A Swissair Convair ditched in the English Channel off Folkestone in June 1954. The airliner which could carry 40 passengers had only five on board along with three crew for a flight from Geneva to London. The captain was forced to put down in the sea by fuel starvation and all on board escaped from the plane. However, three of the five passengers drowned because there were no lifejackets on board.......The law changed after this incident.
As soon as the Air Transat pilot ascertained there was a runway within gliding distance his main aim was to reach that strip of tarmac. If this had proved impossible and ditching had been the only option open to him every minute he managed to continue gliding would have been a minute closer to land. His aim would have been to put down as close to shore as possible with rescue services fully aware of his intention and position. Can anyone say lifejackets would not have kept at least some passengers alive long enough for boats, helicopters etc to reach them? Would there not also have been liferafts on board for such a long flight over water?
Surely in such an incident there would also be a psychological benefit to having lifesaving equipment on board? It must be slightly easier for cabin crew to stay in control of passengers told a plane may have to land on the sea if they know there are lifejackets under their seats and on long overwater flights liferafts available at the exits. What do you say to passengers if this isn't the case? The seat cushions must seem like a poor alternative to people in this situation.
Finally, as a piece of useless information, an episode of 'Quincy' was dedicated to this subject and revolved around the unintentional ditching of an airliner with only seat cushion flotation devices on board. It was, as far as I remember, based on an actual incident in the USA when it was felt the lack of lifejackets and liferafts led to increased loss of life.