Which LED Flare?

VicS said:
If you consider that having no LED flare is a better option than having a non approved one !
Click to expand...

On the basis that until we have a proper way of showing that a laser flare is safe to helicopter pilots not having one may be better. There have been more reports recently on pilots claiming eye damage from handheld lasers.
 
maxi77 said:
On the basis that until we have a proper way of showing that a laser flare is safe to helicopter pilots not having one may be better. There have been more reports recently on pilots claiming eye damage from handheld lasers.
Click to expand...

I do not think you are comparing the same types in that statement. the Odeo is non directional & cannot be "aimed" at a target as those you allude to
 
maxi77 said:
On the basis that until we have a proper way of showing that a laser flare is safe to helicopter pilots not having one may be better. There have been more reports recently on pilots claiming eye damage from handheld lasers.
Click to expand...

sailorman said:
[/COLOR]I do not think you are comparing the same types in that statement. the Odeo is non directional & cannot be "aimed" at a target as those you allude to
Click to expand...

The Mk 1 Odeo flare was a laser type ......... which the know all forumites told us would have all the aircraft crashing out of the skies with blinded pilots despite Odeo saying they were safe .......... The current versions are LED based.
 
VicS said:
The Mk 1 Odeo flare was a laser type ......... which the know all forumites told us would have all the aircraft crashing out of the skies with blinded pilots despite Odeo saying they were safe .......... The current versions are LED based.
Click to expand...

Of course the user knows what he has in his hands but does the pilot, that is the problem. Until the aircrew can be certain that a laser like light is safe they will not look at it never mind approach. This is the problem of using non approved equipment even if the manufacturer certifies it as "safe".
 
maxi77 said:
Until the aircrew can be certain that a laser like light is safe they will not look at it never mind approach. This is the problem of using non approved equipment
Click to expand...

So imagine that next year the IMO approves a particular brand of LED (not laser, FFS). How then will a pilot know that that LED is approved but the next one isn't?

Pete
 
Last edited:
I feel slightly ridiculous ploughing into this thread on totally the wrong side, but,

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440478/MIN_464-V3.pdf

Non – Pyrotechnic Flares
(...)
Electronic Visual Distress Signals (EVDS)
(...)
To be effective, distress signals must be internationally recognised and whilst acknowledging
the potential benefits of EVDS the MCA considers that a change would be needed to Annex IV
of the COLREGS to permit these devices full recognition as distress signals.
(...)
Advice for Mariners
Where the carriage of flares is mandatory, hand-held distress flares must meet the
requirements of the Marine Equipment Directive which incorporates European and IMO
requirements. None of the EVDS on the market that we are aware of, currently meet the light
intensity required by the IMO Life Saving Appliance Code and as such do not conform to the
Directive. This means that they cannot be carried as a substitute for pyrotechnic flares on
vessels to which mandatory carriage applies.
Click to expand...

To my mind, an electronic "flare" may have many, many more hours of operation and is much safer than a pyrotechnic.
 
TheCharteringClasses said:
I feel slightly ridiculous ploughing into this thread on totally the wrong side, but,

"None of the EVDS on the market that we are aware of, currently meet the light
intensity required by the IMO Life Saving Appliance Code and as such do not conform to the
Directive. This means that they cannot be carried as a substitute for pyrotechnic flares on
vessels to which mandatory carriage applies."


To my mind, an electronic "flare" may have many, many more hours of operation and is much safer than a pyrotechnic.
Click to expand...

Certainly, but if it's not bright enough and isn't recognised as a distress signal, I wouldn't want to be relying on it to save my bacon.
 
Setting aside for the moment the issue of approved or not...
LED/Laser Flare vs parachute flares - they are chalk vs cheese. Short range (line of sight) & long life vs much longer range & short life.
A place for both and I'd doubt that SOLAS will eventually approve them as alternatives for these reasons.
 
Twister_Ken said:
Certainly, but if it's not bright enough and isn't recognised as a distress signal, I wouldn't want to be relying on it to save my bacon.
Click to expand...

Indeed, high power LEDs and lasers have great potential to provide safe and effective distress signalling in many circumstances, but we do need recognizable standards, light patterns etc so that all can see the signal and know exactly what it is.
 
The hand flare shall:™

be contained in a water-resistant casing;
have brief instructions or diagrams clearly illustrating the use of the hand flare printed on its casing;

™have a self-contained means of ignition; and

™be so designed as not to cause discomfort to the person holding the casing and not endanger the survival craft by burning or glowing residues when used in accordance with the manufacturer's operating instructions.

The hand flare shall:
™burn with a bright red colour;

burn uniformly with an average luminous intensity of not less than 15,000 cd;

™have a burning period of not less than 1 min; and

™continue to burn after having been immersed for a period of 10s under 100 mm of water.

So the LED flares need to beat 15000 cd. They seem to offer 5 to 7 nm range and another manufacturer claims that range using 17 to 24 cd. Miles off.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top