Safety Science 57 (2013) 179–186

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Crash attenuating seats: Effects on helicopter underwater escape performance

Michael J. Taber
Survival Systems Limited, 20 Orion Court, Dartmouth, NS, Canada B2Y 4W6

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Surviving a helicopter ditching at sea involves a number of factors; however, none have as great an influ-
Received 26 September 2012 ence as impact forces. To minimize this influence, crash attenuating seat systems have recently been inte-
Received in revised form 26 January 2013 grated into offshore transport helicopters. Unfortunately, no research has investigated the system’s effect
Accepted 4 February 2013
on underwater egress. This study outlines the first known examination of the crash attenuating seats
Available online 22 March 2013
from the perspective of passenger egress. Results indicate that egressing from an inverted and flooded
helicopter requires significantly more time, and is rated as being more difficult when the seat is fully
Keywords:
attenuated (stroked). Results also indicate that egress is significantly influenced by environmental con-
Ditching
Egress
ditions and the position of a helicopter simulator. Based on these findings, it is recommended that all off-
Drowning shore personnel be trained to overcome the influence of attenuating seats, environmental conditions, and
Offshore position of the helicopter during their occupationally required egress training course.
Impact forces Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Surviving the initial impact forces associated with a helicopter
ditching/water impact is the primary objective of anyone unfortu-
nate enough to be involved in such an event. Failure to survive
these first few seconds of the impact precludes the implementation
of any previous survival training. Interestingly, Shanahan (2004)
reports that approximately 85% of all aircraft crashes are surviv-
able with impact forces falling well within human tolerances.
Clearly, helicopter ditching events that result in water impact have
a number of distinct differences (i.e., limited possibility of post-
crash fire) from the events identified in Shanahan’s study; how-
ever, it can be reasonably argued that the initial impact parameters
(prior to water ingress) are similar to those found for a helicopter
crash on land. In contrast to the suggested 85%, average survival
rates related to a helicopter ditchings are estimated to be approx-
imately 70%, with drowning being cited as the number one cause of
death (Brooks et al., 2008; Clifford, 1996; Cunningham, 1978; Ta-
ber, 2010). These drownings are often the result of disorientation,
difficulties in locating and/or jettisoning exits, and inability to
breath-hold long enough to egress the helicopter cabin. It is diffi-
cult to identify whether the difference between the suggested
and actual survival rate are directly related to these water related
factors. That is, if the same ditching impact forces were experi-
enced in a crash on land, would the survival rate be higher?
Some helicopter manufacturers have recognized the difficulties
associated with egress following a ditching and have installed
push-out style exits at every row of seats, egress lighting systems,
E-mail address: mtaber@inbox.com
and crash (energy) attenuating seats for all passengers. Although
the benefits of push-out exits and egress lighting have been ex-
plored in some detail (Brooks and Bohemier, 1997), no such work
has been carried out for crash attenuating seats (CASs) systems
in regard to underwater egress. Therefore, the following paper
examines the influence of the CAS systems on the performance of
helicopter underwater egress skills. This report highlights the fac-
tors directly related to the position of the CAS following a ditching
and offers guidelines to mitigate possible egress difficulties.
1.1. Purpose/objectives
The principal purpose of this report is to outline the effect of
crash attenuating seats on helicopter underwater egress. Given
the current inclusion of the CAS systems into offshore transport
helicopters such as the Sikorsky S-92 and the Eurocopter EC225,
this report is the first examination of how the CAS could influence
helicopter ditching survival rates. Additionally, this paper outlines
the suggested helicopter underwater egress training (HUET) skills
that should be delivered to offshore personnel who may be flying
in an aircraft equipped with CASs.
2. Methods
The following sections outline the methodological approach
used to explore the influence of the CAS on egress skill perfor-
mance. Specifically, the information highlights participant egress
experience, input from subject matter experts, equipment used
to simulate the interior configuration of the S-92, environmental

0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.02.007
180 M.J. Taber / Safety Science 57 (2013) 179–186
conditions used to test the CAS, and measures that were used to
gather data during the evaluation.
2.1. Participants
Seven (5 men and 2 women) participants were recruited for this
study. The experimental protocol conformed to the standards set
by the Declaration of Helsinki and all individuals signed an in-
formed consent document prior to testing. As this was an opportu-
nity sample population participants were asked if they had any
SCUBA dive, HUET, and/or helicopter underwater emergency
breathing apparatus (HUEBA) experience to identify whether pre-
vious experience might influence the test conditions. Participants
with previous experience were not excluded from this study, as
the typical offshore worker in Canada would have similar skills sets
after receiving an initial survival training course from a recognized
training provider.
2.2. Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
To ensure the safety of participants during all aspects of the CAS
testing procedures, two Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) provided
HUET instructional support throughout all egress skill performance
trials. The SMEs’ HUET instructional experience ranged from
5 years to 17 years and spanned training with military and civilian
personnel in at least 10 different helicopter interior simulation
types. The SMEs remained inside the S-92 Modular Egress Training
Simulator (METS™) during every egress trial. The SMEs’ role was to
provide egress instruction based on the participants’ seat position
as well as offer any assistance required while underwater.
In addition to the two SMEs, one HUET safety diver remained in
the water next the METS™ during every egress trial. The HUET
safety diver’s role was to provide assistance to the participants or
SMEs if necessary. Additionally, the HUET safety diver reinstalled
exit plugs in the METS™ after each egress trial.
2.3. Equipment
2.3.1. Modular Egress Training Simulator (METS™ Narrow Body Model
50)
The Modular Egress Training Simulator (METS™) at Survival
Systems Limited is a full-scale helicopter simulator that can be
configured to resemble the interior of more than 50 different air-
craft (Fig. 1). To accommodate different size helicopters (e.g., light,
medium, or heavy lift), several different models of the METS™ are
Fig. 1. Modular Egress Training Simulator (METS™) narrow body Model 50 with S-
92 exits and interior configuration.
currently available. The most recent model of the METS™, the nar-
row body Model 50, was used for this study, as it closely resembles
the overall width of the S-92 interior cabin. Additionally, the nar-
row body METS™ is capable of simulating the exact (within 1/
8th of an inch) proximity of the passenger seats to the exits. With
a descent rate of 33.3 cm/s and an inversion rate of less than 5 s,
the METS™ model 50 represents a realistic environment with a
high level of physical fidelity from which to explore egress skill
performance and similar models have been used in numerous
HUET experiments.
For the purpose of this study, documented seating arrange-
ments gathered during site visits to Cougar Helicopters and engi-
neering drawings were used to develop a realistic interior cabin
simulation for the Sikorsky S-92. Fig. 2 shows the interior seat
and exit placements of the actual helicopter used to transport per-
sonnel to offshore installations off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland
and Labrador (Panel A) and the simulated METS™ (Panel B) config-
uration. The figure (Panel B) also shows the numbering system
used to establish an egress test matrix for the participants.
2.3.2. Crash attenuating seats (CAS)
The crash attenuating seats (CASs) (Martin Baker Aircraft –
MBA) in the actual S-92 are designed to compress if acceleration
rates exceed 20Gs (G = acceleration/gravitational constant of
32.2 ft/s2). Technical specification for the CASs indicate that during
static testing, the seats were designed to withstand 20Gs down-
ward, 16Gs forward and rearward, 4Gs upward, and 8Gs sideward
with a standard mass of 77 kg. The S-92 CASs are normally posi-
tioned 66 cm (2600 ) from the back of one seat to the back cushion
of the next seat. This allows a 28 cm (1100 ) space between the front
edge of the seat cushion and the back of the seat in front of it. In the
full up position (no-compressed) position, the seat pan is approxi-
mately 38 cm (1500 ) above the floor. In the fully compressed posi-
tion the S-92 CASs seat pan would be approximately 20 cm (800 )
above the floor. The CASs used in the METS™ were designed to rep-
licate the overall dimensions of the actual helicopter seats; how-
ever, they do not have cushions installed and the range of
attenuation was from approximately 43 cm (1700 ) to 19 cm (7½00 )
(Fig. 3). The METS™ CASs are capably of being compressed during
the HUET simulation or be lock in a fixed low position. The HUET
instructor (SMEs) can initiate the compression of the CAS at the
moment that METS™ touches the surface of the water. Once in
the compressed position, the CAS is automatically locked into this
lower position. It should also be noted that, unlike the S-92 CASs,
the METS™ crash attenuating seats lower at a fixed and controlled
rate to mitigate the risk of lower back musculoskeletal injury. The
METS™ CASs were located in seat positions 4, 6, and 7 in the S-92
configuration (Fig. 2).
In addition to the stroke capable CASs, fixed position (lowered)
CASs were also located at seat position 1 and 3 in the METS™. The
fixed position CASs were used to demonstrate the possible egress
difficulties that might be experienced when having to cross the ca-
bin in the event that a primary exit could not be opened. Given that
the distance of attenuation for the CASs used in the S-92 is influ-
enced by the mass of the individual, it is reasonable to assume that
not all seat pan heights will be similar.
2.3.3. Helicopter transportation suit
Participants wore a Helly Hansen HTS-1 helicopter transporta-
tion suit throughout all testing. The HTS-1 offers 78 N of buoyancy
and 0.75 clo of insulation. During the testing, participants noted
that the HTS-1 began to leak around the face seal after approxi-
mately five underwater escape exercises. The leakage in the suit
was expected when completing multiple egress exercises and par-
ticipants were offered the chance to remove the excess water dur-
ing breaks in the testing. The HTS-1 is equipped with a pouch for
 M.J. Taber / Safety Science 57 (2013) 179–186
Fig. 2. Sikorsky S-92 interior (Panel A) and METS™ test configuration (Panel B).
Fig. 3. Crash (energy) attenuating seats (CASs) in the METS™. (Note: two types of
CAS (aft and middle) and one set of fixed seats (most forward) are shown. Both seats
of CAS are fully capable of being lower during simulated impact or can be lock in
place).
the helicopter underwater emergency breathing apparatus (HUE-
BA). The pouch is designed to hold the HUEBA securely against
the chest to avoid snagging the compressed air bottle during
egress. The second stage regulator of the HUEBA is connected to
a dust cover on the left shoulder. The dust cover allows for easy ac-
cess to the mouthpiece while reducing the chance of snagging.
2.3.4. Helicopter underwater emergency breathing apparatus (HUEBA)
The helicopter underwater emergency breathing system is a
small compressed air cylinder that is similar to a self contained
underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) used during diving. The
HUEBA has a 1.5 cu/ft (42.2 l) capacity and is pressurized to
3000 psi. HUEBA use for the offshore oil and gas sector in Atlantic
Canada began in 2009 (Brooks et al., 2010) after the Cougar 491
ditching off the coast of Newfoundland (TSBC, 2010) and repre-
sents the only civilian workforce currently using a compressed
air emergency breathing system during helicopter passenger
operations.
181
2.4. Environmental egress conditions
The CAS egress testing was designed to first identify the possi-
ble egress issues associated with the compressed position of the
seats post-impact and then to develop training procedures to mit-
igate any issues. Therefore, to identify the CAS egress issues, partic-
ipants were first tested in benign ditching conditions with the
lights on and 180° inversions of the METS™ (Fig. 4 – Panel A).
However, once the initial CAS related egress issues were identi-
fied, the egress conditions were modified to include low lighting
levels and off angle inversions (e.g., 160°, 190°, 200°) (Fig. 4 – Panel
B). The off angle inversions were designed to simulate asymmetric
deployment of the external helicopter flotation system. This off an-
gle inversion also creates the very real possibility that a primary
exit may be located on the lower side of the helicopter. With the
primary exit on the lower side of the inverted helicopter, several
egress issues exist. Most prominent in the off angle egress issues
is buoyancy, as it makes it more difficult to pull down toward an
exit. Once out of the helicopter, the off angle inversion may also
create a situation in which an individual could become disoriented
and try to swim under the fuselage. This increases the possibility of
becoming snagged on the main rotors or exterior portions of the
helicopter. The off angle inversion also increased the depth at
which individuals are required to egress from when on the lower
side of the helicopter. These challenging conditions of the latter
egress trials were considered a reasonable way to induce a greater
level of contextual interference (Perez et al., 2005).
2.5. Measures
In order to identify egress task performance issues related to the
CASs, each participant was asked to complete a minimum of 12
HUET exercises from a 180° position and an additional seven exer-
cises from an off angle and low light inversion position. The 19 to-
tal exercises were designed to progressively explore different
egress positions and were presented in a randomized order after
the first two trials. The first HUET exercise started with the CAS
in the full up position and then subsequent testing in the full down
position. CAS influence measurements included egress time
(Tegress), difficulty ratings, and participant comments. The test vari-
ables used to identify aspects of egress performance as it related to
182 M.J. Taber / Safety Science 57 (2013) 179–186
Fig. 4. METS™ inverted to 180° (Panel A) and at approximately 160° or 200° (Panel
B).
contextual interference (CI) included egress time, egress difficulty
ratings, and participant comments.
2.5.1. Egress time (Tegress)
Each underwater escape was timed and Tegress began the mo-
ment that the METS™ touched the surface of the water and ended
when the individual broke the surface of the water after egressing.
Therefore, all breath-hold egress times included the inversion of
the METS™, location and jettison of the exit, location of a reference
point, release of the seat harness, escape through the exit, and
floating to the surface. Tegress that included HUEBA incorporated
all of the same tasks; however, also required the location of the
HUEBA second stage regulator, and clearing the regulator. Previous
research shows that deployment tasks for a compressed breathing
system required approximately, 8 s to complete (Barwood et al.,
2010). Tegress for trials in which the individual egressed through
the nearest exit were considered a best-case scenario, whereas
having to cross the entire cabin to egress represented the worst-
case scenario. This cross cabin egress would only take place if a pri-
mary exit was inoperable or if the individual was seated in an aisle
seat and the person next to the exit was not egressing within a rea-
sonable time frame (e.g., as soon as possible). All of the cross cabin
egress trials were completed from a low fixed position CAS (seat 3
in Fig. 2 above).
2.5.2. Egress difficulty ratings
To explore the rating of difficulty associated with the difference
between egressing from a full up or full down CAS, participants
were asked to rate their experience on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = no problems to 5 = needed help to get out). The egress difficulty
rating scale has successfully been used in previous HUET research
to examine anxiety sensitivity index ratings and military ground
troop deployment (Taber, 2006; Taber and McCabe, 2009; Kozey
et al., 2006). Participants were asked to rate the difficulties based
on the idea that a score of 1 would be reserved for an ideal egress
in which there was no snagging of equipment, the exit opened on
the first attempt, and progress to the surface was not impeded in
any way.
2.5.3. Participant egress comments
As a way of qualifying the egress difficulty ratings, participants
were asked to make comments on the egress regardless of the dif-
ficulty rating score. Comments were then recorded and grouped
into six separate categories. The categories represent specific as-
pects of the egress and were created posteriori. The categories were
based on difficulties that related to a particular issues that may not
have been revealed by the Likert scale.
2.5.4. Data analysis
All statistical analyses were carried out with IBM SPSS (v20)
software. Mean egress times and difficulty ratings were analyzed
with a factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA). The recoded nominal
values assigned to participant comments were analyzed with a
Chi-square (X2) analysis.
3. Results
3.1. Participant demographic information
The 11 participant ages ranged from 24 to 43 years
(mean = 32.86, SD = 7.01). Participant’s mass ranged from
54.28 kg to 118.0 kg (mean = 82.36, SD = 19.58). Three of the seven
(42.9%) participants indicated that they had some form of SCUBA
diving experience that ranged from the level of Dive Master to ba-
sic open water certification. Three of the four participants that had
SCUBA dive experience also indicated that they had limited expe-
rience with the HUEBA. All but one participant (85.7%) indicated
that they had some HUET experience; however, none had used a
CAS system during their previous training. Additionally, none of
the participants had been asked to complete HUET exercises while
in a simulation of the S-92 interior cabin configuration. Given the
experience level of the participants, representativeness of this
group in regard to typical offshore workers was considered to be
at a high level. That is, the results of this study should be consid-
ered a best-case scenario and any difficulties identified by these
participants would likely be more pronounced in a typical offshore
workforce.
One of the participants was unable to complete all egress trials
due to considerable pain in his right ear. Therefore, all seven partic-
ipants completed the first 11 egress trials (77 trials) and six com-
pleted the remaining (52 trials) exercises for a total of 129 trials.
The majority (100/129 – 77.5%) of the exercises were completed
while breath holding, as this would be considered the worst-case
scenario during a ditching. Given that participants did not com-
plete the egress sequences in the exact same order, repeated mea-
sures statistical analyses were not performed for egress time
(Tegress) based on exercise number. The remaining results have
been divided into distinct sections related to the dependent vari-
ables. Therefore, egress time, participant difficulty rating and
egress comments are examined in relationship to the seat number
(1 through 7), the position of seat (normal up position, fixed low,
and compressed), whether participants were using the HUEBA or
were on breath-hold during the egress, and the amount of contex-
tual interference (lights on and 180° inversion or reduced lighting
and off angle inversion of the METS™).
 M.J. Taber / Safety Science 57 (2013) 179–186 183

Table 1
Tegress overall descriptive data.

Condition Number of trials Egress time (s) SD (s)

All egress trials 129 19.55 5.08
Breath-hold 100 18.83 4.35
HUEBA 29 22.04 6.53
CAS seat normal 53 18.91 4.73
CAS fixed low 28 21.36 6.18
CAS compressed 48 19.21 4.57
Lights on 180° 96 18.43 4.55
Dim lights off angle 33 22.83 5.18

3.2. Egress time (Tegress)

Egress time (Tegress) was considered from several different per-

spectives. For example, Tegress was explored by averaging all egress
trials across different possible influencing factors (Table 1). How-
ever, to consider the differences in a best-case scenario (i.e., normal
conditions) Tegress, the trials that included a cross cabin require-
ment were removed before an analysis was performed. Therefore,
a total of 28 cross cabin egress trials were removed for this initial
analysis to ensure that the increased amount of time required to
move from one side of the METS™ to the other would not influence
the observed next to exit Tegress results. Of the 101 trials remaining, Fig. 5. Mean Tegress based on seat number and CAS position.
no significant difference was found between breath-hold and HUE-
BA. Table 2 shows the average Tegress based on whether HUEBA was
used and the position of the CAS. The fixed low stroke position ceeded the recommended 20 s breath hold time (dashed line) for
shows the greatest Tegress, as these seats were primarily used for egressing without the aid of an emergency breathing system
cross-cabin trials. The data contained in the table also indicates (e.g., HUEBA) (Brooks et al., 2001; Taber and McCabe, 2009). This
that there was an increase in Tegress when conditional requirements recommended 20 s egress time is used throughout all examina-
were increased (e.g., off angle, reduced lighting). tions of Tegress.
In order to consider the differences in Tegress that were specifi- To consider the influence of contextual interference (CI) and the
cally related to the change in CAS position, the data was separated use of HUEBA on Tegress, the full dataset of 129 egress trials was
into two categories (fixed position and compressed seat position). used. A 2  2  7 (CI condition  breath hold or HUEBA x seat
The compressed CAS category included seats 4, 6, and 7. A total of number) ANOVA revealed that there was no significant interaction
62 egress trials were completed from these three seats. Fig. 5 dis- between the factors as they related to Tegress. However a significant
plays the average Tegress based on the seat number and its position main effect was found for both CI condition and seat number. The
(normal or stroked). Results from a 2  3 (seat position  seat results indicate that Tegress was significantly longer (F(1,128) = 11.84,
number) ANOVA indicate that there is no significant interaction p = .001) when CI (i.e., dimmed lighting and off-angle) was in-
between the factors when considering Tegress. However, the analy- creased. Results also indicated that seat position significantly af-
sis revealed a significant (F(2,61) = 5.94, p = .005) main effect in fected Tegress (F(1,128) = 3.8, p = .002) with seat 3 egress trials
Tegress depending on the specific seat number. Post hoc analyses taking the longest (cross cabin egress). Fig. 6 displays the average
indicate that seat 6 and 7 required significantly more time to Tegress based on the use of HUEBA and the CI conditions. The figure
egress from the METS™ than seat 4 when the CAS is in the normal shows that when CI conditions are increased, Tegress exceeds the
position. A significant main effect was also revealed for the posi- recommended 20 s egress time.
tion of the CAS (normal or compressed). Results indicated that all
three seats required significantly more time to egress 3.3. Egress difficulty ratings
(F(1,61) = 9.86, p = .003) from a compressed position when com-
pared to their normal position. Fig. 5 also shows that when seat When considering egress difficulty for the entire dataset (129
6 and 7 are compressed in a stroked position, average Tegress ex- trials), no significant differences were found when comparing the
participants ratings based on the 5-point Likert scale. However,
when exploring the influence of the CAS position (normal or com-
Table 2 pressed), there was a significant difference (F(1,61) = 7.94, p = .002)
Tegress based on seat position and breath-hold/HUEBA. in their rating. Fig. 7 shows that mean difficulty ratings were high-
HUEBA Seat position N Conditions Mean SD er when the CAS was in the stroked position for egress.
Breath-hold Normal 36 Lights on at 180° roll 17.98 4.47
5 Lights dimmed at off-angle 24.94 2.27 3.4. Participant egress comments
Fixed low stroke 18 Lights on at 180° roll 19.13 3.18
Stroked 26 Lights on at 180° roll 17.92 4.25
15 Lights dimmed at off-angle 20.04 4.43 To further explore the participants’ difficulty ratings, individu-
als were asked to comment on each trial regardless of whether it
HUEBA Normal 10 Lights on at 180° roll 18.16 4.20
2 Lights dimmed at off-angle 24.24 3.45 was rated as a 1 (no difficulties) or higher. Results indicate that
Fixed low stroke 5 Lights on at 180° roll 21.92 9.93 CAS position issues accounted for 47.6% of the egress problems at
5 Lights dimmed at off-angle 28.81 4.90 seat 4, 92.3% at seat 6, and 53.8% at seat 7 when the seat was
Stroked 1 Lights on at 180° roll 19.87 N/A stroked. The primary comment within this category was that the
6 Lights dimmed at off-angle 22.62 5.18
window was difficult to reach while in the CAS was compressed.
184 M.J. Taber / Safety Science 57 (2013) 179–186
Fig. 6. Mean Tegress based on contextual interference (CI) conditions and the use of
HUEBA.
Fig. 7. Mean participant difficulty rating based on seat number and CAS position.
A Chi-square analysis revealed that there was a significant differ-
ence (X 2ð1;62Þ = 20.58, p < .001) in the number of egress comments
(i.e. problems) when the CAS was in the stroked position. Partici-
pants also comment on the fact that the spacing between the seats
was cramped when the CAS was compressed, making it more dif-
ficult to locate and function the seat harness release mechanism.
Participants commented on the fact that during the off angle egress
exercises, the increased depth combined with the compressed CAS
was considered one of the most difficult positions to egress from. It
is also interesting to note that of the three times that instructor
assistance was required, two of the times were while participants
were egress from a fixed low stroked CAS position.
4. Discussion
The motivation to carry out this investigation stems from ques-
tions raised after the ditching of Cougar flight 491 in March of
2009. During the investigation, Taber (2010) and others pointed
out that underwater egress training should include more realistic
elements to ensure that passengers (e.g., offshore workers) will
have the capability to perform the necessary tasks required to
egress a ditched helicopter. Despite having HUET experience, 17
of the 18 individuals onboard Cougar 491 did not survive. Initially,
it was believed that individuals did not survive the impact; how-
ever, the TSBC (2010) report indicated that everyone survived the
impact and subsequently drowned. Similar incident investigation
reports (Brooks et al., 2008; Clifford, 1996; Cunningham, 1978)
point out that the cause of death following a ditching is typically
the result of drowning and not impact injury. In fact, it was noted
that seven of the passengers in the Cougar 491 ditching had ‘‘no
significant antemortem injury,’’ suggesting that they were virtually
uninjured (TSBC, 2010). It could be speculated that these particular
passengers were ill prepared for a real-world ditching, as they had
little experience with high impact forces, opening exits while in an
inverted and submerged position, and no experience with crash
attenuating seats. Although high impact force cannot safely be
incorporated into a training environment, CAS systems can and
should be integrated as long as an instructional process has been
developed to mitigate any egress issues.
Previous research has shown that high physical fidelity training
environments are effective for skill development (Hochmitz and
Yuviler-Gavish, 2011). The development of skills within an environ-
ment that is very similar to or an exact replica of the real-world envi-
ronment aids in a positive transfer of acquired procedural
information to the actual environment. The physical fidelity allows
individuals to identify specific aspects of the environment that may
be important during future performance of a skill. From the perspec-
tive of helicopter underwater egress training, the physical fidelity of
the environment needs to be close to the real-world conditions to
ensure that egress skills will be effective during a ditching and sub-
sequent capsizing. Having a low level of physical fidelity (e.g., gen-
eric seats and exits) may create a situation in which individuals
experience a negative transfer of their skills in the real-world (Alex-
ander et al., 2005). That is, a specific skill practiced in a simulator
may not be effective in a real helicopter if for example the actual
helicopter windows are different than those used in simulation,
the seat harness release mechanism is in a different location, or
the seats have compressed during the impact. These differences
may make it impossible for individuals to effectively utilize skills
learned during HUET programs. Taber and McCabe (2009) point
out that the highest level of fidelity should be used to develop egress
skills and that without the ability to practice necessary skills in a
realistic environment, it is likely that some individuals will not sur-
vive a ditching, despite having a basic form of training.
Keith and Frese (2008) suggest that making errors during train-
ing is a fundamental aspect of learning and without a process of
integration, skill development in an error-free paradigm is less
effective (see also Cross et al., 2007). By including an element of er-
ror during initial performance, contextual interference has proven
to be an effect training strategy during skill acquisition (Stokes
et al., 2008). Porter and Magill (2010) report that higher levels of
contextual interference are more beneficial during motor learning
and retention. As further support for incorporating high fidelity
and contextual interference in skill acquisition training, Barreiros
and Figueiredo (2007) suggest that highly complex skills (e.g.,
egress from a capsized helicopter) are learned and recalled better
when developed in an environment with high levels of interference
(see also Wolf et al., 2010).
 M.J. Taber / Safety Science 57 (2013) 179–186
From the results of this study, it is clear that including contex-
tual interference, as well as a high level of physical fidelity are
important factors when considering the development of HUET
skills. It was clearly identified that the position of the CAS influ-
ences the egress progress. Specifically, when the CAS is in a com-
pressed position, participants required significantly more time to
complete required egress tasks and often exceeded the recom-
mended breath-hold time proposed by Brooks et al. (2001). This
was particularly true when egressing from seat 6 (next to auxiliary
fuel cell), and 7 (represented aft facing passenger seat located at
the front of an offshore cabin configuration for an S-92 helicopter),
as both of these positions require an individual to release the seat
harness prior to locating and jettisoning the exit. In these cases it is
imperative that individual establish and maintain a physical refer-
ence point to ensure that orientation is not lost. Results also indi-
cate that the requirement for additional time from a compressed
position is compounded by increased interference such as dim
lighting and off-angle inversion. Given the increase in required
egress time, it was not surprising that participants rated the com-
pressed position as being more difficult; however, the comments
were also related to egress issues such as difficulty in finding exits,
operating seat harness release mechanisms, and difficult interior
cabin configuration problems. To address each of the issues, HUET
instructional techniques should clearly outline the specific tasks
that need to be performed in the event of a ditching and capsizing.
4.1. HUET instructional techniques associated with CAS systems
One of the primary goals of this research was to identify the
influence that crash attenuating seats have on the performance
of HUET skills. It was believed that once identified, the factors
could then be addressed through modification to existing HUET
instructional techniques used for traditional seating and exit loca-
tions. These modifications were discussed with the SMEs and
guidelines have been developed. The guidelines address egress is-
sues such as; if a seat is compressed during impact, it is unlikely
that individuals will be capable of jettisoning the exit in the same
manner used when the seat is in a normal position. Furthermore,
egress across an aisle or over an auxiliary fuel tank will require
skills that are not typically addressed in a generic HUET program.
Therefore, HUET instructors should ensure that proper egress skills
are described and practiced for a specific seat and exit location.
These detailed egress skill demonstrations will offer a clear guide-
line for offshore workers.
4.2. Limitations
One of the primary limitations of this study is the fact that only
one type of helicopter configuration was tested. Other helicopter
configurations may pose unique egress difficulties that were not
identified in this study and should be explored in greater detail.
It should also be noted that the participants for this study were
keen to volunteer, and had previous SCUBA and HUET experience.
Ideally, this type of human performance research should take place
at random intervals with individuals that may not be as comfort-
able in a ditching simulation. Only then can a true representation
of the offshore population be expressed. Obviously this type of
sampling would not be approved for ethical reasons; therefore,
the generalizability of the findings from this study should be con-
sidered a best-case scenario.
Finally, it should be noted that the participants in this study
used compressed air emergency breathing systems. Other emer-
gency breathing systems such as a rebreather or hybrid system
may not operate as effectively when crash attenuating seats have
been fully compressed. The limited space between the knee, upper
thighs, and chest may make it impossible to deploy and success-
185
fully operate these types of units. This may be particularly more
difficult when in an inverted and flooded position. Therefore, gen-
eralizing these results to an offshore workforce that uses the rebre-
ather or hybrid system should not be attempted until it has been
systematically demonstrated that these units can be successfully
deployed when in an inverted position with the CAS in a com-
pressed state.
5. Recommendations
Based on the results of this study the following recommenda-
tions are proposed for future HUET programs that include crash
attenuating seat systems:
1. HUET classroom instruction should address the additional tasks
required to egress when onboard a helicopter with CAS
systems.
2. A HUET classroom demonstrator/simulator should be devel-
oped to illustrate the differences in egress skills (e.g., location
of primary exit and jettison techniques) between a CAS system
in the normal versus stroked position.
3. HUET practical sessions should include at least one egress from
a seat that can be stroked just prior to the METS™ (or similar
simulator) touching the surface of the water. This egress should
be carried out from an inverted and flooded position.
4. HUET practical sessions should include a demonstration of
egress skills from an aisle position in which the individual has
a stroked CAS next to exit. This egress should be carried out
from an inverted and flooded position.
5. If the helicopter being used to transport workers to an offshore
installation is equipped with an interior auxiliary fuel tank,
HUET practical sessions should include the demonstration of
egress skills from a stroked CAS next to the fuel tank. This
egress should be carried out from an inverted and flooded
position.
6. HUET practical sessions should include a demonstration of
egress skills from both window and aisle positions in which
the individual is required to successfully deploy and use an
emergency breathing system when the CAS has been stroked.
This egress should be carried out from an inverted and flooded
position.
6. Future research
Although this research project explored the influence of crash
attenuating seats in a configuration that resembled the interior ca-
bin of an S-92 offshore transport helicopter, future examination of
other helicopter systems should be undertaken. As an example of
possible differences, the forces required to open a push-out exit
while in a different type of CAS system may differ between an S-
92 and those of an EC225. These differences have not been consid-
ered in any great detail when designing HUET simulators for train-
ing. Nor has there be any research to explore the correlation
between existing helicopter exit design and the capability of off-
shore workers to open the exits while in an inverted/flooded posi-
tion with a 4-point harness that has been fully retracted with the
seat compressed. Exploring these issues from an anthropometric
standpoint, it is likely that some workers will be too large or too
small to effectively open their primary exits due to functional
reach and seat design/placement issues.
In addition to the differences in the exit forces and seating con-
figurations, the type of emergency breathing system used by a par-
ticular offshore work force is of considerable importance. Future
research should explore the influence of a CAS system on the abil-
ity to successfully deploy and operate a rebreather or hybrid emer-
186 M.J. Taber / Safety Science 57 (2013) 179–186
gency breathing system. It is hypothesized that when the CAS is
fully compressed by impact force, the rebreather container valise
will impede the release of the seat harness by covering the buckle.
It is also possible that the position of the knees and upper thighs
against the chest will limit the ability of passengers to fully utilize
the entire contents of the air bag; however, until empirical testing
is completed, there is limited understanding of how the CAS sys-
tem will effect other emergency breathing devices.
Without considering the influence of available equipment, the
individuals performing the tasks, and the environment in which
the tasks are being performed, preparation for a complex emer-
gency such as a ditching will lack effectiveness. Finally, future re-
search should explore the current ditching simulator fidelity
standards used to train individuals, as these directly affect the abil-
ity to predict survivability based on a positive transfer of HUET
skills.
References
Alexander, A.L., Brunyé, T., Sidman, J., Weil, S.A., 2005. From gaming to training: a
review of studies on fidelity, immersion, presence, and buy-in and their effects
on transfer in PC-based simulations and games. DARWARS Training Impact
Group.
Barreiros, J., Figueiredo, T., 2007. The contextual interference effect in applied
settings. European Physical Education Review 13 (2), 195–208.
Barwood, M.J., Corbett, J., Coleshaw, S., Long, G., Tipton, M.J., 2010. Performance of
emergency underwater breathing systems in cool (25C) and cold (12C) water.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 81 (7), 1002–1007.
Brooks, C.J., Bohemier, B.A., 1997. Helicopter door and window jettison mechanisms
for underwater escape: ergonomic confusion! Aviation Space, and
Environmental Medicine 68 (9), 844–857.
Brooks, C.J., MacDonald, C.V., Carroll, J., Gibbs, P.N.G., 2010. Introduction of a
compressed air breathing apparatus for the offshore oil and gas industry.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 81 (7), 683–687.
Brooks, C.J., MacDonald, C.V., Donati, L., Taber, M.J., 2008. Civilian helicopter
accidents into water; analysis of 46 cases, 1979–2006. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 79, 935–940.
Brooks, C.J., Muir, H.C., Gibbs, P.N.G., 2001. The basis for the development of a
fuselage evacuation time for a ditched helicopter. Aviation, Space and
Environmental Medicine 71, 879–888.
Clifford, W.S. 1996. Helicopter crashworthiness. Study I: A Review of UK Military
and World Civil Helicopter Water Impacts Over the Period 1971–1992. CAA
Paper 96005. Civil Aviation Authority.
Cunningham, W.F. 1978. Helicopter Underwater Escape Trainer (9D5). In: AGARD
Conference Proceedings, No. 255 (Operational Helicopter Aviation Medicine),
pp. 66-1–66-3.
Cross, E.S., Schmitt, P.J., Grafton, S.T., 2007. Neural substrates of contextual
interference during motor learning support a model of active preparation.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 28 (12), 1277–1285.
Hochmitz, I., Yuviler-Gavish, N., 2011. Physical fidelity versus cognitive fidelity
training in procedural skill acquisition. Human Factors 53 (5), 489–501.
Keith, N., Frese, M., 2008. Effectiveness of error management training: a meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (1), 59–69.
Kozey, J.W., McCabe, J., Jenkins, J. 2006. The effect of different training methods on
egress performance from the Modular Egress Training Simulator (METS). In:
Proceedings of the 44th Annual SAFE Symposium, October, Reno Nevada.
Perez, C.R., Meira Jr., C.M., Tani, G., 2005. Does the contextual interference effect last
over extended transfer trials? Perceptual and Motor Skills 100, 58–60.
Porter, J.M., Magill, R.A., 2010. Systematically increasing contextual interference is
beneficial for learning sports skills. Journal of Sports Sciences 28, 1277–1285.
Shanahan, D.F. 2004. Human tolerances and crash survivability. Paper presented at
RTO HFM Lecture Series on ‘‘Pathological Aspects and Associated Biodynamics
in Aircraft Accident Investigation’’, Madrid, Spain. RTO-EN-HFM-113.
Stokes, P.D., Lai, B., Holtz, D., Rigsbee, E., Cherrick, D., 2008. Effects of practice on
variability, effects of variability on transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology
34 (3), 640–659.
Taber, M.J. 2010. Offshore Helicopter Safety Report. Technical report prepared for
the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry. <http://oshsi.nl.ca/?Content=Reports>.
Taber, M.J., 2006. Simulated Helicopter Underwater Escapes: Anxiety Sensitivity
and Human Performance. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Dalhousie University.
Taber, M.J., McCabe, J., 2009. The effect of emergency breathing system during
helicopter under water escape training for land force troop. Safety Science 47,
1129–1138.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada (2010). Main Gearbox Malfunction/Collision
with Water. Aviation Investigation Report A09A0016. Ministry of Public Works
and Government Services.
Wolf, G., Shea, C., Lewthwaite, R., 2010. Motor skill learning and performance: a
review of influential factors. Medical Education 44 (1), 1365–2923.