Breath-holding ability of offshore workers inadequate to ensure escape from ditched helicopters.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following a helicopter ditching in water, the survival rate of individuals not mortally injured by the impact ranges from 50-85%. One possible cause for this low survival rate is that the crew and passengers cannot hold their breath underwater long enough to make the often difficult escape from an inverted and submerged helicopter. METHODS: We investigated pulmonary function, breath-holding times in air (BHTa) and water (BHTw) of 228 students enrolled in offshore survival courses required to work in either the offshore petroleum industry or in military marine aviation. Comparisons were performed based on occupation, SCUBA experience, and smoking. RESULTS: In 25 degrees C pool water, the overall BHTw ranged from 5.4 to 120 s with a median of 37 s. Of the 228 subjects, 34% had a BHTw less than the 28 s required for the complete evacuation of a Super Puma helicopter under ideal conditions. No significant differences in BHTw were observed based on either smoking history (Non-Smoker, 41.5 +/- 21.6 s; Smoker, 37.2 +/- 20.2 s) or occupation (Novice, 37.5 +/- 21.1 s; Offshore, 40.5 +/- 21.1 s; Military, 45.2 +/- 20.9 s). However, SCUBA-trained individuals had a significantly longer BHT, (47.4 +/- 21.6 s) than non-SCUBA (37.6 +/- 20.6 s), as well as a greater force vital capacity (FVC), BHTa, and subjective comfort in water. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the inability to breath-hold in emergency situations is a major contributor to the low survival rates of marine helicopter ditchings. Therefore, efforts must be made to both decrease escape times and to increase survival time underwater.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".