PA28 ditched off Guernsey
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, if you require your female passengers to wear that stuff, you will end up spending a whole lot more time on the internet dating sites Rubber is not anywhere near as big as it was in the 1970s.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm not too sure about the accuracy of the Torygraph's story as Tom Cunningham is a retired Commander RNR. He is a former "Commodore" of the RNVR Yacht Club. As was Ian. The story does ring true though. Ian was a sailor first and foremost. And he clearly responded to the emergency as he saw fit. His actions on that terrible afternoon clearly saved Anne-Marie's life. It is tragic that it was at the cost of his own.
RIP.
RIP.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did wonder whether somebody with a long background in sailing might have chosen to voluntarily ditch upon getting lost with no radio.
If he really did that, then
is probably not so because they could both have been saved by flying roughly SE until they reached France.
If he really did that, then
His actions on that terrible afternoon clearly saved Anne-Marie's life
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO your post is both distateful and illogical. Your course of action may have saved both their lives. Ian's course of action did save Anne-Marie's. But let's wait for the full report.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: oxford
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I undertsand the phrase the lady actually used was a "total power failure".
Could this actually be an engine failure as opposed to an electrical failure and the press have interpreted it wrong???
Mind you the press have never been known to get it wrong before have they!
Could this actually be an engine failure as opposed to an electrical failure and the press have interpreted it wrong???
Mind you the press have never been known to get it wrong before have they!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at my original posting. Re the Press. Journos will always make mistakes if they have no experience of their subject matter.
It's a pity that DP's quoting of my post has lost the italics. That is my point of logic.
I will make no further comment on this thread out of respect for Ian.
But I tell you this, I have over 11,000 hours, and rising. I have 7 hours total SE Landplanes over water, 2 of those in a PA28. That total will not rise.
It's a pity that DP's quoting of my post has lost the italics. That is my point of logic.
I will make no further comment on this thread out of respect for Ian.
But I tell you this, I have over 11,000 hours, and rising. I have 7 hours total SE Landplanes over water, 2 of those in a PA28. That total will not rise.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience when mainstream media reports on a subject with which I am familiar they almost always get key details wrong. I therefore assume the same is true on all of their reporting.
In aviation accidents specifically, the reporting of 'what went wrong' is almost guaranteed to be wrong. As such, I think a general conversation about 'what should one due with a total electrical failure' could be quite interesting - but its relevance at this stage to this particular accident is just about nil.
dd,
I am assuming your aversion to single engine flight extends to over hostile terrain, over a cloud deck and IMC. Which is fine, a reasonable number of people are twin operators because of that. On the other hand, quite a large number of of people operate singles in such circumstances and the outcomes are not that dissimilar to twins (a surprisingly large number of twins go into the drink around the UK coastline).
In aviation accidents specifically, the reporting of 'what went wrong' is almost guaranteed to be wrong. As such, I think a general conversation about 'what should one due with a total electrical failure' could be quite interesting - but its relevance at this stage to this particular accident is just about nil.
dd,
I am assuming your aversion to single engine flight extends to over hostile terrain, over a cloud deck and IMC. Which is fine, a reasonable number of people are twin operators because of that. On the other hand, quite a large number of of people operate singles in such circumstances and the outcomes are not that dissimilar to twins (a surprisingly large number of twins go into the drink around the UK coastline).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have 7 hours total SE Landplanes over water, 2 of those in a PA28. That total will not rise.
Back to what I posted earlier, sure the press report is likely to be rubbish but if they had an engine failure then why not make a radio call? They would not have lost electrics at the same time as the engine (unless their battery was defective also, but they evidently managed to start the engine with it earlier).
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Press reports
A number of years back the BBC radio news started to report an AAIB enquirry, the numpty reading the report said "the AAIB recomend that more unusual attitude training, errr sorry that should be unusual altitude training was required".
And that was the way it was reported in subsequent news reports.
All the evidence in this accident points towards power failure, that is engine power not electrical power, anything else is likely to be press misinterpretation by stupidity.
And that was the way it was reported in subsequent news reports.
All the evidence in this accident points towards power failure, that is engine power not electrical power, anything else is likely to be press misinterpretation by stupidity.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we now trying to say that when flying over water, you are just as likely to end up hitting the ocean whether you're in a twin or a single?
And that this statement is supported by statistics?
I'd be very interested to see these statistics. This sounds very much to me like a total (and potentially dangerous / harmful) misunderstanding of the numbers, but I'd be delighted to eat my words.
And that this statement is supported by statistics?
I'd be very interested to see these statistics. This sounds very much to me like a total (and potentially dangerous / harmful) misunderstanding of the numbers, but I'd be delighted to eat my words.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stats tell us very little in these cases. Most of the reports I have read recently, involve twins ditching, not SEP. Most recent crashes I have read, recently, on land, involve twins. So what?
Until the facts are known in this incident, then talk of SEP vs Twin over water (done previously), twins vs SEP over cloud (done previously) is frankly futile.
This again would appear a culmination of smallish incidents which ended up with the pilot sadly losing his life. Again, at present, actual facts appear scarce, therefore, the report will again be sobering reading. They always are.
Anyway, flying SE, or NE for that matter, would have brought them to land. The outcome may not have been different though.
Until the facts are known in this incident, then talk of SEP vs Twin over water (done previously), twins vs SEP over cloud (done previously) is frankly futile.
This again would appear a culmination of smallish incidents which ended up with the pilot sadly losing his life. Again, at present, actual facts appear scarce, therefore, the report will again be sobering reading. They always are.
Anyway, flying SE, or NE for that matter, would have brought them to land. The outcome may not have been different though.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we now trying to say that when flying over water, you are just as likely to end up hitting the ocean whether you're in a twin or a single?
And that this statement is supported by statistics?
I'd be very interested to see these statistics. This sounds very much to me like a total (and potentially dangerous / harmful) misunderstanding of the numbers, but I'd be delighted to eat my words.
And that this statement is supported by statistics?
I'd be very interested to see these statistics. This sounds very much to me like a total (and potentially dangerous / harmful) misunderstanding of the numbers, but I'd be delighted to eat my words.
The NTSB accident stats show that 'engine failure' in a twin causes fatal accidents at a rate that is only slightly less than a single (but many of these for a twin are at takeoff landing and most of the enroute ones are running/mismanaging of fuel).
The other 'stat' is anecdotal of how many twins go swimming around the UK vs singles, and from memory there have been a few twins in the last couple of years and a few more (but not many more) singles.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree that the stats are extremely unlikely to give us this info. This was my point, and that sooner or later I sincerely hope that people stop making statements like IO540's as though they are cast iron fact.
So much rubbish like this is spouted on forums in all subjects. When the subject has the chance to affect some people's judgement which could kill them, then those who do the spouting carry a greater responsibility, and should respect that.
In IO540's case (and similar) this is compounded by the fact that he posts SO MUCH that his misinformation has a far greater reach and relative impact on the quality of information available on this forum - making his repeatedly-posted jumped-to conclusions appear to be even more factual.
So much rubbish like this is spouted on forums in all subjects. When the subject has the chance to affect some people's judgement which could kill them, then those who do the spouting carry a greater responsibility, and should respect that.
In IO540's case (and similar) this is compounded by the fact that he posts SO MUCH that his misinformation has a far greater reach and relative impact on the quality of information available on this forum - making his repeatedly-posted jumped-to conclusions appear to be even more factual.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's ludicrous.
You spout a blanket statement based on some seemingly imaginary stats. My counter is to ask you to provide those stats. And your retort is to say that I need to counter your non-factual, unsupported statement with oposing facts? Extraordinary.
I'll have a go at that. "The Lochness Monster is real". Prove me wrong with your facts otherwise I must be correct!
Peter. Do you have these statistics or not?
You spout a blanket statement based on some seemingly imaginary stats. My counter is to ask you to provide those stats. And your retort is to say that I need to counter your non-factual, unsupported statement with oposing facts? Extraordinary.
I'll have a go at that. "The Lochness Monster is real". Prove me wrong with your facts otherwise I must be correct!
Peter. Do you have these statistics or not?
Hmm... The cancer argument seems a little off the mark to me.
Statistically, we're all quite likely to die of pneumonia. However, we're very unlikely to die young of pneumonia, or even kill a loved one, as we are in aviation. 'Cancer', whatever that is, is a slightly more complicated question, but it's still true that it doesn't hit most people until they're reasonably old, and eating sensibly and not smoking are far better ideas than most (but not all) screening programmes.
So back to worrying about twins, ditchings and things we have some influence over. There are a lot of ways of dying in aviation, even if individual ones are reasonably uncommon, so in my book it does make sense to discuss them.
My respects and thoughts are with the family of the gentleman who died. I hope it doesn't come over as disrespectful to discuss the accidents.
Statistically, we're all quite likely to die of pneumonia. However, we're very unlikely to die young of pneumonia, or even kill a loved one, as we are in aviation. 'Cancer', whatever that is, is a slightly more complicated question, but it's still true that it doesn't hit most people until they're reasonably old, and eating sensibly and not smoking are far better ideas than most (but not all) screening programmes.
So back to worrying about twins, ditchings and things we have some influence over. There are a lot of ways of dying in aviation, even if individual ones are reasonably uncommon, so in my book it does make sense to discuss them.
My respects and thoughts are with the family of the gentleman who died. I hope it doesn't come over as disrespectful to discuss the accidents.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Texas and UK
Age: 66
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s very easy to say that we will never do something in aviation because of the risk. In reality is the risk greater than (for arguments sake) crashing your car, or worse someone else crashing into you?
To me it’s all about risk management, if you’re flying a single over water – then how far is it? How long to land? How high will you be. It’s no different to flying over hilly terrain or even flying in winter over snow fields. It is all about risk management, if something goes wrong then how well are you prepared and equipped to deal with it?
Personally I don’t like single engine piston at night, the only reason that I will fly a turbo prop at night is due to the greater reliability compared to piston engines. If either stops then the outcome is going to be difficult to predict (you as the pilot influence the outcome of landing into blackness less than the influence of luck). To me I have offset the risk by having an engine with proven improved reliability. The darkness is a factor I can’t change, the other factors I can.
I would be happy to fly a single engine piston aircraft over water, provided I had taken reasonable precautions in case anything went wrong. It’s no different to putting a shovel, blanket, hot flask and warm clothing into your car if you’re going out when it’s a snow storm.
Manage the risk, think of the “what if” factors and don’t work on the assumption it will never happen to you. We all carry torches at night when flying, how many light failures have happened in reality. It’s the same with carrying a raft – how often do you need it? Also immersion suits? Would you be in the water that long? Or is a PLB and pocket flares a better way of getting picked up quickly.
Take a look on Google at PainsWessex Personal Mini Flare Distress Signals This kit contains 9 red aerial flares and an integral penjector all enclosed in a tough water resistant case. Flares rise to 46m and are visible at 5 miles in daylight and 10 miles at night depending on weather conditions.
I would rather have those in my kit than an immersion suit in the English channel, Immersion suits are fine but I would rather someone knew where I was quickly rather than SAR spending hours looking for me.
To me it’s all about risk management, if you’re flying a single over water – then how far is it? How long to land? How high will you be. It’s no different to flying over hilly terrain or even flying in winter over snow fields. It is all about risk management, if something goes wrong then how well are you prepared and equipped to deal with it?
Personally I don’t like single engine piston at night, the only reason that I will fly a turbo prop at night is due to the greater reliability compared to piston engines. If either stops then the outcome is going to be difficult to predict (you as the pilot influence the outcome of landing into blackness less than the influence of luck). To me I have offset the risk by having an engine with proven improved reliability. The darkness is a factor I can’t change, the other factors I can.
I would be happy to fly a single engine piston aircraft over water, provided I had taken reasonable precautions in case anything went wrong. It’s no different to putting a shovel, blanket, hot flask and warm clothing into your car if you’re going out when it’s a snow storm.
Manage the risk, think of the “what if” factors and don’t work on the assumption it will never happen to you. We all carry torches at night when flying, how many light failures have happened in reality. It’s the same with carrying a raft – how often do you need it? Also immersion suits? Would you be in the water that long? Or is a PLB and pocket flares a better way of getting picked up quickly.
Take a look on Google at PainsWessex Personal Mini Flare Distress Signals This kit contains 9 red aerial flares and an integral penjector all enclosed in a tough water resistant case. Flares rise to 46m and are visible at 5 miles in daylight and 10 miles at night depending on weather conditions.
I would rather have those in my kit than an immersion suit in the English channel, Immersion suits are fine but I would rather someone knew where I was quickly rather than SAR spending hours looking for me.