8 ms·

I don't know how big a deal the harness really is. Even getting out of a helicopter underwater with a regular 4 or 5 point harness with a single-point twist bu

by rdl 9y ago

I don't know how big a deal the harness really is. Even getting out of a helicopter underwater with a regular 4 or 5 point harness with a single-point twist buckle after a crash, especially if the vehicle isn't perfectly vertical, if there's debris or gear inside, etc. is going to be very difficult for anyone who hasn't trained in it. The military has simulators (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POsWGHfHg4M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POsWGHfHg4M) which are way simplified over a real crash, and even that is hard for basically professionals in peak fitness.

lttlrck 9y ago
And even with the ‘perfect’ harness, you still need to keep your composure and only unbuckle when the water stops rushing in. I did a dunk test when I was 15 - remaining composed was the problem, even with rescue divers in scuba gear. We didn’t have air lines in the cabin either (unlike the video you linked) - we had to hold our breath the entire time.
- ars 9y ago
  > and only unbuckle when the water stops rushing in What is the benefit of waiting? So that the water does not "slosh" you around the helicopter?
  - tim333 9y ago
    The water rushing thing is usually for cars with doors closed. When it stops rushing there isn't much pressure on the door so you can open it. It wouldn't be relevant here with no doors.
    - BoorishBears 9y ago
      You can’t easily overcome the force of water rushing into the cabin, and you don’t want to get tumbled around like a ragdoll, so you wait until the cabin is somewhat settled
  - wmoser 9y ago
    I work on an offshore oil rig and have to undergo Helicopter Underwater Egress Training (HUET) every 3 to 4 years. They tell us to wait until the "violent motion has stopped." I think it's so you don't get thrown around the cabin. And yeah, it happens really quick and even when you're expecting it and have been training for it, if you panic you won't get out.
danielvf 9y ago
In this particular helicopter flight the doors were off, and it was a small helicopter. It's a much better situation than a big transport helo going into a pounding ocean. Still terrifying, but in this situation, a simpler release would probably saved a life or two.
- gambiting 9y ago
  Well, the simple seatbelt for the pilot saved his life. But then such a simple belt wouldn't be enough for people hanging out of the helicopter, so it's difficult to find a balance here.
serf 9y ago
don't know how big a deal the harness really is. Even getting out of a helicopter underwater with a regular 4 or 5 point harness with a single-point twist buckle after a crash, especially if the vehicle isn't perfectly vertical, if there's debris or gear inside, etc. is going to be very difficult for anyone who hasn't trained in it. Well, the pilot -- wearing a normal belt -- was the sole survivor; and claims that he tried to disengage the belt of the passenger next to him unsuccessfully before escaping. from the NTSB preliminary report: "After impacting the water, the chin bubble on the pilot's side began to fill with water, which quickly covered the floor. He kept his restraint on and reached down for the front seat passenger's carabiner attachment to the helicopter. He turned the knurled screw "two or three rotations"; by that time, the helicopter was "listing past a 45° roll." He then decided to egress the helicopter, and by the time he unbuckled his restraint, he was fully under water."
- Declanomous 9y ago
  If the harness is anything like the harness I bought from Home Depot to do work on my roof, it would be nearly impossible to get out of quickly. The nylon is the super stiff abrasion resistant kind as well, which I cannot imagine cutting through quickly with a normal strap cutter, which is basically just a razor blade in a plastic handle. The fact that they were screwed to the floor sounds makes it sound egress would be nearly impossible in an emergency. The way those harnesses are designed there is almost no way to free yourself if they are under tension. You effectively need to call someone else to help you get out. On top of all that, the mammalian diving reflex means that unless you are experienced and well-prepared you are probably going to gasp as you go under water. Even a strong swimmer can drown due to the effects of the diving response, most commonly in a chaotic situation where they don't have the time or space they normally would to recover. Of course given the chaos I don't think you could say everyone would have survived with different belts on, but I think it would have been much more likely.
  - FabHK 9y ago
    And of course, you don't want the harness to detach easily under tension either (that sort of defeats the purpose). Tricky tradeoff; and it really looks like this company cared about their revenue much more than safety, and was not in a position to navigate that tradeoff well.
cyberferret 9y ago
Does anyone know if the harnesses were attached to the mount points inside the helicopter using spring clip carabiners? IMO that would have been the 'go to' point to release themselves from the helicopter, if the harness didn't have a quick release clip on the body. Carabiner attachments inside the cabin would hopefully also made it easier for passengers and crew to release each other's harnesses if someone was incapacitated or panicking? Note: I've watched offshore rig crew friends of mine going through 'ditching' training in the pool simulator, and can attest that keeping calm and methodical under the circumstances can be extremely difficult, even under controlled conditions.
- ndespres 9y ago
  Not spring clip, the NTSB report says they were the screw type. Even so, the article states that it would have been difficult for a passenger to reach their own clip, and even if they had, would be difficult to undo it. They even provided "seatbelt cutters" to passengers to deal with this situation which also didn't work (according to the article). So many failures happening here.
  - cyberferret 9y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. Yes, screw type carabiners would have been infinitely harder to try and release quickly. I feel for those poor unfortunate passengers.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  Getting access to the mount point on the helicopter is too difficult if you're tipped over and hanging off of it while immersed in frigid water. Much better would be a parachute style quick release on your own body.
userbinator 9y ago
Many years ago I remember taking a ride on a custom-designed vehicle (not a flying one --- don't recall exactly, it might've been a ground/water tour), and distinctly remember that they used regular automotive seatbelts --- there was a GM logo visible on them. Something like that would've been far easier to release in an emergency, whereas in this case it seems they used locking carabiners that take a considerable amount of time and fine motor skill to manipulate.
- Too 9y ago
  A standard automotive seatbelt would also be easier to accidentally release in mid air when you are hanging through the open doors.
lb1lf 9y ago
-I've done this in simulator a few dozen times (mandatory training for anyone boarding a helicopter for going offshore, refresher courses every four years.) It is difficult enough in the simulator - which, as you say, simplify matters immensely over an actual crash: a) The pool with the simulator is well lit. Many places, it is even heated, so you don't get the added stress of being lowered into icy cold water. b) Each participant has a dedicated rescue diver sitting opposite him, ready to assist at any sign of trouble. c) The simulator is lowered into the water in a controlled fashion, without any jolts. d) There's only one seat by each window, so you don't have to first help your mate out, then exit yourself. Incidentally, I've found it is much easier to get out after the cabin is inverted - your buoyancy makes you pop from your seat like a cork the moment you open the harness; being inverted, you are being pushed towards your seat, and all you need to do is to pop out the window, grab the opening with one hand, undo the buckle with the other and pull yourself out. Much simpler when your buoyancy works with you than against you. During my last refresher, we asked whether we could make it a bit more realistic by putting out the lights and leaving a few newspapers and such in the cabin (for floating around once it filled with water, further disorienting you.) We were told in no uncertain terms that wouldn't happen; it was deemed too risky for the rescue divers - who were fully kitted out with oxygen an'all. Note to self: I do not want to be in a helicopter emergency landing on water. Ever.
- rdl 9y ago
  I did about ~30 offshore helicopter flights to Sealand (~20km offshore UK) in 1999-2002 and never did a simulator. I don't even remember a preflight brief. I'm glad I didn't know how dangerous it was at the time. Of course, given that we weren't wearing exposure suits or anything, it would probably have been quick death vs. slower death in any accident.
  - lb1lf 9y ago
    Mea culpa, I should have added '...in my jurisdiction'. (Norway) I haven't looked into the legal background, but my guess is that offshore workers' unions have lobbied for it - and, most likely, it only applies to flights to/from sites operated by major players. Also, some countries refuse to recognize training from other countries (Brazil, I am looking at you!) - so you end up having to do the same basic training in [n] jurisdictions, having [n] different certificates on you at all times, all with their individual refresher requirements...
downandout 9y ago
>I don't know how big a deal the harness really is. Given that your odds of survival are 0% if you are effectively chained to a sinking helicopter, and are at least greater than 0% if you are not, I'd say it's a big deal. Further, the articles I've read said that the helicopter was hovering over Central Park when the fuel was shutoff, and in fact the pilot considered landing there before deciding that there were too many people around. Had he known that his passengers had a 0% chance of escaping once he landed on water, I imagine he would have attempted to land in Central Park.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Not sure where you're getting this information from, but helicopters aren't allowed to fly over Manhattan. You can see the flight route of the doomed helicopter here: http://abc7ny.com/map-shows-exact-path-helicopter-took-over-east-river/3203330/ http://abc7ny.com/map-shows-exact-path-helicopter-took-over-... It was over the river the entire time. It wasn't over Central Park, just far north enough to be near it. Trying to make it to Central Park from the river with no engine power could have had a worse outcome if he'd not been able to make it and ended up striking a building; then everyone on the copter would still be dead, including whoever was hit on land.
  - downandout 9y ago
    > Not sure where you're getting this information from For starters, the article we are commenting on itself. ”While hovering over Central Park, [the pilot] told them, the single-engine helicopter, an AS350 B2 model made by Airbus, suddenly lost power.” And then of course the NTSB report [1]: ”[The pilot] then observed engine pressure and fuel pressure warning lights and believed he had experienced an engine failure. He lowered the collective pitch control to maintain rotor rpm and let the nose continue to turn to the right. Central Park came into view and he briefly considered landing there but thought there were "too many people.”" That’s where I got my information, and I consider both of them to be fairly credible sources considering that both of them quote the pilot directly and one of them is the NTSB. [1] https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20180311X13013&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=MA https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?E...

by rdl 9y ago

lttlrck 9y ago

And even with the ‘perfect’ harness, you still need to keep your composure and only unbuckle when the water stops rushing in. I did a dunk test when I was 15 - remaining composed was the problem, even with rescue divers in scuba gear. We didn’t have air lines in the cabin either (unlike the video you linked) - we had to hold our breath the entire time.

ars 9y ago
> and only unbuckle when the water stops rushing in What is the benefit of waiting? So that the water does not "slosh" you around the helicopter?
- tim333 9y ago
  The water rushing thing is usually for cars with doors closed. When it stops rushing there isn't much pressure on the door so you can open it. It wouldn't be relevant here with no doors.
  - BoorishBears 9y ago
    You can’t easily overcome the force of water rushing into the cabin, and you don’t want to get tumbled around like a ragdoll, so you wait until the cabin is somewhat settled
- wmoser 9y ago
  I work on an offshore oil rig and have to undergo Helicopter Underwater Egress Training (HUET) every 3 to 4 years. They tell us to wait until the "violent motion has stopped." I think it's so you don't get thrown around the cabin. And yeah, it happens really quick and even when you're expecting it and have been training for it, if you panic you won't get out.

danielvf 9y ago

In this particular helicopter flight the doors were off, and it was a small helicopter. It's a much better situation than a big transport helo going into a pounding ocean. Still terrifying, but in this situation, a simpler release would probably saved a life or two.

gambiting 9y ago
Well, the simple seatbelt for the pilot saved his life. But then such a simple belt wouldn't be enough for people hanging out of the helicopter, so it's difficult to find a balance here.

serf 9y ago

don't know how big a deal the harness really is. Even getting out of a helicopter underwater with a regular 4 or 5 point harness with a single-point twist buckle after a crash, especially if the vehicle isn't perfectly vertical, if there's debris or gear inside, etc. is going to be very difficult for anyone who hasn't trained in it. Well, the pilot -- wearing a normal belt -- was the sole survivor; and claims that he tried to disengage the belt of the passenger next to him unsuccessfully before escaping. from the NTSB preliminary report: "After impacting the water, the chin bubble on the pilot's side began to fill with water, which quickly covered the floor. He kept his restraint on and reached down for the front seat passenger's carabiner attachment to the helicopter. He turned the knurled screw "two or three rotations"; by that time, the helicopter was "listing past a 45° roll." He then decided to egress the helicopter, and by the time he unbuckled his restraint, he was fully under water."

Declanomous 9y ago
If the harness is anything like the harness I bought from Home Depot to do work on my roof, it would be nearly impossible to get out of quickly. The nylon is the super stiff abrasion resistant kind as well, which I cannot imagine cutting through quickly with a normal strap cutter, which is basically just a razor blade in a plastic handle. The fact that they were screwed to the floor sounds makes it sound egress would be nearly impossible in an emergency. The way those harnesses are designed there is almost no way to free yourself if they are under tension. You effectively need to call someone else to help you get out. On top of all that, the mammalian diving reflex means that unless you are experienced and well-prepared you are probably going to gasp as you go under water. Even a strong swimmer can drown due to the effects of the diving response, most commonly in a chaotic situation where they don't have the time or space they normally would to recover. Of course given the chaos I don't think you could say everyone would have survived with different belts on, but I think it would have been much more likely.
- FabHK 9y ago
  And of course, you don't want the harness to detach easily under tension either (that sort of defeats the purpose). Tricky tradeoff; and it really looks like this company cared about their revenue much more than safety, and was not in a position to navigate that tradeoff well.

cyberferret 9y ago

Does anyone know if the harnesses were attached to the mount points inside the helicopter using spring clip carabiners? IMO that would have been the 'go to' point to release themselves from the helicopter, if the harness didn't have a quick release clip on the body. Carabiner attachments inside the cabin would hopefully also made it easier for passengers and crew to release each other's harnesses if someone was incapacitated or panicking? Note: I've watched offshore rig crew friends of mine going through 'ditching' training in the pool simulator, and can attest that keeping calm and methodical under the circumstances can be extremely difficult, even under controlled conditions.

ndespres 9y ago
Not spring clip, the NTSB report says they were the screw type. Even so, the article states that it would have been difficult for a passenger to reach their own clip, and even if they had, would be difficult to undo it. They even provided "seatbelt cutters" to passengers to deal with this situation which also didn't work (according to the article). So many failures happening here.
- cyberferret 9y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. Yes, screw type carabiners would have been infinitely harder to try and release quickly. I feel for those poor unfortunate passengers.
kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
Getting access to the mount point on the helicopter is too difficult if you're tipped over and hanging off of it while immersed in frigid water. Much better would be a parachute style quick release on your own body.

userbinator 9y ago

Many years ago I remember taking a ride on a custom-designed vehicle (not a flying one --- don't recall exactly, it might've been a ground/water tour), and distinctly remember that they used regular automotive seatbelts --- there was a GM logo visible on them. Something like that would've been far easier to release in an emergency, whereas in this case it seems they used locking carabiners that take a considerable amount of time and fine motor skill to manipulate.

Too 9y ago
A standard automotive seatbelt would also be easier to accidentally release in mid air when you are hanging through the open doors.

lb1lf 9y ago

-I've done this in simulator a few dozen times (mandatory training for anyone boarding a helicopter for going offshore, refresher courses every four years.) It is difficult enough in the simulator - which, as you say, simplify matters immensely over an actual crash: a) The pool with the simulator is well lit. Many places, it is even heated, so you don't get the added stress of being lowered into icy cold water. b) Each participant has a dedicated rescue diver sitting opposite him, ready to assist at any sign of trouble. c) The simulator is lowered into the water in a controlled fashion, without any jolts. d) There's only one seat by each window, so you don't have to first help your mate out, then exit yourself. Incidentally, I've found it is much easier to get out after the cabin is inverted - your buoyancy makes you pop from your seat like a cork the moment you open the harness; being inverted, you are being pushed towards your seat, and all you need to do is to pop out the window, grab the opening with one hand, undo the buckle with the other and pull yourself out. Much simpler when your buoyancy works with you than against you. During my last refresher, we asked whether we could make it a bit more realistic by putting out the lights and leaving a few newspapers and such in the cabin (for floating around once it filled with water, further disorienting you.) We were told in no uncertain terms that wouldn't happen; it was deemed too risky for the rescue divers - who were fully kitted out with oxygen an'all. Note to self: I do not want to be in a helicopter emergency landing on water. Ever.

rdl 9y ago
I did about ~30 offshore helicopter flights to Sealand (~20km offshore UK) in 1999-2002 and never did a simulator. I don't even remember a preflight brief. I'm glad I didn't know how dangerous it was at the time. Of course, given that we weren't wearing exposure suits or anything, it would probably have been quick death vs. slower death in any accident.
- lb1lf 9y ago
  Mea culpa, I should have added '...in my jurisdiction'. (Norway) I haven't looked into the legal background, but my guess is that offshore workers' unions have lobbied for it - and, most likely, it only applies to flights to/from sites operated by major players. Also, some countries refuse to recognize training from other countries (Brazil, I am looking at you!) - so you end up having to do the same basic training in [n] jurisdictions, having [n] different certificates on you at all times, all with their individual refresher requirements...

downandout 9y ago

>I don't know how big a deal the harness really is. Given that your odds of survival are 0% if you are effectively chained to a sinking helicopter, and are at least greater than 0% if you are not, I'd say it's a big deal. Further, the articles I've read said that the helicopter was hovering over Central Park when the fuel was shutoff, and in fact the pilot considered landing there before deciding that there were too many people around. Had he known that his passengers had a 0% chance of escaping once he landed on water, I imagine he would have attempted to land in Central Park.

CydeWeys 9y ago
Not sure where you're getting this information from, but helicopters aren't allowed to fly over Manhattan. You can see the flight route of the doomed helicopter here: http://abc7ny.com/map-shows-exact-path-helicopter-took-over-east-river/3203330/ http://abc7ny.com/map-shows-exact-path-helicopter-took-over-... It was over the river the entire time. It wasn't over Central Park, just far north enough to be near it. Trying to make it to Central Park from the river with no engine power could have had a worse outcome if he'd not been able to make it and ended up striking a building; then everyone on the copter would still be dead, including whoever was hit on land.
- downandout 9y ago
  > Not sure where you're getting this information from For starters, the article we are commenting on itself. ”While hovering over Central Park, [the pilot] told them, the single-engine helicopter, an AS350 B2 model made by Airbus, suddenly lost power.” And then of course the NTSB report [1]: ”[The pilot] then observed engine pressure and fuel pressure warning lights and believed he had experienced an engine failure. He lowered the collective pitch control to maintain rotor rpm and let the nose continue to turn to the right. Central Park came into view and he briefly considered landing there but thought there were "too many people.”" That’s where I got my information, and I consider both of them to be fairly credible sources considering that both of them quote the pilot directly and one of them is the NTSB. [1] https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20180311X13013&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=MA https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?E...