Research has identified that rear‑facing occupants of parachuting aircraft have a higher chance of survival when secured by dual-point restraints, rather than the standard single-point restraints that were generally fitted to Australian parachuting aircraft.
While both CASA and the APF have highlighted the issues surrounding dual point/dual release systems, there has been no attempt to redesign the system to address these limitations. Rather, the ineffective single point restraint system is permitted to continue in service, putting parachutists at increased risk of injury.
The ATSB recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, in conjunction with the Australian Parachute Federation, takes action to increase the usage of dual‑point restraints in parachuting aircraft that are configured for rear facing occupants
It is acknowledged that an occupant must first survive an accident and be conscious to enable their extrication from the aircraft. Similarly, CASA recognises the research conducted by the FAA Civil Aviation Medical Institute (CAMI) regarding parachutist restraint and the recommendation for dual point restraints. However, CASA must also give consideration to all aspects of accident survival, such as:
CASA will continue to investigate all options and technology associated with parachutist restraint including a review of CAO 20.16.3 Air service operations - Carriage of persons, which currently uses prescriptive language that restricts parachutist restraint options.
As per the ATSB’s previous response, the potential for dual-point restraints to complicate evacuation in the event of an emergency is recognised. However, the testing conducted by the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, supported by the Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 105-2E Appendix 3, concluded that dual‑point restraint systems were superior to single‑point restraints and that single‑point restraints was specifically not recommended for use.
The ATSB notes that CASA intends to ‘…continue to investigate all options and technology associated with parachute restraint…’. While continued research in this area is welcomed, in the absence of any information regarding the scope and/or timeline associated with such investigation, it is not possible to assess whether any associated safety action arising from CASA’s investigations will adequately address the safety issue.
The ATSB notes that a Coronial inquest relating to the accident involving VH‑FRT will be conducted in September 2018. That inquiry will provide a valuable opportunity to further consider this safety issue, including its resolution. As such, it will remain open until the conclusion of the Coronial proceedings.
The ATSB recommends that the Australian Parachute Federation, in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, takes action to increase the usage of dual point restraints in parachuting aircraft that are configured for rear facing occupants.
The APF's Aviation Committee and Technical & Safety Committee both reviewed restraints used in parachuting Operations and formally found at their meetings on 31 October 2017 and 7 November 2017. We support Single Point Restraints (SPRs) as the safest all-round restraint system for parachuting operations in Australia.
This was based on the following considerations:
DPRs add inherent risk:
APF acknowledge that in the Caboolture aircraft crash, there is doubt that SPRs were being worn. Non use of SPRs is in contravention of APF regulations. APF believes any non-use is very isolated and has since reinforced their use across the sport. The new G025 SPRs are now installed and in use in all jump aircraft across Australia.
Unlike all other aircraft operations, in parachuting operations, the intention of those onboard (except the pilot) is always to exit the aircraft (not to be restrained).
Despite the USA FAA AC 105-2E general information on DPRs, we are not aware of any civilian skydiving organisation in the world using DPRs.
The ATSB acknowledges that the Australian Parachute Federation (APF) remains concerned that the use of dual‑point restraints may introduce additional egress risks to occupants during parachuting operations compared to those associated with single‑point restraints. On that basis they have rejected the safety issue identified by the ATSB.
However, to date the APF has not provided any information that would enable the relative egress risk between single‑ and dual‑point restraints to be reliably quantified. In the absense of such an assessment, it is unclear on what basis the APF has concluded that the risk posed by dual‑point restraints outweighs the benefits identified by Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (supported by the Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular AC 105-2E Appendix 3).
The ATSB notes that a Coronial inquest relating to the accident involving VH‑FRT will be conducted in September 2018. That inquiry will provide a valuable opportunity to further consider this safety issue, including its resolution. As such, it will remain open until the conclusion of the Coronial proceedings.
In response to the ATSB recommendation on dual-point restraints the Coroner stated the following:
The ATSB report contained a recommendation directed at CASA and the APF in relation to the use of dual point restraints.
…
In this inquest, it was clear that the question of the type of restraint fitted on FRT did not directly impact upon the manner and cause of death of the deceased. The recommendations of the ATSB are relevant to the wider issues that the ATSB has canvassed in its report.
During the Coronial inquest into the FRT accident, the Queensland State Coroner stated that single point restraints fitted to FRT did not directly impact upon the manner and cause of death of the occupants. Therefore, the Coroner did not expressly stipulate a recommendation or finding in the area of dual point restraints. However, significant testimony was delivered during the Coronial inquest along the lines of the ATSB, CASA and APF comments about the recommendation.
The ATSB conveyed its position in the FRT report and in the Coronial testimony about dual point restraint for rear facing occupants, which is summarised as follows:
The APF and CASA position about dual point restraints for rear facing occupants was similar and therefore can be conveyed together in the summary below:
ATSB assessment:
It is clear based on detailed research that single point restraints do not offer a requisite level of protection for rear facing occupants of parachute aircraft. It is also recognised that the same research does not take into consideration the issues highlighted by CASA and the APF with regards to dual point restraints. The ATSB accepts the position taken by CASA and the APF that dual point/dual release restraints of the style tested pose an increased risk in some post‑accident survival scenarios. The ATSB also accepts that the other issues highlighted by CASA and the APF are valid concerns. However, while recognising that dual point/dual release system have limitations, the ATSB remains of the view that dual point restraints for rear facing occupants remains the safest option.
The NTSB and the FAA both recognise that single point restraint systems are ineffective and increase risk of serious injury in the event of a significant parachuting accident. CASA and the APF also recognise that single point restraints do not secure and protect an occupant as well as dual point restraint systems. While they have highlighted the issues surrounding dual point/dual release systems, there has been no attempt to redesign the system so that the issues could be improved. Rather, the ineffective single point restraint system is permitted to continue in service, putting parachutists at increased risk of injury.
Given the issues about dual point restraint systems highlighted by CASA and the APF, it is important that they, in CASA’s words:
’… continue to investigate all options and technology associated with parachutist restraint…’
The ATSB encourages CASA and the APF to conduct research and development in the area of improved restraint systems for parachutists.
