Personal Protective Equipment - wear it!

[Pilot DAR]

The emergency landing yesterday of a Shanghai to Toronto flight, in Calgary was caused by the need for medical attention for 20+ passengers, injured during a turbulence encounter. Reports state that the injured were generally those thrown around while unbelted. I'm sure that the audience here is already sold on the merits of seatbelt use, but PPE goes beyond that.

Last summer several people drowned when their whale watching boat capsized in the ocean off British Columbia. The reports suggest that they were standing on an upper deck, and not wearing life jackets. When they were more or less thrown into the cold ocean, they were unable to sustain themselves.

A few years back a Canadian Coast Guard helicopter collided with glassy water in cruise flight. The three occupants were to some degree wearing PPE, but none properly, and they all drowned in cold water immersion.

The difference between success in crash survival and death can be the result of small things. Did you stop with the aircraft instead of against the inside of it - hard? When you hit the water, were you already wearing a lifejacket, or immersion suit of cold? Was it properly done up? When you were in a fire risk environment, were you wearing cotton, wool, or other fire retardant full length clothing and suitable footware?

Helmet and parachute are the next step beyond, but certainly have their place too....

All the things we do, which used to be daring, are becoming more routine, and nanny state safe, but when the big bang happens, you're back to the basics, have you done the best for your own protection beforehand?

[RatherBeFlying]

In cold water, life jackets add little to survival time. Thermal protection is vital.

In the 1978 Lake Temiskaming disaster 13 died of hypothermia wearing life jackets :(

Deep Waters by James Raffan is a good read.

[Maoraigh1]

Survival time in cold water varies greatly from person to person. Normal outdoor clothing can provide some insulation. The lifejacket is still worth wearing. There's no point in carrying life jackets in small aircraft - wear them.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I have a rather simplistic approach to the landing in water in a wheel equipped single engine airplane.

I fly in Canada on the west coast and the water temperature is very cold in the summer and at this time of year it is very, very cold.

I don't need a life jacket because I do not fly beyond gliding distance of land in a wheel equipped single engine airplane.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I have a rather simplistic approach to the landing in water in a wheel equipped single engine airplane.
"If the fan stops we're going for the trees, not the lake" - pre-flight briefing from BC instructor.

[9 lives]

"If the fan stops we're going for the trees, not the lake"

To each their own, but presuming I have a lifejacket on, I'm probably headed for the shallow water in preference to unwelcoming trees. It's certainly one of those situational decisions, but the thump on a totally unyielding tree is much worse than a splash and probable flip in somewhat yielding water. The airplane is probably going to become junk in either situation, so assuming that you can minimize risk to the public, your passengers, and yourself, that's what I expect I'd do.

When flying the lakeshore of Toronto (a common VFR route) it's lifejacket on, and plan to splash at shore, than into someone's backyard, and being a risk to the schoolyard full of kids, and street side cafe's. Though the presence of a passenger who is not water capable would make me rethink that - probably a different route.

I do wear my dry immersion suit when I fly water in the cold season, though I admit that I tend to leave it done up only to the waist, as the unfortunate crew of the Canadian Coast Guard helicopter. I'll be rethinking that. The mitts on the immersion suit are not great for switches and dexterity in general.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

being a risk to the schoolyard full of kids, and street side cafe's
Not a vast quantity of either on Vancouver Island - it's (mostly) trees or lakes.

[funfly]

http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss8/martynandpat/fly.jpg

Flying from the UK to Jersey.

[con-pilot]

http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss8/martynandpat/fly.jpg

Flying from the UK to Jersey.

And looking very handsome and debonair I must say. :ok:

Your body will be well preserved when they pull it out of the water. ;)

[9 lives]

Your body will be well preserved when they pull it out of the water. ;)

...Which is key! It sure saves a lot of emergency services time and expense, when they can find the person floating, rather than days or longer diving for a body! I have flown many searches for the police. Every person wearing a lifejacket, I have found. I have never found a person in the water who was reported as not wearing one.

How long did it take to find all the victims of the British Columbia whale boat capsize?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Please don't get angry with me because I am kind of simple minded and sometimes I have difficulty figuring stuff out.

In what circumstances would you have to fly over water beyond gliding distance of land in a wheel equipped single engine airplane that is worth gambling your life for?

[Piper.Classique]

Well Chuck, every time I cross the water to another country in my single engine aircraft I take that chance. Also every time I fly over a large forest. Of the two, I prefer water.I have also recently cycled the length of Spain, which has its own risks.
I do it because I want to. Next time I am killed will be the first.
It's all about choice and personal freedom.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

In what circumstances would you have to fly over water beyond gliding distance of land in a wheel equipped single engine airplane that is worth gambling your life for?
Pretty well everything you do you're gambling your life, it's just a matter of what the odds are and your personal risk/benefit analysis.

As a little boy I was told the story of the guy who decided to avoid all risk by spending his entire life in a bed of cotton wool ... and then suffocated in cotton wool.

[mary meagher]

There was a glider pilot named Ian Lingham, who sadly passed away about ten years ago of natural causes. However, he was famous for having written off three club gliders.... and suffered no injuries at all.

Glider number one left a glider shaped hole in the hedge on approach.
Glider number two was a bit low on approach, though higher this time, because it was tall trees in the adjacent housing estate that brought down the glider.

Glider number three was a K18 glider, belonging to the Black Mountains gliding club. They rented it to Ian in December, when there was snow on the ground.
And the days were short. Ian took an aerotow up the side of the mountain, and did not return. A tug went out to search in the gathering gloom, but could not find the glider. Heads were sadly shaken, expecting this was the first fatality for Talgarth.

When the phone rang. (this before the days we all carried mobile phones).
Ian was safe, in a local farmhouse, up on the mountain some distance from the club. The Chief Instructor said don't worry, we can go retrieve the glider in the morning. The local farmer brought him down to the clubhouse where he stayed the night.

The next day, with a trailer, and plenty of help, the members travelled over the hill to the location described. And as they crested the hill, the Chief Instructor said "My God, it's in the lake!" Which it was. Undulating in the ripples.

Ian told us he had to decide on trees or water, and thought water might be better. He had to decide on the shallow end of the reservoir, or the deep end, so he elected to land in the shallow end. And remembered to undo his canopy latch just before touchdown; however, as soon as the glider hit the water, it sank. He was still fastened down with his parachute and his seatbelt! which took some undoing before he could stand up in the glider and breath. Now soaking wet, it was not quite dark, so he trekked through the trees and mountainside toward a farmhouse, where he called us to say he was OK. He forgot to mention the glider was in the reservoir.

Of course, being a wooden glider, all the glue had melted overnight. None the less, the K18 is a splendid early cross country glider, and it was rebuilt and is still flying today.

The reservoir was renamed Lake Lingham. After this, Ian bought his own glider, and never had another accident.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Well Chuck, every time I cross the water to another country in my single engine aircraft I take that chance. Also every time I fly over a large forest. Of the two, I prefer water.

Where I live the water is so cold one would very quickly lose the ability to move period, and if by some stroke of luck you did get ashore you would not last long at this time of year if you were not picked up and taken inside to get dry and warm.

So the water would not be as good as the forest.

[Pilot DAR]

In what circumstances would you have to fly over water beyond gliding distance of land in a wheel equipped single engine airplane that is worth gambling your life for?

I gotta do it when I want to visit friends who live on islands Chuck....

[India Four Two]

it's just a matter of what the odds are and your personal risk/benefit analysis.

Years ago, I was planning a flight from Calgary to Vancouver and discussed the routing with my instructor. The direct route "over the tops" is 428 nm and requires flying at up to 11,000' initially. The "safer" route at 7000' maximum, following the Trans Canada Highway, is at least 100 nm longer.

My instructor's view was that if the weather was good, go direct because that would mean less time in the air and therefore less chance of an engine failure!

For various reasons, I didn't make the flight, but I've always kept his comments in mind.

[funfly]

In what circumstances would you have to fly over water beyond gliding distance of land in a wheel equipped single engine airplane that is worth gambling your life for?

You want to fly GA from Jersey airport mate. :ok:

I was always neurotic about engine failure partly because I trained in microlights. A very good friend of mine made me fly for 1 hour over Snowdonia where there is no landing out possibilities to give me more confidence in my Lycoming engine. Didn't actually cure me and I always listened out for that fateful noise, however it is a fact that a well maintained aeroplane engine very rarely fails.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

however it is a fact that a well maintained aeroplane engine very rarely fails.

That is true.

However they do fail, sometimes over water.

One day I was talking to a ferry pilot in Wick Scotland where we were waiting for weather for the North Atlantic crossing.

He was flying a Cessna 172 and I asked him if he was worried about flying over all that water in a single engine 172, he said he had been ferrying single engine airplanes across the Northern Atlantic route for a long time and he had no worries because they never quit.

Some time later I tried to contact him and one of his friends told me he had gone missing in a Cessna 172 between Iceland and Greenland.


I gotta do it when I want to visit friends who live on islands Chuck....

As you know I live on Vancouver Island, and when I used to fly single engine to the mainland if I could not climb high enough to make land I did not go.

I am well aware that it is all about risk assessment and I am only expressing my thoughts on it.

Lets look at it another way.

We all have the right to accept a given risk based on our own limits of risk taking, lets say you are flying xx miles beyond land in your single engine airplane and are willing to take that risk based on your rights to decide what you do.

Would you still go if you had three underage childeren with you that are not old enough to decide for them self?

[Piper.Classique]

Chuck, As you say, we decide for ourselves. Deciding for children is another matter, and I don't think age is relevant long as they are capable of understanding. As I don't have children they would not be mine, so the parents would have to decide for them or let them decide for themselves.
BTW, the water temperatures our way are a bit higher, but I don't think that's the deciding factor. What matters to me, and I can only speak for myself, is that I live my life to the full, which means accepting the risk and then doing what I want to do.
If I die while active and fit then I have lost some time on this earth. If I linger in a home for the bewildered then what have I gained?
I will take sensible precautions against death by stupidity. I won't cower in my bedroom in case I catch cold. I don't think flying single engine over water is a worse risk than many other common activities. If I am wrong, then so be it. My life, my choice.

[con-pilot]

When I was young and bullet proof I as well did a lot of stupid things in aircraft and was lucky enough to survive.

Single night IFR.

Single engine night IFR/VFR over mountainous terrain.

And of course single engine day/night/IFR/VFR over water.

So I have no right to tell people not to do as I did, but there was no way in hell I'd ever do that again after I had about 2,000 hours. The risk was not worth it.

As I am retired now there is no way in hell I'd ride in a single engine aircraft in the conditions as above, turbine or piston.

[Rwy in Sight]

When I was young and bullet proof I as well did a lot of stupid things in aircraft and was lucky enough to survive.

Single night IFR.

Single engine night IFR/VFR over mountainous terrain.

And of course single engine day/night/IFR/VFR over water.

So I have no right to tell people not to do as I did, but there was no way in hell I'd ever do that again after I had about 2,000 hours. The risk was not worth it.

As I am retired now there is no way in hell I'd ride in a single engine aircraft in the conditions as above, turbine or piston.

I have a very very small experience flying on single engine four seaters and once I had to fly to an island some 3.5 hours away on a C172. The night before I has hesitant (it meant to be fun) but then I thought it over and realized the engine does not know what it flies over. I did anyway I met another ppruner and I repeated the trip some years later on an A320.

So I guess you are right about the risk being too big but it is not getting bigger in night VFR ... And yes I realize about the consequences of the things going wrong.

Feel free to ignore the comment because I think I gave an answer.

[con-pilot]

I have a very very small experience flying on single engine four seaters and once I had to fly to an island some 3.5 hours away on a C172. The night before I has hesitant (it meant to be fun) but then I thought it over and realized the engine does not know what it flies over. I did anyway I met another ppruner and I repeated the trip some years later on an A320.

So I guess you are right about the risk being too big but it is not getting bigger in night VFR ... And yes I realize about the consequences of the things going wrong.

Feel free to ignore the comment because I think I gave an answer.

Like I posted, I'm not going to tell people what they should do or not do. Just my opinion after flying for nearly 50 years and accumulating a little over 21,000 hours flying time.

As for the engine not knowing what it is flying over, that really makes no sense. If an engine is going to quit, it will quit. It is up to the pilot to assure that if and when an engine does quit, that the aircraft is in a position where a safe, even off airport, landing can be achieved. This applies to multi-engine aircraft as well.

Aircraft and engines can be replaced, people cannot.

Oh, and in my spare time I was an NTSB Aircraft Accident Investigator (from 1995), now retired. So I have more than a just casual interest in this subject.

Thank you.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When I was young and bullet proof I as well did a lot of stupid things in aircraft and was lucky enough to survive.

Single night IFR.

Single engine night IFR/VFR over mountainous terrain.

And of course single engine day/night/IFR/VFR over water.

So I have no right to tell people not to do as I did, but there was no way in hell I'd ever do that again after I had about 2,000 hours. The risk was not worth it.

As I am retired now there is no way in hell I'd ride in a single engine aircraft in the conditions as above, turbine or piston.

Like you I also have been flying for a long time, since 1953 to be exact and 52 years of that was for a living.

A lot of my flying was in the higher risk area, 7 years crop dusting both fixed and rotary wing, 15 years heavy water bomber Captain and 8 years as a airdisplay pilot in airshows all over Europe.

At least in those situations I had options if an engine quit.

Far more than if I had no engine at night, IFR in the mountains or God forbid over very cold water.

I am also now retired and still alive and able to enjoy traveling all over in my big diesel motor home, in fact I am sitting in it right now just south of Sacramento Ca.

And I managed to fly over 30,000 hours all accident free and no violations of the rules. ( They never caught me. :E )

[con-pilot]

I am also now retired and still alive and able to enjoy traveling all over in my big diesel motor home

Is it a single engine motor home? I think we should be told. :p

My experience was charter at first (piston engine aircraft single and multi, up to Lear 24s), then mostly corporate flying, with ten years flying 727s for the government, that is when I went to NTSB Aircraft Accident school. Then retired from flying from corporate, Falcon 50EX and 900EX.

I envy you, you did the type of flying I always wanted to do. Sounds like you had a lot of fun in your career.

Oh, no violations either, like you said, they couldn't prove a thing. :E

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It is a twin engine, a 380 HP Cummins in the rear and a 10,000 watt Cummins in the front. :O

Hey the main thing is we survived, for sure following the magenta line can get boring.

The best flying for me was ag. flying which was how I started my career, nothing beats a Stearman on a nice warm summer morning the sound alone is to me what real flying is.:ok:

[mary meagher]

Water or trees? actually, a rooftop is better than either, there is a good chance you will be noticed and rescued. But a controlled flight at the slowest sustainable airspeed will probably save you if not the aircraft. Without an immersion suit properly zipped up you won't last long in water.
A while ago, a glider parked in treetops near the M40 caused traffic chaos until they had to lift it off with a helicopter....the occupants had to sit quietly in the glider for an hour before the fire department arrived and extracted them; during the hour, the newbie was persuaded to sign up for a week's course....

[Rwy in Sight]

A while ago, a glider parked in treetopsthe occupants had to sit quietly in the glider for an hour before the fire department arrived and extracted them; during the hour, the newbie was persuaded to sign up for a week's course....

I am wondering about what kind of sales argument was used to persuade the newbie.

con-pilot we agree on the issues of consequences once the things go wrong.

[Flying_Anorak]

So what's everyones views about wearing either a bone dome or some of the alternative head protection that is now available in vintage aircraft, for example a Cub where there is quite a lot of metal around you to head-butt if it goes wrong? It seems to me that there are very good reasons for doing so and whilst it is accepted in vintage 'warbirds', you would be the laughing stock of the flying club if you chose to do so in anything less than a P51 or Yak!

[Piper.Classique]

A bone dome? In a cub?
Errr, no.
It's got a perfectly good four point harness with sensible anchor points.
A rather good metal cage
So, no, no way.
Quite apart from looking like a pr***k

[Capn Bug Smasher]

views about wearing either a bone dome Depends on impact energy, which you can probably get away with if you fly a Cub! Have to admit I'm saving up for one though. Then I've got a single, warm headset I can use in any aircraft, for any flying. Make sure it's properly fitted though. I'm not gonna buy second hand.

Don't care about looking stupid. Half of

looking like a pr***k

is in how you wear it anyway. (The other half is, undeniably, because they do look silly.) The key is discretion and a healthy pinch of humility. Just like flying suits - only wear 'em airside and for God's sake never swagger round the bar in one like some wallies!

I've also got a four point harness :)

[Stitchbitch]

Have a good look around next time you're in town and see how many people have artificial limbs. You may notice one or two, now have a look for those who have an artificial head...bet you don't see any. Wearing a helmet in a GA aircraft may seem a bit extreme, but at the end of the day you can survive with out arms or legs but you'll be struggling without a head..even a moderate to hard bump on the bonce can kill, or damage the brain.
On the subject of survival and cold water immersion I understand that there is a GA sea survival conference this weekend at Teeside, UK which will discuss this subject in some depth (ahem)..

[Romeo Tango]

It seems to me that this thread just shows that old people are more risk averse. If young people do not take risks then nothing gets done.

[rats404]

I'm considering a trip to the Channel Islands in May with my wife, and this very issue has been in mind. How I feel about risking my life is one thing (I've done a number of quite dangerous sports over the years, including racing motorbikes in very remote areas) but risking my wife's life is another thing entirely.

Like most passengers, she will have at best a sketchy understanding of the risks (or lack of risks) on any given flight. It's part of the enormous responsibility we have as pilots to make the right decisions for those who wish to fly with us.

Crossing the English Channel, I can mitigate the risk significantly by route and altitude selection. I suppose I could do the same by a significantly inefficient routing to the CI. But a trip to the Isle of Man or Republic of Ireland is a different thing entirely. This is a very good thread by the way.

[Piltdown Man]

I always use the simple things like ear plugs, gloves, eye wear, proper shoes etc. My HiViz jacket though is truly amazing. Since I've been wearing it I've not once been attacked by crocodiles, spontaneously combusted nor been mugged. I've nearly been run over a few times but wearing it means I can (and bloody will) sue for full compo if I do. Box ticking (or bollox tickling) safety.

PM

[Straighten Up]

I recently (early April) took a trip to France and the CI in a PA28. I had been twice before to L2k and Deauville. On the way out we crossed the shortest distance at 6500ft which left us only a few seconds out of gliding distance. Similarly heading into the CI zone from France we took a circuitous route from Dinard to fly along the coast to the north before crossing at a requested and granted 5000ft again giving us minimal time out of gliding range.

On the way back we were delayed a couple of days by weather in Guernsey and whilst there wasn't too much get-home-itis we did want to leave. On the day of departure I was faced with a choice of a clear run across the Channel with 2000ft cloud at Southampton, or sketchy weather in Northern France. I chose the Channel (we wore life jackets and PLB but had no raft). Jersey zone allowed me 5000 ft inside the zone and I elected to avoid flying under the class A corridor and instead thread the needle between the danger area and the class A (thanks skydemon) at FL80. Needless to say the engine didn't quit and we arrived back safely although in sporadic IMC from Isle of Wight to Elstree - glad of the IR(R).

As people have mentioned attitude to risk is personal. The extra time to fly the shortest water crossing for me was around 30 minutes but the weather was sketchier. Often for L2K it might only be 5 mins and I'll happily spend the extra money for less time over water. I will also probably invest in a raft and some immersion training.

Happy landings.

[Stitchbitch]

Straighten Up, I'd be happy to help you/provide some advice. Happy to discuss via PM.