SURVEY OF HUET TRAINING WITH EXITS

OPITO SCOPITOExits 15.12.2006 Page 20 of 30 A more recent study Kozey et al, 2006 also investigated the effects of training fidelity and practice on egress performance. Participants were split into three groups. Group 1 undertook two training exercises: one partial submersion and one inversion, both without windows to push out. Group 2 undertook three exercises: one partial submersion without a window to push out, one inversion without a window to push out and one inversion during which a window had to be pushed out to make a successful escape. Group 3 undertook six exercises: one partial submersion without a window to push out, one inversion without a window to push out and four inversions during which a window had to be pushed out to make a successful escape. During training, the operation of exits for the first time underwater decreased the pass rate, but with repeated training, success rates increased. Six months after the training, participants returned to complete a single underwater escape test including the operation of the push-out windows. Performance was evaluated on the basis of passing or failing the attempt to make a successful escape. The escape test results are reproduced below: Group Pass Fail Total 1 28 54 24 46 52 2 38 81 9 19 47 3 52 96 2 4 54 Training that included the operation of exits significantly improved the escape success rate from 54 to 81. There was a further significant improvement to a 96 success rate observed for the Group who had also had the opportunity to practice underwater escape with exits during their training. These results clearly demonstrate the combined benefits of including the operation of exits during training and of practicing underwater escape using exits.

5.2 SURVEY OF HUET TRAINING WITH EXITS

A survey of 42 delegates undertaking HUET training with exits, previously reported by Coleshaw 2006, showed that 54 of those questioned found the push-out windows used to be very easy to operate, whilst 39 found it easy to operate the push-out window. When asked how much pressure had to be applied to push out the exit, 67 reported that very little pressure had to be applied, 31 that a moderate amount of pressure had to be applied, and 2 n=1 that a large amount of pressure had to be applied. All but two delegates considered that everyone should get the opportunity to remove exits during HUET training. N.B. It should be noted that these delegates used four quite different designs of push-out window. When rating the most difficult aspects of HUET training, no delegates cited removing the exitwindow as being the most difficult factor. Disorientation was considered by 50 of the group to be the most difficult factor, whilst 21 considered use of EBS to be most difficult. Comments relating to exits and training in general included: More realistic window design. If anything, more realistic. Window seats should only be manned by people who have done HUET with door removal. OPITO SCOPITOExits 15.12.2006 Page 21 of 30 Needs to be more realistic. Window seals. Door to operate. Suggestion to block an exit so that delegate must escape through a different exit. Water section needs to be longer. Less people i.e. 16 in pool. Too many in water session [16]. Longer time would be helpful to raise confidence. Halve no. of delegates. More time with apparatus. More dunks. Would benefit from smaller class size. Maybe lights out, wave machine, sea conditions. Some way for individuals to experience being turned upside down in some smaller equipment to get over apprehension without having to try and get out of the HUET simulator. Have smaller groups i.e. 8 at a time not 16, split to give more time to get to know equipment. It can be seen that a number of comments called for training to be made more realistic by the inclusion of exits. The other common theme related to smaller group sizes.

5.3 TRAINING GOOD PRACTICE