Most certainly they do. I saw a programme on Discovery Wings (or something like it) a few weeks back that consisted almost entirely of film of floatplanes crashing, breaking up and sinking.

Actually, when you think about it, even boatsmen wear lifejackets and ships have lifeboats, and these are machines designed to float, not fly!

Seriously, a floatplane stands very little chance of landing and staying in one piece in some of the swells that are common in the North Sea and English Channel, and, as you are more likely to fly a floatplane near water, there is more reason rather than less to carry a dinghy.

IMHO.

Timothy

Dublin,

Check with your Coast Guard or who ever does Search and Rescue over there. If you don't have any luck there, see if you can talk with the Public Affairs Officer at one of the U.S. Air Force Bases in the UK and see if they would organize a water rescue seminar.

Mike
NATCA FWA

I believe that flying over water in a SEP is very personal and depends on your own level of comfort. The engine doesn't know what it is flying over and I'd prefer it to quit over water than when I'm crossing the Appenines

I flew nearly 15 hours over the Mediterrean Sea last year (summer months) with life jackets, dinghy and personal ELB (watch) and was perfectly happy.

I wouldn't be keen to do so during winter.

Funny enough, in December flying over the Indian Ocean during circuits at Durban I felt quite uncomfortable, even if we were near the beach.

This thread has got me thinking: I'll double check all equipment on future overwater flights.

Ciao,
AE

Cessna Caravan reported down in Lake Erie on Rumours & News.
Probable weather involvement, but it was a single and it was over water.

The C208 crash into Lake Erie had no survivors, the weather and ice was making recovery efforts difficult. Lake Erie is relatively a very shallow lake (average depth is about 15 feet).

Mike

Thanks FWA (Mike),

I'll give them a call.

dp

Slightly off thread this, but I heard a probable apocryphal wartime story in this vein. A crew were required to ferry a Catalina across the Atlantic. One of the flight crew mentioned some apprehension at crossing with only two engines, to be met with the response "Well in that case, you could always taxy across!"

A pondering: no risk = high cost
 

I've flown across the channel in a Warrior a few times, wearing just life-jackets, and on the last occasion and after reading a previous thread on this topic, with a life-raft.

The real challenge, surely, is the eternal balance (or judgement) between cost and risk.

It seems that the four items you need, to be at the lowest risk are life-jackets, life-raft (£500), Location Device (£100?) and immersion suit (£200 each?).

Can someone verify these prices? How would you prioritise these?

On risk, don't most humans judge risk on whether it's happened to them or to someone close to them? i.e. the risk of getting caught for speeding feels much higher once we're caught!. Take smokers for example? People smoke, even though they know it can kill them. I wonder if smoking is more dangerous than flying (GA)?

Your average GA pilot has squeezed every penny together to be able to fly, and finds the safety costs a bit over the top, especially when most PPLs (judging from watching people loading and unloading from cross-channel trips) survive and fly in ignorance or denial; "it hasn't happened to me, or to someone I know, so it will be ok."

It is illogical to talk about cost when the ultimate cost is your's and possibly someone else's life. But for many, it comes down to a decision as to whether to find the £1,000 to buy the reduced risk or to use it for more flying or whatever. And because most pilots on most flights from most airfields survive, most people opt not to buy the reduced risk.

So, on the basis that this thread has got a few of us worried, what is the most economical way to get access to the safety equipment if you are an occasional (ie. once every two months) SEP channel/Irish Sea crosser for leisure?

Editted to point out that we wore clothes as well as the life-jackets, but had no other safety equipment:O

Risk factors should also be quantified differently when dealing with people other than yourself. Personally, I'd be quite happy to cross the Irish sea in a single, but there's no way I'm taking my missus and toddler son until I've got a twin rating (and the money to hire one :( ).

Safety equipt
 

Being a boat owner (RIBS) as well as a novice SPIC, living on the Isle of Man, I guess all my longer trips are going to be over water.

I have various auto inflation LJ's, and a full drysuit for my boating activities.

Would these be suitable for aviation?

Cheers

Auto-inflating LJs are a stunningly bad idea in an aircraft. Since it is often only possible to exit the cabin of the aircraft once water pressure has equalised on both sides of the door (especially in high-wing types), the jacket will in all likelihood inflate before you can get out... This is a bad thing.

jayemm

Life jackets are £50-£90. Nearly all those on general sale for the GA market are identical internally; are contract manufactured by Remploy and the spec varies a little; e.g. the more expensive ones such as SEMS (also sold by Transair at Transair prices) have "less sweaty" fabric.

Life rafts start at about £1100. You can get them for a bit less but those are without a canopy and thus no good for cold driving rain; in heavy seas only marginally better than swimming. A canopy is essential. I've got one but if I was getting one again I would get one from RFD; they sell off their website and are much better value that the American ones sold for the "aviation" market. Life rafts are supposed to be serviced regularly (not a UK legal requirement for private flights) and if you buy the "wrong" one you can find that the service is expensive because nobody stocks the replacement bottles, etc - I got burned on this myself. www.rfd.co.uk is worth a look. The drawback of the RFD ones is size/weight.

For locators, the old ~200MHz ones which are still widely sold are a waste of time because the satellite location has poor accuracy and too many false alarms to be useful. You need the 403MHz one and they start at perhaps £500, slightly more if a GPS is inside. It can be argued that an integral GPS is not necessary when flying in the civilised world because SAR services are common, but elsewhere you may be relying entirely on commercial shipping (most of which nowadays navigates using GPS and they can sail directly to a given GPS location) and a built-in GPS is essential. www.sartech.co.uk is one place to look.

Dry suits I have no idea about.

Personally I always fly with a bag containing a handheld GPS and a handheld transceiver. These would be dead handy if you end up floating somewhere, couldn't do the mayday call (or nobody heard it - easily done around France on a Sunday) and the EPIRB is duff. You can easily call up an airliner at 30,000ft, even 100 miles away - I gather they monitor 121.50 en-route.

I have never ditched but the above appears to be the condensed wisdom from people I have spoken to when researching the subject.

Thanks for tips

I have a manual LJ too, so looks like that's the one to take

Good idea about VHF and GPS too - I have those in aquapacs

What about flares? Presumably same as nautical requirements?

Drysuit might be a bit warm in the plane!

Risk:

When looking at the risks involved in an action, you've got to look at the probability of the occurrence and the consequences should it happen. The chance of an engine failing is very slim, but should it fail, then the consequences could be catastrophic if the failure is over water. In which case, the risk could be considered as unaceptable.

The effect of the consequences can be reduced with appropriate survival equipment and that is where the questions of whether to, whether not to, and what to buy/take with you just in case makes themselves felt. It also reduces the risk to an acceptable level.

The individual involved is the only one who can make that decision, but he must make it with good pre-knowledge. There’s enough good advice around already on the subject, so I’ll not repeat it here. Suffice to say that I still don’t fly single engine over water unless I really have to.

There is also good advice available on the internet on risk management - it might be worth a look before you next fly over water.........

I bought an aviation immersion suit from Andark Marine in Swanick near Southampton for about £200. It makes you look a bit of a prat but combined with the right clothes underneath extends your survival time in water by a couple of hours at the coldest time of year (March) when the sea is around 2-5 degrees celsius. (In a dinghy you can last almost indefinitely)

It's not too uncomfortable flying in it and it behaves as a flight suit as it has lots of pockets etc. I always use it October to April.

I have also been on an underwater Helicopter/Light aircraft excape and survival course at the same place. Its a one day course and it taught me that if you ditch and end up underwater isnide the cabin you will get out if you are alone and following the course instructions. If you have others in the plane who have not experienced the effects underwater (especially upside down) then the chances of getting out rapidly diminish.

http://www.andark.co.uk/main.html

I also carry dinghy, lifejackets, handheld gps, transceiver, dry sweater and beacon all in a waterproof bag.

With family on board it is always the shortest route over sea and thorough briefing (and usually airways!)

I wonder if this is really true for a typical UNpressurised light aircraft.

The wing and tail boom cavities will rapidly fill up with water if the relevant part is submerged. All you have left are the tanks (hopefully partially empty!) and the cockpit itself.

If the cockpit fills up with water, would the tank buoancy be enough to keep it from sinking? I doubt it; my plane is ~900kg empty and the tank volume is about 300 litres (=300kg of water) so even if the tanks were full of air it would make no difference once the cockpit is filled.

So, if you are still inside the cockpit AND you are underwater, the aircraft will already be sinking to the bottom, and pretty rapidly too - ships are known to sink at up to 40mph and even a fraction of that is likely to be most uncomfortable.

If the water is only say 10m deep and is very clear, it would make sense to wait till movement stops and then try to escape, but most of the sea is far deeper than that, and very dirty.

So the idea must be to get out immediately the aircraft settles on the water. Especially if it is a Cessna (no wing flotation).

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.

Have I missed something obvious?

I know that the CAA have a proposal out at present regarding the fitting of floats which would effectively prevent most recreational helicopter pilots from making sea crossings.

Does anybody know if there is anything similar in the pipeline to prevent SEP aircraft from going out of gliding range of land?

It would certainly make it easier to get a table at L'Escale in Le Touquet.

Personally I continue to make sea crossings in SEP and microlight aircraft because I choose to accept the risk. I have given up the IOW to Cherbourg route for the winter though.

jayemm
Interesting question wrt costs. Here is my compromise given I cross the channel a little less frequently than you, but in hired a/c:

I have always found either the hirer, or someone on the airfield is willing to lend/ hire me a liferaft - so I have never seen the need to buy one myself.

I have however bought a cheap 121.5 EPRB (approx £150). As my sea crossings are shortish channel routes, my view is that normally I'll get a mayday call out on the way down with an approx position (& I have a transceiver anyway). Then (after surviving the splash etc)the important thing is that a SAR helicopter can home in quickly. So I'm happy for it just to have 121.5 as I understand they are not going to be getting rid of the 121.5 homing on SAR helicopters in the near future.
Its also useful if you have the misfortune to go down in remote mountains, as was written up by the AAIB in the last year or so I think.

To all:
If you have not done so already, then I recommend downloading and reading the CAA Safety Sense Leaflet No 21 on Ditching from the CAA. It covers allot of what is being discussed here and more on the actual recommendations for "landing" on water!

IO540:
Your maths wrt fuel are correct, but I assume you may get another few seconds out of the fact that the fuel tanks dont fill all the cavities in the wings, so there may be a short delay while they take on water? However personally, I think its another good reason to fly low wing a/c, preferably with retractable u/c ;)

Finally a question for me to whitingiom:
you mention "aquapacs" - I assume these are fully waterproof bags? Could you tell us if that’s true and where they can be obtained from. I have been on the look out for something like that, but failed to find anything of any quality

www.aquapac.net
 

www.aquapac.net

Hope that's useful.... I have them for my mobile phone, GPS & VHF handheld.

You can get them in all shapes and sizes.

I also have a waterproof grab bag for dry clothes, chocolate, drink etc.

whitingiom

Thanks for the link - they look just what I was after - and it seems like you can use the electronics whilst still in the bag - even better!

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.

Folks

This link may be of interest

http://www.avweb.com/news/safety/183010-1.html

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.

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.

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

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.

A possible sensible reason is that the pilot is reasonably comfortable that they won't panic and that they will act in such a way as to give themselves a reasonable chance of survival, but is not confident of their ability to stop any passengers panicking or have enough bandwidth to ensure the survival of the passengers at the same time as trying to save themselves.

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

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.

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.

You expel the excess air before you get into the aircraft. I did the RAF Sea Survival course a few years back, exiting the a/c was not covered as it was assumed one had banged out. A few points:

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.

:) :yuk:

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

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

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

Remember, though, that the majority of airliners will be monitoring 121.5 - and they will be high enough to be in touch with the ground stations that you can't reach, and able to relay a message for you.

FFF
---------------

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?

Ah, one of the big advantages of an IR.

No more crossings to the Channel Islands being kept down by the Class A airspace!

FD

Oh, there is no smugger zealot than the recently converted :}

Timothy

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.

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