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.