One of the aircraft I fly was successfuly ditched in the sea by a former owner. It was recovered onto a ship and restored to flying condition.
Psychologically this is good and bad: Good, I know it floats! Bad, I know that the engine can stop!
Crossing some sea last weekend to an offshore island, I was puzzling as I climbed up to 3000 ft over the rocky shoreline for the (short) crossing as to my best tactics to minimise the risk.
If the risk of experiencing engine failure at a non-glidable distance is a function of the time spent out of glide range of land, then the less time spent out of gliding range the better. So one should climb to max available altitude and then proceed at max speed at that altitude, to minimise the time at risk. So far so good, with the logic.
Now, suppose I establish a shallow descent rate for the crossing, I will thus be able to go faster and be at risk for a shorter time, providing the time at risk saved by the faster speed is greater than the extra time at risk caused by the loss of altitude.
This is an interesting optimisation calculation, has anyone else considered this?