reading this thread, I can't help feeling that all the energy spent sorting out what to do in the event of ditching wouldn't be better spent in making sure you don't ever have to ditch. I realise that we are juggling probabilities, but if I spent time taking my 1-in-10 chance of survival to 1-in-100, wouldn't it be better to spend the effort making your 1-in-100 000 risk of ditching to 1-in-1 000 000? Prevention being better than cure.
I noticed that someone posted earlier that 1/3 of ditchings are caused by fuel problems of some sort. I worry not knowing what causes the other 2/3rds. Any clues?
I'll admit I have never piloted a water crossing, but I would have thought a pre-crossing checklist and ultra-conservatism in decision making would easily give you an order of magnitude improvement in risk.
Do people who fly water crossings plan a decision point where everything has to be green (excluding the passengers!) before one continues?
I would imagine it would be preferable to fly a certain distance overland prior to the water crossing too? i.e. departing Shoreham or Lydd after refuelling and heading straight out over the briney doesn't seem like a bright idea to me. If you have half an hour airbourne over land to be sure that you have no oil temp problems, no fuel leaks, etc. it must be a good insurance policy?
What does 'good airmanship' dictate in terms of planning?
A
PS: I have ambitions to PPL my way to France as soon as I can!
