Beaver Crash

[Alberta_Canada]

Would it be unreasonable to wear survival suits over the larger bodies of water? I used to have to wear one when on the helicopter rides to the platform when I was in offshore oil/gas. They offered the buoyancy without the bulk of an inflated life jacket....and also equipped with an ELT. I am a really poor swimmer but found the dunk training/window egress very manageable with those suits.

[Schooner69A]

I think DAR is on to something. In the event of an emergency during overwater flight, you are going to be on the water in an extremely short time – anywhere from a minute upwards - and you are either going to stay afloat or turn turtle. If the former, then when you don your flotation device becomes immaterial for you may not even require it. If the latter, however, timing is everything and if your device is not on and ready for inflation when you are clear of the aircraft, then you may well perish. So, it becomes a problem of risk analysis: where is the greater danger: wearing the life vest with the attendant risk that someone may inflate theirs prior to touchdown, thereby blocking all access to an escape route or not wearing it and possibly ensuring certain death by drowning due to a subsequent inability to don said device.
I have no fixed wing float experience, but, in my limited rotary wing over-water flights, I ensured that all personnel were wearing life jackets. Engine failure in a one horse helicopter at five hundred feet will have you trying to keep the rotor out of the water in thirty seconds or so. In any wave action over a few feet, most helicopters will try to keep the bottom of their floats dry…
I think the reluctance to have passengers don flotation devices on the dock at the start of a trip has more to do with optics than any concern about their inadvertent airborne activation.

[CD]

Assessment of the response to aviation safety recommendation A11–06
Wearing of personal flotation devices

Background
On 29 November 2009, the Seair Seaplanes Ltd. de Havilland DHC–2 MK 1 (serial number 1171, registration C–GTMC) was departing Lyall Harbour, Saturna Island, for the water aerodrome at the Vancouver International Airport, British Columbia. After an unsuccessful attempt at taking off downwind, the pilot took off into the wind towards Lyall Harbour. At approximately 1603 Pacific Standard Time, the aircraft became airborne, but remained below the surrounding terrain. The aircraft turned left, then descended and collided with the water. Persons nearby responded immediately; however, by the time they arrived at the aircraft, the cabin was below the surface of the water. There were 8 persons on board; the pilot and an adult passenger survived and suffered serious injuries.

The Board concluded its investigation and released report A09P0397 on 17 March 2011.

Board Recommendation A11–06 (17 March 2011)
In many accidents when occupants escape from sinking aircraft, they egress without life vests, which may result in drowning. It has been shown that those inside a sinking aircraft understandably focus on escaping from it. In their haste to escape, occupants either do not often have enough time to locate and don a life vest or they overlook doing so. In this accident, 2 of the seriously injured occupants were able to escape from the aircraft, but neither person, including the pilot who had been trained for underwater egress, managed to retrieve a life vest from the aircraft. Had they not used nearby boat bumpers to stay afloat, they could easily have drowned.

Some operators, notably Transport Canada (TC) with its fleet of aircraft, require those in aircraft taking off or landing on water to wear approved life vests. Such a requirement eliminates the need for occupants to search for their life vest and, after they escape from the aircraft, the life vest is ready for use. Without a personal flotation device, and in the absence of other rescue capabilities, there is higher risk that survivors of water impact would drown.

The TSB has previously recommended (A94–07) that seaplane occupants be required to wear personal flotation devices during flight. A number of objections to this solution have been raised by the regulator and industry, including emergency inflation before egress hampering the wearer and impeding the egress of others, sizing issues, especially over thick outer clothing, and discomfort. These objections may have some validity when considering traditional life vest models. Recent developments in personal flotation device design include such things as manually–inflated belt packs, which are donned only after inflation. When combined with an appropriate and well–understood passenger briefing, such devices would effectively counter those objections.

The evidence continues to support the conclusion that, unless persons don a personal flotation device, they are unlikely to use one after escaping an aircraft in water.

Therefore, the Board recommends that:

The Department of Transport require that occupants of commercial seaplanes wear a device that provides personal flotation following emergency egress.
A11–06

Transport Canada's Response to A11–06 (10 June 2011)
Transport Canada (TC) has over the years taken steps to address floatplane safety through safety promotion and awareness campaigns, as well as regulatory actions. TC will run an updated floatplane safety campaign during the summer of 2011.

TC issued Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA) on June 6, 2011, with its focus on commercial and private float plane operators and pilots, recommending the following best practices in relation to floatplane safety:

•Upper body restraints to be used by front seat occupants;
•Briefing passengers on the proper usage of floatation devices during emergency egress;
•Underwater emergency egress training for flight crew; and
•Aircraft safety design improvements facilitating egress.

In August 2011, TC will hold a focus group with selected members of industry to determine the most effective means of addressing the recommendations related to rapid egress and the mandatory use of personal floatation devices. The conclusion of the focus group will be presented to the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council (CARAC) by the spring of 2012 as the basis for amendments to the rules and any proposed rule changes will be consulted expeditiously. TC will also expedite the implementation of proposed regulatory amendments which have already been consulted, which will provide for increased flexibility in the possible types of Personal Flotation Devices.

Board Assessment of Transport Canada's Response to A11–06 (13 July 2011)
In its response, TC indicated that it will hold a focus group, in part, to determine the most effective means of addressing the recommendation related to the mandatory use of personal floatation devices. The conclusions of the focus group will be presented to CARAC by the spring of 2012 as the basis for amendments to the rules and any proposed rule changes will be consulted expeditiously. In the meantime, TC is continuing its safety promotion and awareness campaigns and encourages operators and flight crews to voluntarily adopt best industry practices in relation to floatplane safety.

The conclusions of the focus group and the following CARAC process may result in changes to the rules related to the use of personal floatation devices for occupants of commercial seaplanes. This could substantially reduce or eliminate the safety deficiency. However, for the present, the action has not been sufficiently advanced to reduce the risks to transportation safety.

Therefore, the response is assessed as Satisfactory Intent.

Transport Canada’s response to A11-06 (04 December 2012)
“TC will introduce a requirement for all commercial seaplane occupants to wear a flotation device at all times. Legal drafting of the proposed amendments is anticipated to begin by the end of 2012. Recommendations A11-05 and A11-06 are advancing together for planned publication in the Canada Gazette in 2014.”

Board assessment of the response to A11-06 (06 March 2013)
In its update TC indicates its intent to implement regulations that will meet the TSB recommendation. This could substantially reduce or eliminate the safety deficiency. However, for the present, the action has not been sufficiently advanced to reduce the risks to transportation safety.

The response is considered Satisfactory Intent.

A SAFETY STUDY OF SURVIVABILITY IN SEAPLANE ACCIDENTS

Report Number SA9401

6.1 Personal Flotation Devices
In view of the continuing vulnerability of the occupants of seaplanes in accidents on the water to drowning, and since nearly four-fifths of fatal seaplane accidents which terminated in the water occurred during the take-off or the approach and landing phase, the Board, having considered advances in permanent wear, damage resistant, inflatable life-jackets, recommends that:

The Department of Transport require that all occupants of seaplanes wear a personal flotation device during the standing, taxiing, take-off, and approach and landing phases of flight.
A94-07

[Cat Driver]

A few years ago I suggested that float plane charter companies issue inflatable life vests to passengers as boarding passes with a briefing on how to work them and when.

I feel a bit better now about the experts here who told me I am past my best before date and I should quit posting here.

Maybe I had all my marbles back then?

[CD]

[PilotDAR]

Would it be unreasonable to wear survival suits over the larger bodies of water?

It is very reasonable. I started using my personal aircraft for over water searches, many at night. I quickly realized that if I splashed, I would be in trouble, as the nearest other help is two hours away. I'd like to be floating and findable when they arrive. So I bought a Mustang Ocean Class suit, which I still have twenty years later.

People openly laughed a few times, when I exited a floatplane in October or November wearing it. I suspect that they had never jumped into water at 4 degrees C. I'm an ice water rescue trainer - I have.

I still wear the Mustang Ocean Class for wheel plane searches (no expectation of actually entering the water on purpose), and I wear a Mustang Ice Commander dry suit when I am flying the amphibian, as I might be exiting into the water.

When I took the kids whale watching in Victoria (no whales) and in Nova Scotia (lots of whales), we were required to wear floater suits - as it should be! Why would traveling by floatplane be any different? The optics of wearing safety equipment appropriate to the flight are a lot better than the optics of drowning!

And, as I fly around with my inflatable lifejacket on, I remind myself that even for a land forced landing, wouldn't an airbag be reassuring for the sudden stop if I muck it up!

Not wearing a life jacket, is not not wearing safety glasses with the bench grinder, or hearing protection with the chainsaw - just dumb!

[phillyfan]

The timeline on that back and forth between the TSB and TC just makes a guy shake his head. In response to an accident in 2009 they are hoping to implement a change in 2014? How many people have drowned since 2009 while the wheels of bureaucracy have ground along?
The fact is that the opposition to the jackets is coming from a few industry dinosaurs. It's the old "We've done it this way for years" response. It happened with seatbelts, airbags, helmets in Football and Hockey etc. etc.
Personally I would take my chances with being slowed down by a guy with a prematurely inflated life jacket. If my other option is a swim to shore with multiple injuries and no life jacket?
I would be curious to know how many yellow life jackets tightly sealed in a plastic bag are removed from crashed airplanes where people drowned outside the airplane?

[CpnCrunch]

The fact is that the opposition to the jackets is coming from a few industry dinosaurs.

Here is a list of westcoast floatplane operators that require passengers to wear lifejackets:

Pat Bay Air Ltd
Air Cab
Bella Coola Air Ltd

[frozen solid]

If I may, I might be a bit of a dinosaur. I find that people are so hysterical about safety that it's hard for me to figure out what is sensible and what is a knee-jerk reaction and a largely "optical" solution. Maybe I'm not talking about lifejackets specifically as much as I am talking about the fact that you can't have a dissenting viewpoint when it comes to anything anyone comes up with, no matter how silly, fussy, or ineffectual, as long as it is for "safety", unless you want to be called "stupid" or a "dinosaur". Now, I get the life-jacket thing. I don't wear one currently and have never considered it in a floatplane. I fly floatplanes for a living. I have accepted the wisdom of having a twin otter co-pilot wear an inflatable life preserver when he is outside the aircraft on the float and the aircraft is moving. This thread has me thinking about why I don't like the idea of wearing one myself in the cockpit. Maybe this train of thought will result in me wearing one. I have no opposition to safety paraphernalia, as endless as it seems to be, as long as it's sensible. But the world seems determined to make sure we don't leave our houses without first making sure we're wearing our gauntlets, goggles, helmets, kneepads, orange vests, backup beepers, lifejackets, and maybe a giant spring up our asses to make sure we don't fall over.

There have been accidents where people have been found dead inside submerged planes because the exits were clogged up with inflated lifejackets. There have been accidents where people have been found dead inside submerged planes because their clothing, perhaps even life-jackets, has snagged on something, preventing their escape. All of the people I know who have died aboard a floatplane have expired due to having been crushed, burned, ripped apart, or drowned because they were trapped. I'm not sure how many I've even heard of that expired due to having drowned after they've successfully left the aircraft. Oh, I'm sure there have been a FEW, but relatively speaking? Do these represent the majority or even a significant minority of seaplane victims?

I don't think I'm going to label a seaplane pilot "stupid" quite yet if he chooses not to actually wear his lifejacket while sitting in the cockpit. Not until it's considered "stupid" not to wear a helmet while flying a land-plane, anyway. I'll always have one close by, but I'm not really considering wearing one full-time inside the plane. Maybe in the future it will be considered "stupid" to even get into a floatplane, with or without a lifejacket. One thing is for sure, all of the people who ever died in a plane crash were "stupid" enough to get in the plane in the first place. Maybe it's a bad idea altogether.

[Cat Driver]

but I'm not really considering wearing one full-time inside the plane.

For sure you do not need a briefing about waiting until you are out of the airplane.

So what real problems does wearing one while flying present?

[frozen solid]

Well, you are right, Cat Driver. I always make sure it's there, but I guess it just never occurred to me. Like I said, this thread has got me thinking about it. I guess I just don't want to. I'm kind of a big guy, getting into and out of my seat in the Twin Otter, Otter and Beaver is a bit of a squeeze, and I don't like the added bulk, I don't like how the shoulder harness feels pressing against the vest, I wouldn't want the inflation lanyard to snag on my way in or out of the cockpit, I don't know. It sounds petty but I guess I just don't really feel all that "at risk" without it. Maybe you are right. My god, maybe I'm "stupid"!!! It used to be considered UNsafe to wear loose, flappy clothing like diaphanous plastic safety vests and life-jackets around machinery, now it's de rigeur. Considering the "cons" of perpetually wearing something that can get snagged on things in an aircraft against the "pros" of having it on instead of just handy, I don't think I'm quite convinced. I acknowledge that I might just be wrong, though.

[Cat Driver]

For sure it is a personal decision to wear or not wear one and there are pros and cons for everything.

I got used to wearing them water bombing and I guess the habit just stuck with me.

I guess it is sort of like the arguments about having a gun.

It is better having a gun you don't need than needing a gun you don't have.

[frozen solid]

I find it easier to imagine having trouble getting out of the plane with it snagged on something, or blowing up in my face while I'm getting in and out, than it is to imagine getting out of the wreck scot-free and gently bobbing to the surface. Anyway you'll need to take it off if you are thinking about diving back down there to help other people whose life-jackets have snagged on things or inflated inside the wreck. I think you're taking a risk wearing it, and I think you're taking a risk by NOT wearing it. I choose not to. I would never call someone "stupid" for wearing one, with the risks that entails, and I expect the same courtesy in return.

Also, I really do not believe that most laypeople are really capable of staying calm enough to not panic and pull the tabs while still inside the aircraft. You can't rely on thinking behaviour in a panic situation. I find it extremely easy to imagine a planeload of stampeding, panicking people all pulling the tabs at once and getting jammed up in the exit, like a bad comedy routine. I think this new belief in the power of the pre-donned lifejacket is a bit of a fad. I would still like to know how many people in recent seaplane crashes would have benefitted from having their lifejackets on. The lifejacket argument seems like a bit of a red herring to me for that reason. I'm a bigger fan of the quickly-jettison-able doors and windows, and full shoulder restraints for seaplane passengers. This seems like a more "real world" solution, but it would cost money and people are always looking for a red-herring issue to sidestep the real one if it saves them some money. Maybe once seaplanes are made more crash-worthy, and easy to escape from, we should re-visit the lifejacket issue.

Regardless, I can predict being branded a heretic for my blatantly "anti-safety" stance here, so I am going to avoid commenting further.

[xsbank]

I think a well-reasoned missive like that one won't get you branded anything except someone with an ability to construct an argument. Thing is, there is no consensus about wearing lifejackets in floaters and I personally agree with the get out argument myself. If you are buoyant in an inverted, sunk a/c you will never get out. However, in the cold water we operate over, getting dunked will start your slide to death by hypothermia in under 30 minutes so the real solution is to not crash. Most boaters drown from the gasp reflex from the cold water, as soon as they hit it they gasp a lungful of water and are finished unless they can float to the surface.

There is no simple answer. It does seem incredibly ironic that TC would only certify ex-military Beavers if the jettisonable doors were deleted and the "skylights" that were useful in a steep turn were covered. What were those bozos thinking, allowing a Beaver to have those stupid inside back door handles that can't be easily reached by the middle passengers, or allowing back seat passengers that can't get out without shoving the centre seat and maybe three passengers forward, out of the way? Somebody got paid off for that one, methinks.

[PilotDAR]

I love my daughter. I swim better than she does. When I'm in the boat or the plane I wear my life jacket, so she happily wears hers. Now, she asks for it. She looks to me for guidance in life, and a good example. So I set the best I can.

How would non aviation minded passengers be any different in their thinking. If they see the pilot wearing a life jacket, they will be inclined toward doing the same.

If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do they all drown?

If my passenger did not follow my briefing and blew the life jacket I provided and insisting upon their wearing, I did my best. I won't feel guilty bobbing in the water if they could not get out. If I drown not wearing one, I will spend an eternity thinking of my daughter saying "daddy......".

If the life jacket feels uncomfortable under the shoulder harness, does the shoulder harness itself feel uncomfortable? Why wear it then?

If I die in an aircraft, boat or car, everyone will say, "well, he did his best, he always wore the proper safety gear..."

I have personally lifted several drowned people out of the water, who were not wearing a life jacket. I have never lifted a drowned person who was wearing one. I got the message early on!

When I took police marine training, not only did we have to wear really uncomfortable torso armour white water life jackets, but helmets too. By day three, my partner in the boat had used his helmet - but that was extreme boating! When I finally got back to wearing the inflatable life jacket, it felt so much nicer!

[Rowdy]

Wow! an avcan thread with no name calling, brow beating or down putting? Amazing!

I think we're on the right track here, frozen solid, I'm pretty sure we know each other I also agree with you as there are lots of areas where safety precautions havent done anything to improve safety. High vis vests anyone? I wouldnt call you a dinosaur. A sceptic maybe.. but we're then one in the same.

For all aircraft, we can agree that surviving the impact is the primary concern. A lack of appropriate harness is going to knock you unconscious. Hello Dash, meet mr. forehead! Pretty simple. Magnify that in a seaplane by now being IN water and most likely upside down. Life vest or not, you my friend have drowned. Now, one has to get OUT of the aircraft effectively (assuming you havent married your face with the panel). Those original rear door handles in the beav? Disaster. Even the front ones are a travesty. Assuming they arent crushed together and unopenable, you're most likely upside down. Hmm.. Pretty hard to tell in a panic which way is up in the dark and cold water. So there are lots of variables here.

CpnCrunch. Interesting that you point out BCA as now wearing PFDs. I flew for wayne briefly (he's a hell of a good guy in my books). I'm sure most of you know that story.. and he did not, at the time, wear them. When I made a comment about it to him, and had my own, he looked at me with a funny face and asked why I felt the need. Thankfully he's a bright chap and just let me do my own thing. I guess when he went for a swim in the 185 the following year he figured it might have been a good idea and I was on to something. Or maybe I'm totally out to lunch. IIRC the 185 has 4 pointers up front too.

My honest opinion for commercial passenger carrying seaplane ops is this :

1) 4 point harnesses for both front seats
2) PFD's for everyone in the AC and like . said, use them as boarding passes!
3) Egress training for every last driver.
4) better means of breifing PAX. Perhaps we need them to be a little frightened?(cant count how many dont listen)
5) accessible door handles/jettisonable doors or some other easy means of egress.
6) MANDATORY GPS tracking of all aircraft with proper/trained dispatch. No more of this self dispatched BS.

and finally.. why on earth are we still flying around in this day and age with archaic barely VFR 6 packs?!?!? GPS/TAWS/TCAS should be mandatory.



THIS is what a beav panel should look like.. not this (below)

[xsbank]

See the wrinkles on the right side of that bottom Beav's panel? Somebody smoked it with their forehead. No harnesses in that old girl.

[shimmydampner]

and finally.. why on earth are we still flying around in this day and age with archaic barely VFR 6 packs?!?!?

Because they are day VFR machines?

GPS/TAWS/TCAS should be mandatory.

That's an awful lot of fancy expensive stuff to have flying around with the circuit breakers pulled.

Fancy displays and gizmos are nice to have but that's all. They're no replacement for a good bush pilot with a brain. Any Beaver pilot worth their salt should be fully capable of doing their job just as safely with either panel in front of them. If not, it ain't the panel that needs adjusting.

[Doc]

They're no replacement for a good bush pilot with a brain. Any Beaver pilot worth their salt should be fully capable of doing their job just as safely with either panel in front of them. If not, it ain't the panel that needs adjusting.

Well, as long as they keep dying in float plane crashes, do you think we should stick our heads in the sand, and hope things will improve? The old school thinking isn't working. How many accidents on this forum alone? TOO MANY! Lets mandate some of these operators to start protecting pilots, not killing them! I see a turbo Otter almost every time I go to a certain airport, who doesn't even have a transponder???? A million dollar engine....and not even a basic transponder? Priorities people. Priorities!

[shimmydampner]

The old school thinking isn't working.

My point exactly.
Do you think glass cockpits in bush planes is the answer?

[frozen solid]

Just as an off-topic comment, as pretty as it is, I find that wipaire panel annoying. I don't see why Wipline thought it was necessary to change the engine quadrant to that squared-off box from the quirky art-deco original. I don't really like anything Wipline does actually, but "de-DeHavilland-ing" the beaver to the extent they did was crass. In my opinion of course.

PilotDAR, you make some excellent points. I'll ask though, how many of those living people wearing lifejackets did you pull out of a seaplane wreck? In your private seaplane (which I love, is it a Volmer? I think I asked that before), it is easier to make a point for the lifejackets, you have a canopy and cockpit that would be easy to swim out of, and your crew and passengers amount to one other person who you can easily monitor and help.

The point I was making is, I can see pros and cons, and they kind of cancel each other out for me. The only reason I mention discomfort is that, everything else being equal, it's why I just don't like wearing them. The type of seaplane I fly, the number of people it can carry and the nature/location of the exits make me feel safer and less encumbered by not wearing one. I am always sure to have one within reach but I do not wear one. I would not trust my passengers to be able to restrain themselves from blowing them up and endangering others in the process, and at the very least without loose, flappy, buoyant clothing it may be easier to help them out of the plane through the small exits. If the air regulations require that I compel my passengers to wear floatation at all times, I will enforce this regulation, naturally.

I appreciate all the different points of view here though. I just thought I'd chip in because I feel a bit different than some other people about it, but yet others have my point of view. It's interesting. I'd hate to see the legislation change without debate on the subject, only to see seaplane drownings increase due to people being trapped in the planes. XSbank couldn't be more correct saying that we should all redouble our efforts not to crash, then we won't need to find out who is right.

I've taken the emergency underwater egress training and can't recommend it highly enough.

Rowdy, I'm pretty sure we have met at some point. Did we have coffee together ten years ago near Uxbridge? If not, then we must know each other through Kenn Borek friends or something.

On the subject of instruments, I saw a turbo Otter that had what looked like the "silver crown" avionics package; it had a basic HSI coupled to the VOR receiver as well as the GPS, it had a radar altimeter and a backup "peanut" electric gyro. Just these basic improvements would make beavers and otters much safer and wouldn't weigh or cost a whole bunch. What drives me nuts is the vacuum instruments on most turbo Otters. The instruments themselves are fine, but this particular installation (Vazar) has a regular vacuum pump on a pad on the back of the PT6. I don't think these vacuum pumps particularly like being on a PT6. I estimated they would fail about every 200 hours, and of course the indication of failure would be the horizon rolling over and dying on me. Hopefully not in 2 miles visibility over the Georgia Straight, but this is invariably when it will fail.

[Nwtflier]

That's an awful lot of fancy expensive stuff to have flying around with the circuit breakers pulled.

That terrain mute button definitely came in handy on floats, skis and off strip work. The way I always saw it is what is more important, being able to talk to/ listen to the skipper in a challenging situation or hear that freaking woman yelling at me to pull up.

As far as the single pilot stuff goes, the minimums that the computer starts yelling at you about your altitude is a lot higher than the pilots limit, it would not take very long for the circuit breakers to be pulled rather than just pressing the mute button. That's the nature of the business, weather is going to be tested and if it sucks, then you turn around. Turning around being the key point. The terrain alerter on takeoff and landing is synced to the GPS (if I recall correctly) and if the GPS thinks that there is an airport then there's no problem. But when was the last time a float beaver landed at a recognized airport?

[PilotDAR]

I'll ask though, how many of those living people wearing lifejackets did you pull out of a seaplane wreck?

Admittedly, none, the people were already out, and wearing lifejackets, for my experience.

I am always sure to have one within reach but I do not wear one.

If the lifejacket is within reach, but not attached to you, that will mean that to be floating in it moments later, you're going to have to:

Remember you'll need it in a moment,
Find it,
Grab it,
Hold it,
Exit with only one hand available ('cause the other one is now busy), not stop to help someone else out along the way (cause you're going to have to drop the lifejacket to have one hand to hold with and the other to help with),
Not drop it through any of this,
and, Don it with a broken arm.

Now you can inflate it. Or, better, the person who finds you barely floating, can inflate it for you to save your life, which they cannot do for you, if it is not on you already.

I am far from a legal expert, bu I am imagining being the pilot on the stand being cross examined:

"Mr. Owner/Operator/ Pilot, is it correct that although your aircraft was equipped with stowed lifejackets, as required by regulation, you did not require your passengers to wear it?"

"Yes, I did not require my passenger to wear the lifejacket, 'cause the regulation does not say I have to."

"Well, did you suggest that they could wear it if they wanted to?"

"Um, no, we can't be sure our passengers won't blow the lifejackets in the cabin, and we don't like those little bags to be opened, and have to repack them."

"So my client's husband, who have exited the aircraft safely, and helped out three other passengers, then drowned, because you think that he might not follow your instruction to not pull the tab, and you don't like to repack lifejackets....?"

You can imagine watching that on TV!

Yes, I agree that Mae West, blowing a Mae West in the cabin, is a dramatic increase in risk for everyone, but I think that risk, which can be well mitigated with a good briefing, and perhaps a reminder, if there is time, is a lot lower than the risk of drowning afterword. If Mae does blow the lifejacket, and get jammed, there is a possibility to cut it, and push her out, there will certainly be motivation! However, I'm not Mae, and so far, she has not been my passenger, so I'm wearing it for all the other reasons!

But, all this is politely spoken, just to keep the individual thinking going on this subject. Regulation will catch up later!

(which I love, is it a Volmer? I think I asked that before)

It's a Teal, of which 36 were made, and only a couple are left flying. It was a production plane of the '70's, designed by Dave Thurston, who had a lot to do with many flying boats, including the Lake amphibian. He told me that he designed the Teal to correct the mistakes he thought he made when he designed the Lake (as the Skimmer, back then).

The Teal is a poor handling landplane, a moderate airplane, but a magnificent boat that I can fly to where I need it, from my back yard!

[GUMPS]

There's alot of good points in this thread and it hasn't drifted into the "back when" days. Keep it this way.

Frozen Solid. I'm not sure if you read my posts but it seems like you and I are on the same page here along with likely very similar jobs. If it became mandated I'd have to adapt to this regulation even though I wouldn't be eye to eye with it. Wouldn't be the first time in my (what's start to feel like) long enough career.

Whover said the whip-panel on the beaver was awful, I couldn't agree more. Everything from the cessna seats to the flat panel to the electric flaps sucks. I'll take a classic panel beaver with a reliable up to date GPS and a radio stack/transponder any day. I don't need TAWS screaming at me as I'm off the water making the power reduction every morning.

PilotDAR. I understand your points to wearing a life jacket in your aircraft and your daughter wearing one. However that's a private aircraft with minimal passengers. When it comes to something the size of an otter I see it different. Forget about myself or the guy in my right seat wearing a life jacket for a minute. We have a door beside us. Think about the two people who are sitting in the back right up at the bulkhead behind me. It's a long way to those two back doors from there. Really long if there's 7 guys in front of you already trying to get there. Forget about the hatch on the top. Most guys are to fat to get out that glory hole. If one of the seven guys before him pulls his life jacket good luck getting out.

Lets backtrack a minute here. Isn't the routine briefing "in the event of an emegancy your life jacket is (wherever what what airplane) pull the bag out rip the top off put the vest on. Do up the waist straps. Exit the aircraft through the best exit available THEN pull the tabs to inflate once you're clear of the aircraft"???? I understand in a real emergency alot of people would just want to escape though without even thinking about putting the jacket on.

That's just some of my opinions and theories. I'm enjoying this thread and looking forward to what else comes from this.

[CpnCrunch]

Anyway you'll need to take it off if you are thinking about diving back down there to help other people whose life-jackets have snagged on things or inflated inside the wreck.

Only if you've inflated it, but if there are still people that need rescued I imagine you wouldn't inflate it just yet.

I don't like the added bulk, I don't like how the shoulder harness feels pressing against the vest

I'm guessing the problem is maybe that you are using this:



When you should be using this:



The mustang PFDs don't really add any bulk at all and you don't notice you're wearing one. Also they don't make you look like a nerdy douchebag (which perhaps the airline ones do, and that might be why a lot of pilots don't want to wear one