Underwater detectibility of a lighting system on a helicopter escape exit.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When a helicopter ditches into water, it immediately inverts due to the weight of the engines and then fills with water. Locating the emergency exit for escape under such conditions is a difficult task. A new lighting system for an escape exit has been developed that illuminates on contact with water. The detectibility of the lighting was investigated under varying conditions of ambient illumination, water turbidity, and viewing distance. METHOD: A total of 288 underwater detection trials were carried out by 9 subjects with an illuminated hatch placed at 2 distances (1.5 m and 3.1 m), under 2 ambient illuminations (bright: > 3000 lux and dark: < 0.1 lux), and in 2 conditions of water turbidity. The water temperature was 12 degrees C for all conditions. RESULTS: At 1.5 m, the lighting system was detectable in less than 1.5 s by all subjects in both clear and turbid water and under both bright and dark conditions. At 3.1 m, the lights were detectable in both clear and turbid water under the dark condition and in clear water under the bright condition. However, the lighting was not reliably detected in turbid water under bright condition. CONCLUSIONS: The system met original design requirements in terms of detectibility at 1.5 m. The detection time was always under 1.5 s. It could also be detected at 3.1 m in clear and turbid water, under dark conditions. However, the detectibility at 3.1 m in turbid water, under bright condition was less reliable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".