the ELT, they were mandated across all aircraft in Canada. That actually turned into a major fiasco initially, it turned out that they had batteries that were highly corrosive, and a significant number of airframes took serious damage from leaking elt batteries during the cold of a northern winter. The intial assessment of the elt had not included estimates of how many aircraft would be harmed by the batteries inside the device, and how many deaths would be directly attributable to that as a root cause of the incidents. Transport had to do a lot of backpeddaling and issued blanket waivers across the country to permit removeal of the elt from airplanes while they scrambled to find good replacements for the batteries that were destroying airframes. More than a few airframes were damaged beyond repair when corrosion from elt batteries damaged structural components. Perfectly good airplanes that flew for many years without an elt, turned into rebuild projects after the elt was installed.

I have no idea what the chemical properties of a dye-pack are, and how it'll affect aluminum and fabric with repeated exposure. Without going into any detailed anlysis, and just muttering 'off the top of my head', the first item I'd bring up in an SSA meeting over the devices would probably be to point at the fuel tanks in the airplane. An airplane in the water is already going to put a fuel slick onto the surface, probably some oil as well. The tangible benefits from a dye pack would be minimal over and above the fuel slick. The device would have no impact on incident surviveability, with only a marginal impact on post incident survival ramifications. Without some chemical analysis and metallurgy results, not possible to analyze it's impact on the fleet.

Careful what you ask for sometimes, in particular this case. Pushing for a full analysis of the dye pack is highly unlikely to get them regulated as mandatory. My gut reaction is one could get approval for individual installations, but, the regulatory overhead required with extra inspections etc would make it something nobody bothers with anyways, and there is a possibility that one could end up with the device categorized in 'dangerous goods' or 'prohibited' as a result of the formal analysis. The device itself may have an initial appeal when viewed in the context of a single isolated incident, but, when you step back and look at the big picture, the overall effect fleet wide will be insignificant, and, potentially detrimental.

[cyyz]

Maybe the raft isn't the answer, how about lifejackets. That's what the US Navy uses. (as well as the Canadian Forces if I remember correctly, only our dye doesn't attract sharks)

ROFL, you don't even need life jackets on a floater??

A dye pack on the other hand would give immediate visual evidence of where the crash site was.

And not to stir the pot, but in your elt post you mentioned the ELT didn't go off, so not knowing how long the dye remains in the water, having a splotch of dye/ink in the water is going to be useless to the pax, unless SAR are away immediately.

Aren't Yachts mandated to carry rafts? Isn't that the principle of a boat, to float?? Transport forces them to carry rafts(inflatable dingies or what have you), so since transport deems it appropriate for a boat, which "floats" you'd think they'd have the same logic when it comes to "float planes."

Again, I know why air carriers wouldn't want it, costs, but if you want to push something(and not to back up CID, or affiliate myself with him) if you want something that will save lives, push for floaters to carry life vests(if they already do not) or the rafts/dingies, because the dye pack, well anyways, my 2 cents....

[Flybabe]

Just as another view on this..

I've lived in YBL. I've seen the currents through the passage... what would be the "useful life" of a dye after an incident?

Seems to me the evidence would be washed away quickly, and with that, dissipated?

[cyyz]

Seems to me the evidence would be washed away quickly, and with that, dissipated?

Atleast TC and the operator could say, "oh we had it in place..." and wash their hands of the problem as usual...

How about flares atleast?? Maybe they'd be a bit better, in reference to the crash off the shore a few miles out, a flare would have maybe caught the attention of someone...

[Widow]

Since there are already dye-markers in place for marine vessels AND approved for the survival gear aboard 703's, they should be easily made available to add as a regulation. Again, a cheap easy way to possibly save lives. Are already being used by Coast Guard helicopters. Here is an example of a dye-marker saving a life....


"SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- A Navy seaman caught in the backdraft of a jet aboard the USS Constellation was swept into the ocean off the California coast early Saturday, surviving seven hours in 62-degree water before being rescued, authorities said.

Michael Harris of Dillsburg, Pa., was standing in a gully directly behind an EA6B Prowler when the pilot fired up the engine.

The force sent the sailor overboard as two other sailors nearby tried to grab him, said Navy Lt. Wendy Snyder. Harris, who was working on the flight deck for the first time, plunged 65 feet into the water.

"He was definitely in the water a good seven hours and he was very, very lucky because the estimated survival time is roughly 41/2 hours," said Cmdr. Jacquie Yost, a spokeswoman for the Navy's Third Fleet. "He spoke to his mother once he got back to the ship."

Harris, 21, was not spotted until 7:20 a.m. though the fleet immediately launched search-and-rescue helicopters -- including those from the Constellation, USS Valley Forge and USS Kinkaid -- and inflatable boats.

"Though they started the search immediately, you've got darkness out there, it was real dark," she said.

A flare in Harris' life vest didn't work, his helmet, with a strip that glows in the dark, was knocked off in the fall and no one heard a whistle he used.

Finally, at day break, Harris unleashed a dye pack that turned the water around him fluorescent green. A helicopter from the USS Bunker Hill spotted him, and he was picked up by a helicopter from USS Constellation.

"Needless to say, we've been incredibly lucky. Thank the good Lord," said Capt. John Miller, Constellation's commanding officer.

Harris is based out of Lemoore Naval Air Station, located near Fresno -- the same air station from which two F/A-18-F jets collided Friday, leaving four pilots missing.

The Constellation was located just off the coast of Southern California and has been conducting exercises before heading to the North Arabian Gulf region near Iraq, Cmdr. Yost said.

Harris was taken by helicopter to Balboa Naval Hospital in San Diego. He was treated for dehydration but otherwise suffered no broken bones or serious injuries. "

[CLguy]

Who in the hell posted that lifejackets are not mandatory. Of course they are and all float planes must be equipped with them. A life raft is just a bunch more weight to carry around and most likely will be buried in the far end of the aircraft under a bunch of gear where no one could get at it even if they needed it. We actually carry one on board the 415's and it is in the very back. I would be willing to bet that should the time every arise that I needed it, I probably would never be able to access it.

The Dye-Pac is one of the stupidest ideas I have heard of in quite some time. First most bush plane crashes happen either during take off or landing which means it happens where people see it happen or it happens way back in the bush that by the time any search organization even new the aircraft was missing the dye would be long dissapated.

Lets forcus on preventing accidents and not on gimics that will do us no good after the accident happens.

[Widow]

Who in the hell posted that lifejackets are not mandatory. Of course they are and all float planes must be equipped with them. A life raft is just a bunch more weight to carry around and most likely will be buried in the far end of the aircraft under a bunch of gear where no one could get at it even if they needed it. We actually carry one on board the 415's and it is in the very back. I would be willing to bet that should the time every arise that I needed it, I probably would never be able to access it.

The Dye-Pac is one of the stupidest ideas I have heard of in quite some time. First most bush plane crashes happen either during take off or landing which means it happens where people see it happen or it happens way back in the bush that by the time any search organization even new the aircraft was missing the dye would be long dissapated.

Lets forcus on preventing accidents and not on gimics that will do us no good after the accident happens.

You are operating in a completely different environment from the one here on the west coast. Preventing accidents is very important, but they will still happen. Preventing deaths is more important, and since a dye pack has been saving lives in the marine industry for years, it makes sense that an aircraft that operates over large bodies of water, or near the coast, could also benefit from dye-pack standardization.

[CLguy]

Maybe you are right, but you were also advocating all float planes and I am telling you it will do no good inland off the coast. Not sure it will even be of any good on the coast. First define "large body of water". Does that mean big lake, ocean, great lakes???

What scares me is when someone in the right position thinks it is a good idea, whether it is or not, it becomes the law of the whole country. Then once again you have small operators having to open the purse strings to adhere to a law that will never serve any real purpose.

[Johnny]

http://www.safetycentral.com/grfldyemapa.html

Retail dye pack. Says it lasts 30-40 minutes. US$24.00

Main problem is, someone has to be looking for you. Based upon this crash, where the aircraft wasn't officially reported missing until approx two hours later, I'm not sure dye or smoke would have helped at all. Also, it would probably be almost impossible for someone standing on shore (basically at sea level/water height) to notice the dye in the water. I think it's much more of an aerial discovery tool.

[wingtip]

Widow,

Unfortunately, you cannot legislate against every concievable accident scenario. If you want to stop aviation related deaths, stop aviating.

There have been vast improvements in Mechanical parts, Crew resource training, TCAS and Ground prox yet there are still mechanical failures, crew failures, mid air and CFIT accidents.

You can minimize risk but simply cannot rid the industry of risk. Dye markers are not a bad idea but they do not guard against all other risks. It may have helped in your husbands case or it may have made no difference.

I admire your fight and am sorry for your loss. You can take comfort in the fact that your fight and your loss may minimize similar fates in the future.

[grounded]

In a very few cases the dye pack would help, but in most cases it would be just another piece of gear to be carried around. For instance, we carry a stove in our survival gear, but since the fuel is a dangerous good, we can't bring any of that along. We just have to count on keeping the plane intact enough to drain some gas out of it. Same as the first aid kit on a medevac plane, why would you need a box of band-aids and tweezers when you have a fully equipped medevac interior, with all the gear that comes with?

[Widow]

So, dye packs for float planes, since the majority of fatalities in float plane accidents result from drowning after the crash. Still better than an ELT that doesn't work underwater. Passengers must wear life vests with a dye pack in the pocket. At least THE PILOT should wear a vest of some kind and carry a dye pack in his pocket. My husband flew this coast on almost a daily basis ... he never flew without his floater coat.