Single engine over water
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, and if you leave some air in them they float!
Hope you never have to use them in anger...mine get plenty of use on the boats though.
There is another make called Aquamates, but imho they aren't as good.
Hope you never have to use them in anger...mine get plenty of use on the boats though.
There is another make called Aquamates, but imho they aren't as good.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: London
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
down&out
I have seen photos of ditched single engined light aircraft and the front (the engine) submerges almost immediately, sometimes even lifting the tail out of the water for a short while, so (in an unpressurised i.e. unsealed aircraft) I would expect the cockpit to fill up from the area of the pedals and the wing roots first.
A low wing aircraft ought to give you more time, as well as and more crucially giving you somewhere to stand while messing about with the liferaft.
But AFAIK the statistics on ditching don't appear to significantly favour low wing aircraft.
I have seen photos of ditched single engined light aircraft and the front (the engine) submerges almost immediately, sometimes even lifting the tail out of the water for a short while, so (in an unpressurised i.e. unsealed aircraft) I would expect the cockpit to fill up from the area of the pedals and the wing roots first.
A low wing aircraft ought to give you more time, as well as and more crucially giving you somewhere to stand while messing about with the liferaft.
But AFAIK the statistics on ditching don't appear to significantly favour low wing aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO
I do agree with you - I have to say, I was really using the ease of escape as another excuse to justifying to myself continue to be a "low-wing" retractable pilot - the truth is, I've never flown a high-wing a/c.
Also I've just read the article that owen's post links to. It seems to be very good and does have some good pictures of a high-winger going in.
I do agree with you - I have to say, I was really using the ease of escape as another excuse to justifying to myself continue to be a "low-wing" retractable pilot - the truth is, I've never flown a high-wing a/c.
Also I've just read the article that owen's post links to. It seems to be very good and does have some good pictures of a high-winger going in.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TBM, which is low wing and single engined did not float at all. It was completely submerged (or would have been if t didn't hit the bottom) in about 30-45 secs.
Timothy
Timothy
Nice
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: All Over
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read the majority of this thread and have noticed that something comes up again and again, the fact that someone is prepared to cross a body of water alone in an aircraft but as for taking the spouse and kids - well, that's a big no no.
I understand that no-one would take a chance with their family, but why are people so prepared to risk themselves as long as their family is safely on the ground ?
Just something I've noticed - off thread I know, but may be worth some discussion.
Regards, PC.
I understand that no-one would take a chance with their family, but why are people so prepared to risk themselves as long as their family is safely on the ground ?
Just something I've noticed - off thread I know, but may be worth some discussion.
Regards, PC.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
but why are people so prepared to risk themselves as long as their family is safely on the ground ?
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London
Posts: 2,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points.
I worry about my wife and me being in an aeroplane (my own or a Transport) or even in a car without the kids, as it would be pretty awful for them to lose us both. In fact the mrs and I are taking one of our two boys to Israel in a couple of weeks, leaving the younger one doing a school skiing trip, which also worries me.
When I recently flew, in the Aztec, with wife, two boys, dog and six place dinghy to Alderney, I had to get them to promise that if we had to ditch the dog would be abandonded to his fate, because his claws would damage the dinghy, and wouldn't take them until they had all promised.
No great point to make, just an after-midnight ramble!
Timothy
I worry about my wife and me being in an aeroplane (my own or a Transport) or even in a car without the kids, as it would be pretty awful for them to lose us both. In fact the mrs and I are taking one of our two boys to Israel in a couple of weeks, leaving the younger one doing a school skiing trip, which also worries me.
When I recently flew, in the Aztec, with wife, two boys, dog and six place dinghy to Alderney, I had to get them to promise that if we had to ditch the dog would be abandonded to his fate, because his claws would damage the dinghy, and wouldn't take them until they had all promised.
No great point to make, just an after-midnight ramble!
Timothy
Nice
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: All Over
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gertrude,
I think you have summed it up there, at the end of that day as Tim points out there is risk in everything you do anyway, alone or with part of, or all of the family.
Regards, PC.
I think you have summed it up there, at the end of that day as Tim points out there is risk in everything you do anyway, alone or with part of, or all of the family.
Regards, PC.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Outlawed
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paracab,
there is risk involved in everything you do, but there is a higher risk factor I would be prepared to take when I'm just responsible for my own life, rather than when I'm responsible for others. Eg, I drive faster when my son isn't in his car seat, than when he is. Not logical I suppose, but I doubt I'm the only one.
Back to the thread - while I'm reasonably confident I could survive a ditching with the right equipment, the procedure would actually be a lot harder (and therefore more dangerous) with my non-flying missus and two year old. At the moment, too risky for me to even contemplate.
there is risk involved in everything you do, but there is a higher risk factor I would be prepared to take when I'm just responsible for my own life, rather than when I'm responsible for others. Eg, I drive faster when my son isn't in his car seat, than when he is. Not logical I suppose, but I doubt I'm the only one.
Back to the thread - while I'm reasonably confident I could survive a ditching with the right equipment, the procedure would actually be a lot harder (and therefore more dangerous) with my non-flying missus and two year old. At the moment, too risky for me to even contemplate.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have also read that a drysuit could be quite a hindrance if one is submerged - a bit like an inflated life jacket. I know one can let the excess air out by poking a finger down the nect/arm seals but someone in this situation won't have time for that.
Warm spring day, moderate swell, English Channel off Plymouth, wearing bone dome, immersion suit with integral boots over long underwear, thick kneee socks, T-shirt, flying suit, leather flying gloves.
Maneuvering in the water with inflated life jacket, combined with bit of bouyancy in suit is not as easy as swimming
It was a struggle to inflate dinghy, tugging on the lanyard just kept bringing dinghy closer. Solution, both feet on dinghy pack, pull lanyard. Dinghy inflated inverted, easy to right it but I suspect it would be difficult in any sort of wind.
Boarding dinghy, get top half of body on take a breather, haul rest in. Get canopy up & bail dinghy out asap, inflate dinghy floor asap, put out drogue for stability.
Figure out if its better to activate emergency beacon immediately or save battery life and wait until you know SAR willl be looking. (This was before sat beacons).
Even though it was a mild late spring day I got cold v. quick. Leather gloves get wet & slimy and with cold hands its hard to do fiddley things, get kit with big Fisher-Price type knobs & switches. Have water, you'll be thirsty as you are bound to get a bit of sea water in your mouth. Ditto sweets/choc for an energy boost/morale lift. Have a woolly hat to wear, stop head heat loss.
Can't remember the exact advice on flares etc sorry, cept keep till you expect SAR to be searching except if obviously, passing boat etc.
Water activated strobe lights v.good.
Lastly, underside of a yellow heli is a beautiful sight after an hour pukeing into ones lap.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the U.S. we have the ability to have lake crossings monitored (Lake Monitoring) by FSS whereby the pilot reports every ten minutes to one of the Flight Service Stations. In the event if a pilot fails to report Search and Rescue is launched. Does the U.K. have a similar service for aircraft that are not recieving radar service while crossing large bodies of water?
From what I've read here it appears that the majority of pilots in the UK are far more prepared for a potential ditching than pilots here in the U.S.
Mike
NATCA FWA
From what I've read here it appears that the majority of pilots in the UK are far more prepared for a potential ditching than pilots here in the U.S.
Mike
NATCA FWA
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
I've only been in an a/c that went cross water one todate.....from Ireland to UK, and there was a period when at 2,000 ft in the middle of the Irish Sea, neither Dublin nor London could hear us.
So I guess the 10 minute thing couldn't really work here then.
dp
I've only been in an a/c that went cross water one todate.....from Ireland to UK, and there was a period when at 2,000 ft in the middle of the Irish Sea, neither Dublin nor London could hear us.
So I guess the 10 minute thing couldn't really work here then.
dp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
There are not many inland waters over here that take more than 10 mins to cross!
No there is no such monitoring service over here, even for the longer crossings. You can talk to a variety of services depending on your crossing and flight rules but unless you call for help nowt will happen unless you are overdue (going to the continent) or someone rings in to tell them you are later than expected.
Going back to the comfort zone issue and the difference of its width depending on whether you are on your own or with family.
My family will be able to look after themselves pretty well I suspect even without my physical presence (especially under the guidance of my very able wife!) but I would feel terrible if they came with me and by a fluke, I would be the only one to survive without them.
The issues about abilty to egress, what do you let yourself into, what do you expose yourself to seem to explain that difference quite well for me.
FD
There are not many inland waters over here that take more than 10 mins to cross!
No there is no such monitoring service over here, even for the longer crossings. You can talk to a variety of services depending on your crossing and flight rules but unless you call for help nowt will happen unless you are overdue (going to the continent) or someone rings in to tell them you are later than expected.
Going back to the comfort zone issue and the difference of its width depending on whether you are on your own or with family.
My family will be able to look after themselves pretty well I suspect even without my physical presence (especially under the guidance of my very able wife!) but I would feel terrible if they came with me and by a fluke, I would be the only one to survive without them.
The issues about abilty to egress, what do you let yourself into, what do you expose yourself to seem to explain that difference quite well for me.
FD
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there was a period when at 2,000 ft in the middle of the Irish Sea, neither Dublin nor London could hear us
FFF
---------------
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there was a period when at 2,000 ft in the middle of the Irish Sea, neither Dublin nor London could hear us.
No more crossings to the Channel Islands being kept down by the Class A airspace!
FD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IR or no IR, you need to be awfully high up to be able to glide clear if over the irish sea or much of the english channel.
The other question is from how far away a 7700 squawk would be detected. Presumably there is high altitude radar cover over the entire irish sea (for the airlines) and they would see it. So somebody would notice even if you can't call on the radio.
The other question is from how far away a 7700 squawk would be detected. Presumably there is high altitude radar cover over the entire irish sea (for the airlines) and they would see it. So somebody would notice even if you can't call on the radio.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That trip wasn't so much of a problem for us, as there was two other planes from the club traveling. We were far enough apart, that we were able to relay messages for one another.
My point was that there are times in a cross water trip when you may not be able to make radio contact. Therefore, FWA's suggestion wouldn't work here......you'd have SAR deployed because of lost radio contact over and over again.
dp
My point was that there are times in a cross water trip when you may not be able to make radio contact. Therefore, FWA's suggestion wouldn't work here......you'd have SAR deployed because of lost radio contact over and over again.
dp