After looking at the photos of the wreck, it seems to me, that the airframe is not severely bent, especially in the cockpit area. Are the seats of a 109 not as crashworthy as the seats of a 900/902 or EC 135?
The pilot did obviously a very good job, but at last the hard landing wasnt good for his spine, maybe better seats may have prevented these injuries?
skadi
A good question, here is an interesting crash test of seat cushions....
http://www.ostiv.fai.org/NPAref11.pdf
Extract
"An impact test was carried out using a layered seat cushion (Ref. 9).
A ½ inch (1.25 cm) thick firm grade energy absorbing foam layer, was placed on top of a 1 inch (2.5 cm) thick hard grade energy absorbing foam layer. A pilot manikin was fitted with an accelerometer at the base of the spine. The manikin was strapped firmly onto the seat on the test sledge. The seat was then rotated through 90°, so the foam was loaded to 1g. The impact velocity for the test was 8.1 m/s. The following peak g readings were
recorded.
Bare seat 35g
Ordinary soft foam cushion 45g
Energy absorbing layered foam cushion 26g
These test results showed that the layered energy absorbing foam cushion absorbed considerable impact energy, as well as providing pilot seating comfort. A further point of considerable interest and importance was the demonstration of the increased acceleration experienced by the spine on impact when ordinary soft foam was used as a seat cushion."
In my view all light aircraft seats should be fitted with EAF and pilots and crew should hassle the CAA to create this rule.
A 1/2 square meter of dynafoam is £18.
Mickjoebill