PA28 ditched off Guernsey
Dear SDB73,
I think you'll be forced to yield.
Posters unable to stop contributing their unfailingly superior knowledge will eventually dominate any subject.
mike hallam
(not a pseudonym)
I think you'll be forced to yield.
Posters unable to stop contributing their unfailingly superior knowledge will eventually dominate any subject.
mike hallam
(not a pseudonym)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen a few studies on ditchings - albiet mostly conducted in the US. These suggest that survival rates are much higher than you might anticipate. For example in a ten year period based on just over 200 reports the survival rate was a little over 90%.
However as with any stats. a proper understanding can only follow from the ability to correctly interpret the data. There are many obvious factors which will impact on surviving a ditching; in particular in and around the UK the temperature of the water and the speed with which the crew are recovered is critical. Needless to say so is the ability to exit the aircraft as the evidence indicates most GA types sink quickly. The fitness, size and weight of the crew are factors and in this case so is the design of the aircraft.
Never the less I think it is safe to conclude the risk of an engine failure followed by a ditching that results in loss of life is an very rare occurence so in terms of am I likely to die in that way, the answer is you are not.
Categorically without reference to this accident, the vast majority of accidents are down to human failure in some way. Theoretically a twin is always safer than a single, but the theory is substantially eroded because of the high rate at which pilots mismanage twin aircraft - be it running out of fuel because they dont fully understand the more complicated fuel systems on some twins to botched EFATOs.
Once again this makes any comparison meaningless unless the reader has a propoer understanding of the factors involved.
Ask the question how safe is flying (over water, at night, in IMC or whatever permutation you wish) and the answer should be caveated with how current and well trained is the pilot, how careful has the pilot been with regards to the maintenance of his aircraft and what precautions has he taken to stack the odds in his favour? If the answers are all weighted in the pilots favour then inevitably you will be much safer in a twin than a single, but in both instance the risk is so small that some would argue it hardly warrants concern - you would do far better eliminating other risks in your life such as having a annual screen for cancer - very few of us do but statistically there is a far greater chance that will kill you.
In reality it seems to me most peoples perception of risk when it comes to flying (and lots of other things) is qualitative, or should I say emotional. We think about the risk of a flight over water, but we dont think about the risk of cancer or hypertension being good examples. If we did and applied the same criteria I have little doubt we would all have far more regular health screens and we would all approach flying (never mind flying over water) in a different way. In reality we often debate the risk of flying over water in a single but we never ask why we dont have annual health checks.
However as with any stats. a proper understanding can only follow from the ability to correctly interpret the data. There are many obvious factors which will impact on surviving a ditching; in particular in and around the UK the temperature of the water and the speed with which the crew are recovered is critical. Needless to say so is the ability to exit the aircraft as the evidence indicates most GA types sink quickly. The fitness, size and weight of the crew are factors and in this case so is the design of the aircraft.
Never the less I think it is safe to conclude the risk of an engine failure followed by a ditching that results in loss of life is an very rare occurence so in terms of am I likely to die in that way, the answer is you are not.
Categorically without reference to this accident, the vast majority of accidents are down to human failure in some way. Theoretically a twin is always safer than a single, but the theory is substantially eroded because of the high rate at which pilots mismanage twin aircraft - be it running out of fuel because they dont fully understand the more complicated fuel systems on some twins to botched EFATOs.
Once again this makes any comparison meaningless unless the reader has a propoer understanding of the factors involved.
Ask the question how safe is flying (over water, at night, in IMC or whatever permutation you wish) and the answer should be caveated with how current and well trained is the pilot, how careful has the pilot been with regards to the maintenance of his aircraft and what precautions has he taken to stack the odds in his favour? If the answers are all weighted in the pilots favour then inevitably you will be much safer in a twin than a single, but in both instance the risk is so small that some would argue it hardly warrants concern - you would do far better eliminating other risks in your life such as having a annual screen for cancer - very few of us do but statistically there is a far greater chance that will kill you.
In reality it seems to me most peoples perception of risk when it comes to flying (and lots of other things) is qualitative, or should I say emotional. We think about the risk of a flight over water, but we dont think about the risk of cancer or hypertension being good examples. If we did and applied the same criteria I have little doubt we would all have far more regular health screens and we would all approach flying (never mind flying over water) in a different way. In reality we often debate the risk of flying over water in a single but we never ask why we dont have annual health checks.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any system where a function is dual-redundant, and the redundancy has no resulting downside, it is obviously true that the probability of a failure of the whole system is reduced.
So a twin should be less likely to go down per airborne hour than a single.
On top of that most ME failures of an engine that happen during cruise go unreported and will never appear in any stats, which results in ME forced landings to be over-represented, again per airborne hour.
Unfortunately reality interferes with this, and the key is the "no resulting downside" bit.
And there are several downsides:
- EFATO scenarios require a high degree of pilot currency
- More complex fuel systems; in some cases you can be drawing fuel from one tank while the gauge(s) show the contents of a different tank
- Higher operating cost, resulting in reduced pilot currency
- Higher operating cost, resulting in less picky attitudes to maintenance because you carry a spare engine (you can tell I like to avoid controversy
)
- Most twins are > 1999kg so there is a big incentive to file "VFR" to avoid the IFR route charges (this is an awfully persistent trend in ME CFITs)
- Most twin types have been out of production for decades, and their age makes maintenance to any particular standard more expensive
One might also think twins fly more hazardous missions, which will further skew the stats against them. I am not sure whether this is true today; the pilots who I know who fly what I call light twins do not fly in conditions any more hazardous than SE pilots I know of similar experience. There are also plenty of deiced singles flying around, which equipment-for-equipment are a match for any light twin. 2 engines do not alone deliver any specific capability w.r.t. weather.
Those who don't like my posts don't have to read them. Contrary to popular belief, there is no requirement to be on the internet to correct every perceived instance of somebody having written something one disagrees with
So a twin should be less likely to go down per airborne hour than a single.
On top of that most ME failures of an engine that happen during cruise go unreported and will never appear in any stats, which results in ME forced landings to be over-represented, again per airborne hour.
Unfortunately reality interferes with this, and the key is the "no resulting downside" bit.
And there are several downsides:
- EFATO scenarios require a high degree of pilot currency
- More complex fuel systems; in some cases you can be drawing fuel from one tank while the gauge(s) show the contents of a different tank
- Higher operating cost, resulting in reduced pilot currency
- Higher operating cost, resulting in less picky attitudes to maintenance because you carry a spare engine (you can tell I like to avoid controversy
)- Most twins are > 1999kg so there is a big incentive to file "VFR" to avoid the IFR route charges (this is an awfully persistent trend in ME CFITs)
- Most twin types have been out of production for decades, and their age makes maintenance to any particular standard more expensive
One might also think twins fly more hazardous missions, which will further skew the stats against them. I am not sure whether this is true today; the pilots who I know who fly what I call light twins do not fly in conditions any more hazardous than SE pilots I know of similar experience. There are also plenty of deiced singles flying around, which equipment-for-equipment are a match for any light twin. 2 engines do not alone deliver any specific capability w.r.t. weather.
Those who don't like my posts don't have to read them. Contrary to popular belief, there is no requirement to be on the internet to correct every perceived instance of somebody having written something one disagrees with
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Peter,
Is this another conclusion?
I do not share this login. Why do you ask?
And I think we can all see you don't have the stats you mentioned. So parking the (now answered) question as to whether you have the stats, I'll move on, in the hope that this brief exchange has helped at least some people avoid perpetuating your misinformation.
mikehallam,
You're probably right, but I'm one of life's perpetual optimists!!
Fuji
Thank god I'm not on my own!! Wise words .. however ..
Slight pedantry, but I think it's important.. I don't think that is necessarily the case. Statistics are incredibly easy to misinterpret, to which you've alluded. There are too many factors to make that statement. I think the statement you are taking a little out of context is "PILOTS don't very often die in that way". That doesn't mean YOU aren't likely to die that way. By extremely careful analysis of the stats, you MIGHT find that the majority of deaths have been a certain age range, PiC hours, or engine life span, or specific route, etc, etc, etc. If you personally fall into the high risk area, then you are possibly WAY more likely to die than "the rest". Similarly, you might fall into the low risk category and be almost inconceivably likely to die that way.
This is the important point of threads like this. I am extremely greatful for them, as they enable me to form a more rich picture of the risks, and how to mitigate them. GoldenEaglePilot puts this perfectly. Control the risks you can control, and decide whether you're willing to expose yourself to the risks you can't.
But you can only make that judgement based on a rich understanding of what can / does go wrong, and the successful / unsuccessful ways of dealing with them.
"The vast majority of accidents are down to human failure".
This is one we all hear a lot. Instinctively I would guess this is true, but I haven't seen any statistics to prove this. Is this something that someone spouted on a forum one day and we all took as being gospell? I genuinely don't know either way, so can't comment - and so wouldn't comment. I'd love to know for sure though.
Again, a very wise observation, and it might be that (to use statistitian speak) the sample is too small to draw any conclusions on whatsoever. So in which case, one would have to make up their own mind about what they GUESS, based on the vast web of knowledge and understanding that fills our minds when we immerse ourselves in a topic, like flying.
really? you sure?
You are absolutely right, though, that most people's (probably all peoples to some extent) assessment of risk is more emotional rather than logical.
We also tend to perceive a risk as smaller the more we've taken it. First time you bungie jump or parachute jump, or take off, or run down the stairs, etc, etc we perceive the risk as lower. That's part of how our subconscious works, and is the same mechanism which drives out "instincts", as we consider past events as proof of what's likely to come.
I think this mechanism tends to lead some types of people to make sweeping statements, as they apply their historic personal experience to situations about which they do not have all the facts.. unable to accept that there could be circumstances which completely and totally change their viewpoint. These people tend to gravitate towards forums in my (vast) experience!
Is this another conclusion?
I do not share this login. Why do you ask?
And I think we can all see you don't have the stats you mentioned. So parking the (now answered) question as to whether you have the stats, I'll move on, in the hope that this brief exchange has helped at least some people avoid perpetuating your misinformation.
mikehallam,
You're probably right, but I'm one of life's perpetual optimists!!
Fuji
However as with any stats. a proper understanding can only follow from the ability to correctly interpret the data.
so in terms of am I likely to die in that way, the answer is you are not.
This is the important point of threads like this. I am extremely greatful for them, as they enable me to form a more rich picture of the risks, and how to mitigate them. GoldenEaglePilot puts this perfectly. Control the risks you can control, and decide whether you're willing to expose yourself to the risks you can't.
But you can only make that judgement based on a rich understanding of what can / does go wrong, and the successful / unsuccessful ways of dealing with them.
"The vast majority of accidents are down to human failure".
This is one we all hear a lot. Instinctively I would guess this is true, but I haven't seen any statistics to prove this. Is this something that someone spouted on a forum one day and we all took as being gospell? I genuinely don't know either way, so can't comment - and so wouldn't comment. I'd love to know for sure though.
but in both instance [twin/single] the risk is so small that some would argue it hardly warrants concern
statistically there is a far greater chance that [cancer] will kill you.
You are absolutely right, though, that most people's (probably all peoples to some extent) assessment of risk is more emotional rather than logical.
We also tend to perceive a risk as smaller the more we've taken it. First time you bungie jump or parachute jump, or take off, or run down the stairs, etc, etc we perceive the risk as lower. That's part of how our subconscious works, and is the same mechanism which drives out "instincts", as we consider past events as proof of what's likely to come.
I think this mechanism tends to lead some types of people to make sweeping statements, as they apply their historic personal experience to situations about which they do not have all the facts.. unable to accept that there could be circumstances which completely and totally change their viewpoint. These people tend to gravitate towards forums in my (vast) experience!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I want to make something clear.
Apart from ...
... which I don't see how you could support with stats, (as they're unreported!)...
I thought your last post was you at your best. It was considered, informative, had some interesting counterintuitive points made in it, and was on the whole factual or stated clearly as opinion.
I have read many of your posts of the years, some of which have been incredibly interesting and helpful - as is your website - and for this I have thanked you personally (PM) in the past as well as on here.
My initial response to you was not because I "didn't like your post(s)", it was merely a question as to whether you could provide the stats you stated, as a member of this community who would like to know the truth.
Since then, you avoided answering that question, and then started getting shirty with me, with bold text berating me for not putting enough effort into the thread.
Please be clear, that my concern is not whether I like / dislike you or your posts, my concern is that I have seen too many people believe statements like yours on forums and then go off and waste a load of money or make other poor decisions. In this case, those decisions could cost someone their / their loved ones life, so I just felt it important to seek clarity.
I want to make something clear.
Apart from ...
most ME failures of an engine that happen during cruise go unreported
I thought your last post was you at your best. It was considered, informative, had some interesting counterintuitive points made in it, and was on the whole factual or stated clearly as opinion.
I have read many of your posts of the years, some of which have been incredibly interesting and helpful - as is your website - and for this I have thanked you personally (PM) in the past as well as on here.
My initial response to you was not because I "didn't like your post(s)", it was merely a question as to whether you could provide the stats you stated, as a member of this community who would like to know the truth.
Since then, you avoided answering that question, and then started getting shirty with me, with bold text berating me for not putting enough effort into the thread.
Please be clear, that my concern is not whether I like / dislike you or your posts, my concern is that I have seen too many people believe statements like yours on forums and then go off and waste a load of money or make other poor decisions. In this case, those decisions could cost someone their / their loved ones life, so I just felt it important to seek clarity.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Guernsey
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that Fuji Abound has brought some sense back into the topic (the contents of which I entirely agree with) maybe I can add something to the discussion. I was privi to this very sad accident as I was listening to my radio at the time (as I very often do) and can recollect the following circumstances. Guernsey ATC had been calling the (unknown) but thought it was RG for some time as it had entered the CI Zone without calling and was heading in a SW direction squarking 7600. This would seem to rule out electrical failure. It was asking it to perform various turns and change squark if reading. Nothing happened so they asked a PA28 with instructor on board which was in the circuit in Guernsey to go and have a look. RG was about 23 nm nw of Guernsey and therefore about 20 nm west of Alderney (its destination). In the time it took the local aircraft to reach the last known position (about 12 mins) RG had disappeared from the radar. The Russian ship was doing a 180 to return to the ditching site so this pinpointed the accident site. It was at this time that the emergency services ramped up.The rib from the freighter was first on scene to rescue within about 20 minutes (I think) from ditching.The English Channel at this time if the year is just past its peak warmth. It is odd why the ditching had to take place. The visibilty was ok over the channel. I have my own thoughts but will keep them to myself.
As regards flying over water it is a management of risks as per Fuji Abound. I have been flying a SEP for the last 42 years out of Guernsey. Our initial training is done about 20 nm south over the Roche Douvres Lighthouse so well outside gliding distance of anywhere, we wear lifejackets when in the circuit as we are over the water and in all honesty the local fields are too small to make a successful forced landing so the water is more then likely the best option anyway. I will not fly at night over water unless I have too (I know the engine does'nt know its dark but I do).We all carry dingies (which are serviced regularly) and wear life jackets at all times. We all (most) have PLB'S.
I think there is a church service in Alderney tomorrow for Ian so maybe you will all show some respect in your posts please.
As regards flying over water it is a management of risks as per Fuji Abound. I have been flying a SEP for the last 42 years out of Guernsey. Our initial training is done about 20 nm south over the Roche Douvres Lighthouse so well outside gliding distance of anywhere, we wear lifejackets when in the circuit as we are over the water and in all honesty the local fields are too small to make a successful forced landing so the water is more then likely the best option anyway. I will not fly at night over water unless I have too (I know the engine does'nt know its dark but I do).We all carry dingies (which are serviced regularly) and wear life jackets at all times. We all (most) have PLB'S.
I think there is a church service in Alderney tomorrow for Ian so maybe you will all show some respect in your posts please.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comment with regards to cancer was slightly tongue in cheek as you gathered but it does raise another useful illustrative point. In fact the current risk of dieing from cancer during your life time if you are a male is 1:4 - slightly better odds for a female. The life time risk is therefore high. We spend very little of our lifetime flying a single over the water and certainly not a life time. So is the average GA pilot more likely to die of cancer or from ditching - without doubt far more likely to die of cancer. If he spent his lifetime flying over water, you would arrive at a different conclusion.
With regards to most accidents being caused by the pilot or avoidably poor maintenance I dont think we need the stats to support the premise. If you read the reports it is apparent just how many pilots are candid enough to admit the accident was their fault - by extrapolation one suspects that this would be equally true of those that sadly kill themselves.
However I do agree that there are many myths that should be challenged.
There is much written that cannot be supported in just about every walk of life. I certainly dont have all the answers but have taken a little interest over the years in the stats that are published and are relevant to the things that interest me as a useful basis for hopefully adding some susbstance to a debate.
With regards to most accidents being caused by the pilot or avoidably poor maintenance I dont think we need the stats to support the premise. If you read the reports it is apparent just how many pilots are candid enough to admit the accident was their fault - by extrapolation one suspects that this would be equally true of those that sadly kill themselves.
However I do agree that there are many myths that should be challenged.
There is much written that cannot be supported in just about every walk of life. I certainly dont have all the answers but have taken a little interest over the years in the stats that are published and are relevant to the things that interest me as a useful basis for hopefully adding some susbstance to a debate.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regards to most accidents being caused by the pilot or avoidably poor maintenance I dont think we need the stats to support the premise. If you read the reports it is apparent just how many pilots are candid enough to admit the accident was their fault - by extrapolation one suspects that this would be equally true of those that sadly kill themselves.
some of these pilot errors may have been prompted by a mechanical problem. The best example is a ME aircraft crashing as the result of loosing one engine. flown correctly (assuming loaded per POH) this should not result in a crash, but sometimes it does and in this case it often gets classed as pilot error.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some very good posts, especially by goldeneaglepilot, SDB73 and Fuji.
I cannot see the logic expressed in this thread of 2 door cockpit aircraft (TB20/C150/C172 etc) versus 1 door aircraft (Beech V35, Beech33, PA28 Series and PA44 etc)
Is the consensus that TB20/C172/C182/C210/PA28 are dangerous because they have no doors for passengers seated in row 2 or 3 ? If so, maybe time to consider the Piper Saratoga
, Piper Lance, Beech A36, Piper Seneca and Beech 58
I have first hand experience of a PA32R ditching through mechanical failure and it was not pleasant. 1 door was suffice for me. It was jammed open at approx 300ft with full harmess seatbelt pulled up another notch prior to splashdown across the swell.
Life Jackets were not being worn but were in the back of the aircraft, because one always think that it will never happen to them
I was into the back of the aircraft to recover lifejacket and out of the aircraft in what seemed like 30 seconds as self preservation kicks in fast.
I have been across many times since in SEP but I am now more confident in the C310/C421 (both with 1 door/airstair) and escape panel.
I cannot see the logic expressed in this thread of 2 door cockpit aircraft (TB20/C150/C172 etc) versus 1 door aircraft (Beech V35, Beech33, PA28 Series and PA44 etc)
Is the consensus that TB20/C172/C182/C210/PA28 are dangerous because they have no doors for passengers seated in row 2 or 3 ? If so, maybe time to consider the Piper Saratoga
, Piper Lance, Beech A36, Piper Seneca and Beech 58I have first hand experience of a PA32R ditching through mechanical failure and it was not pleasant. 1 door was suffice for me. It was jammed open at approx 300ft with full harmess seatbelt pulled up another notch prior to splashdown across the swell.
Life Jackets were not being worn but were in the back of the aircraft, because one always think that it will never happen to them
I was into the back of the aircraft to recover lifejacket and out of the aircraft in what seemed like 30 seconds as self preservation kicks in fast.I have been across many times since in SEP but I am now more confident in the C310/C421 (both with 1 door/airstair) and escape panel.
Last edited by Jetblu; 23rd Nov 2011 at 08:18. Reason: Add
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more with Fuji's post.
I also think your stat of 1:4 men dieing of Cancer is - as you've deduced - as close as uncontravertible evidence that your previous statement was probably completley accurate!
Also, I share your feelings about pilot induced accidents.
I'm pleased, however, that you haven't taken my post personally, and clearly understood the sentiment.
I also think your stat of 1:4 men dieing of Cancer is - as you've deduced - as close as uncontravertible evidence that your previous statement was probably completley accurate!
Also, I share your feelings about pilot induced accidents.
I'm pleased, however, that you haven't taken my post personally, and clearly understood the sentiment.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing to do with the initial subject of this thread but it is my opinion that many people fly over water under the 'it won't happen to me' philosophy. Familiarity breeds contemp and I would ask anyone who flies regularly around the Channel Islands if they still simply tie a life jacket around their middle as a sort of token gesture?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift I know, but this topic has enlarged, therefore:-
I am a member of The American Bonanza Society, a community who has at its heart the promotion of Beechcraft aircraft, the continuance of the Beech fleet, and most importantly, safety through communication.
web site American Bonanza Society, worth a peek. The crux however, is the BPPP. It is a pilot proficiency programme which offers type specific training for people new to the fleet, i.e you buy a Baron, it can come with 10 or xxx hours BPPP.
You buy a Bonanza, it again can come with BPPP. Yes, it is run in the States only, BUT, it is the premise and concept that is bold. It is also is run with superbly qualified instructors and individuals who wish to impart training and knowledge, specific to type. These are complex aircraft, and the recognition that they are, is the first step. Too many people buy an aeroplane, think they can get in and fly, and fail totally to not only understand the issues surrounding the complexity, but how to get the thing in the air or back on the ground, safely. Incidents such as this tragic event, again bring to the fore the discussion of safety. No amount of training/experience/relevence can be too much. IMHO.
I am a member of The American Bonanza Society, a community who has at its heart the promotion of Beechcraft aircraft, the continuance of the Beech fleet, and most importantly, safety through communication.
web site American Bonanza Society, worth a peek. The crux however, is the BPPP. It is a pilot proficiency programme which offers type specific training for people new to the fleet, i.e you buy a Baron, it can come with 10 or xxx hours BPPP.
You buy a Bonanza, it again can come with BPPP. Yes, it is run in the States only, BUT, it is the premise and concept that is bold. It is also is run with superbly qualified instructors and individuals who wish to impart training and knowledge, specific to type. These are complex aircraft, and the recognition that they are, is the first step. Too many people buy an aeroplane, think they can get in and fly, and fail totally to not only understand the issues surrounding the complexity, but how to get the thing in the air or back on the ground, safely. Incidents such as this tragic event, again bring to the fore the discussion of safety. No amount of training/experience/relevence can be too much. IMHO.
Moderator
I helped with a few salvages over the years, and this involved occasional swims into the cabins of upside down submerged floatplanes. It is very disorienting in there! Ever since, I wear either a life jacket, or floater suit (temperature dependent) while flying at all, over water.
I fly over water a lot, though lakes, so not too far from shore generally. I land on the water a lot. Lots of times, even in the amphibian, an attempt to land on the water would result in a crash (too rough). I'm somewhat afraid of ditching a fixed gear landplane, or any aircraft in rough water. I'm very afraid of being not detectable out there after the plane sinks, and drowning.
In addition to the life jacket, my cell phone is clipped to the life jacket in a water proof bag (available for music players), and I always have a whistle, and some form of signal light. It's the least I can do to prevent being someone's bad statistic.
I fly over water a lot, though lakes, so not too far from shore generally. I land on the water a lot. Lots of times, even in the amphibian, an attempt to land on the water would result in a crash (too rough). I'm somewhat afraid of ditching a fixed gear landplane, or any aircraft in rough water. I'm very afraid of being not detectable out there after the plane sinks, and drowning.
In addition to the life jacket, my cell phone is clipped to the life jacket in a water proof bag (available for music players), and I always have a whistle, and some form of signal light. It's the least I can do to prevent being someone's bad statistic.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One or two percent of pilots die in aircraft accidents?
How many licenced active pilots are there in the UK? (genuine question)
20,000? (pure speculation) so 200 or 400 pilots a year get killed in aeroplanes? I think not. What about all this talk one hears of one fatality per 100,000 hours etc? Have all these dead people clocked up a hundred thousand hours before drawing the short straw?
How many licenced active pilots are there in the UK? (genuine question)
20,000? (pure speculation) so 200 or 400 pilots a year get killed in aeroplanes? I think not. What about all this talk one hears of one fatality per 100,000 hours etc? Have all these dead people clocked up a hundred thousand hours before drawing the short straw?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apologies if people have already written about this - is there a ditching course that one can attend in the UK that anybody knows of?
It included dunker training in a mock helicopter. The feeling of desorientation is very sobering.
Unfortunately it's in Dutch only:
Indoor | Get Wet Maritiem
You might be lucky and find the same concept in the UK. Otherwise you'll need to look for the professional courses, but they won't be cheap.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Search "Underwater Escape Training - Andark"for an option near Hamble river, Hampshire, UK.
Training such as this is not 'tick-box'. The situations experienced and skills learned radically change behaviours and likely outcomes in a real post-ditching survival situation.
Training such as this is not 'tick-box'. The situations experienced and skills learned radically change behaviours and likely outcomes in a real post-ditching survival situation.