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) which are way simplified over a real crash, and even that is hard for basically professionals in peak fitness.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
-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.
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.
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...
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, as I have no experience with helicopters or scuba diving. But wouldn't it be easier and dramatically safer to just keep emergency scuba equipment onboard that might give you ~15 minutes or so of breathable air to give you time to deal with the situation? Full scuba tanks might be impractical, but something with a small supply of air probably wouldn't take up that much space.
If you’re not scuba trained this is going to be pretty useless. Breathing from an oxygen tank whilst being unable to see (no mask), and constantly and steadily breathing as you descend and ascend take training. Not to mention the shock of the cold water and having to remember all this scuba training info. I think it would be useless for anyone that’s not an expert scuba diver, better to improve the harness so that passengers can actually release themselves.
Depending on where you're embarking from, equipment like this may already be available - though not with a 15-minute supply, more like a minute, perhaps.
When I've flown from Norway in latter years, our survival suits (worn throughout the flight) have been equipped with a rebreather device - you bite down on a mouthpiece connected to a plastic bag integrated in your suit, and as you exhale into the plastic bag, you can then draw the same air back in again - no CO2 scrubbing. The mouthpiece is equipped with a valve which lets you breathe normally while above water; you then close it as you are submerged and breathe into the bag until you've reached the surface again.
The idea being that this will do for a minute or two - and in that minute, you're either out of the wreck or dead.
(I've asked the simulator instructor how long we spend underwater - he shrugged and said 'On average, six to fifteen seconds' - so a minute is a long, long time.)
>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.
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.
> 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.
One of the top comments suggests that there's a problem with the fuel switches in this model of helicopter that makes them prone to being accidentally moved. The surviving pilot says that's what happened here: http://www.fox21online.com/2018/03/26/pilot-nyc-helicopter-c...
The suspicion is that a passenger's harness belt got looped around and then pulled the fuel cutoff handle, which is on the floor between the front seats. The pilot thought he was dealing with an engine failure and didn't notice the fuel handle until it was too late. Sort of surprised that it didn't register some kind of alert such as a "FUEL OFF" indicator but I don't know anything about helicopter instrumentation.
It probably did, but the pilot didn't have time to do the engine restart procedure. Also when something like this happens if there's only you flying the plane you need to prioritize getting on the ground. In a plane, depending on altitude and where I was, I would land immediately or set up the most efficient glide based on what the manual says then do engine restart procedures.
If nothing else, this company seems to engage in a troubling number of blatant lies.
> "Among its claims was the promise of a “proprietary eight-point safety harness system.” A pilot who has worked with FlyNYON said that the company’s most commonly used harness was actually not proprietary at all, nor was it intended for aviation use. Rather, it was merely a yellow nylon construction harness available on Home Depot’s website for $52, which came in only one size."
I'll bet seasoned pilots hear "proprietary eight-point safety harness" the way a seasoned systems engineer hears "proprietary military-grade encryption algorithm". Like, can we have the standard actually-works stuff, please ...
I have this feeling that for every horror story like this, there is a bunch of workers who have voiced their concerns but were ignored. We only hear about the ones that actually get published, but considering management/workers knowledge about the security details for each implementation I would not be surprised if this was true.
Well, because its really easy to raise concern. On everything. So the really concerning parts drown in the background noise of people protecting there lifes against every single step they take.
Hierarchical systems, are mostly humming all day long with people trying to save there asses. Which generates systems that are deaf to real dangers,thus making hierarchical company structure a inherent source of risk and dangers.
Pilots have a professional duty of ensuring safety. If the pilots deemed the situation unsafe, there were enough avenues to pursue (FAA, local inspection). Complaining afterwards and looking for whistle blower protection doesn't absolve you of responsibility. It just suggests a good match between the lack of ethics of the company and the pilots.
The pilots were possibly subjected to intimidation by their employer, and this aspect must be investigated. If true, intimidation will have distorted the judgment of the pilots making them less liable than they otherwise would be. Economic coercion, threats to career, may be more powerful than threats of violence. And as soon as that happened, or the company didn't act on their safety concerns, the pilots should have sought legal advice.
I can relate to how hard it can be to do the right thing while being employed. But ultimately I would say it rests on each of us to do the right thing. If you work in a public safety facing job, that amplifies your responsibility. For pilots and captains, that would count even more. I recently read the NTSB-report linked to from HN regarding the sinking of the El Faro [1]. What struck me was that each subordinate could have and should have (according to NTSB as well) acted out more strongly. Same goes here, and that's why I'm harsh at the whistle blowers. It's too little, too late.
Corporate power structure is in direct conflict with FARs. FAR gives primary decision making power to pilots, but corporate structure essentially makes the CEO a dictator. And we have a culture and a legal system that defers to that CEO when there's no accidents. And then there's all kinds of outcry and hindsight if there's an accident. We really aren't creating fully trustworthy conditions for timely whistleblowing as evidenced by the fact multiple pilots expressed concerns, and now people are dead.
I've lost count how many NTSB reports, dozens, I've read where corporate power dictated operational outcome to a pilot against the pilot's better judgment, and everyone on board dies. And every time NTSB says the corporate dictate is a contributing factor to the accident, but ultimately the accident itself was due to pilot error.
So strictly blaming the pilot isn't eliminating accidents where the pilot's judgment was perturbed by company pressure. If the company is shown to have intimidated pilots, there needs to be accountability for it, and serious consequences.
I'm not certain they will get sued out of existence. Company no doubt has a liability waiver contract that holds them harmless no matter what, with a fixed maximum liability even if they're negligent. Now whether that holds up in court... point is, outcome is uncertain.
If the company used intimidation tactics, that may be a crime, a corrupt intent to subvert compliance with FARs as it pertains to safety. If so, I sincerely hope a prosecutor is assigned who is skeptical of blaming only pilots, and will recognize intimidation as significant distortion on pilot judgment and authority. I don't like the idea of the corporate veil protecting a CEO who overrides the judgment of pilots let alone also uses economic coercion by threatening their career - so if that's really what happens I hope he's criminally prosecuted.
But as a pilot, I still can't completely hold pilots blameless when they saw enough safety concerns to say something about it to the company, witnessed insufficient remediation, did nothing else, and now people are dead.
47 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadWhat is the benefit of waiting? So that the water does not "slosh" you around the 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.
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."
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.
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.
So many failures happening here.
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.
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...
Depending on where you're embarking from, equipment like this may already be available - though not with a 15-minute supply, more like a minute, perhaps.
When I've flown from Norway in latter years, our survival suits (worn throughout the flight) have been equipped with a rebreather device - you bite down on a mouthpiece connected to a plastic bag integrated in your suit, and as you exhale into the plastic bag, you can then draw the same air back in again - no CO2 scrubbing. The mouthpiece is equipped with a valve which lets you breathe normally while above water; you then close it as you are submerged and breathe into the bag until you've reached the surface again.
The idea being that this will do for a minute or two - and in that minute, you're either out of the wreck or dead.
(I've asked the simulator instructor how long we spend underwater - he shrugged and said 'On average, six to fifteen seconds' - so a minute is a long, long time.)
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.
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.
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?E...
> "Among its claims was the promise of a “proprietary eight-point safety harness system.” A pilot who has worked with FlyNYON said that the company’s most commonly used harness was actually not proprietary at all, nor was it intended for aviation use. Rather, it was merely a yellow nylon construction harness available on Home Depot’s website for $52, which came in only one size."
"actually-doesn't-trap-you-upside-down-submerged-in-the-river"?
Hierarchical systems, are mostly humming all day long with people trying to save there asses. Which generates systems that are deaf to real dangers,thus making hierarchical company structure a inherent source of risk and dangers.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16757343
I've lost count how many NTSB reports, dozens, I've read where corporate power dictated operational outcome to a pilot against the pilot's better judgment, and everyone on board dies. And every time NTSB says the corporate dictate is a contributing factor to the accident, but ultimately the accident itself was due to pilot error.
So strictly blaming the pilot isn't eliminating accidents where the pilot's judgment was perturbed by company pressure. If the company is shown to have intimidated pilots, there needs to be accountability for it, and serious consequences.
The helicopter pilot community is so small they were afraid of getting blacklisted.
---
The company is gonna get sued out of existence. The NYT report made them look super shady.
If the company used intimidation tactics, that may be a crime, a corrupt intent to subvert compliance with FARs as it pertains to safety. If so, I sincerely hope a prosecutor is assigned who is skeptical of blaming only pilots, and will recognize intimidation as significant distortion on pilot judgment and authority. I don't like the idea of the corporate veil protecting a CEO who overrides the judgment of pilots let alone also uses economic coercion by threatening their career - so if that's really what happens I hope he's criminally prosecuted.
But as a pilot, I still can't completely hold pilots blameless when they saw enough safety concerns to say something about it to the company, witnessed insufficient remediation, did nothing else, and now people are dead.
https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/606426-helicopter-down-eas...