Crossing the English Channel in a SEP
 

Having always been told by instructors to fly the shortest crossing distance (which makes a great deal of sense) am I being totally reckless in flying Beachy Head - Dieppe direct?
I see there is a VFR route south of the Isle of Wight thats about the same distance but with higher unrestricted airspace but it's even further off my intended course.
Views on routes / single engine reliability & ditching a low wing aircraft would be much appreciated.

This is simple, and nothing you can't work out for yourself.

If your plane is well-maintained, flown regularly, and has no discernible fault or problem that you can think of ;

If you are carrying (and wearing, where appropriate) the requisite safety equipement (life jackets, raft, survival gear, ELTs etc etc) ;

If you have planned your route carefully and taken into account the weather, your experience (can you fly without a horizon?), fuel, diversion planning etc ;

THEN : you have done all you can to make your trip in a light single as safe as possible.

Now : do you fancy the risk or not ? There's no point asking on this forum or anywhere else ! No-one knows your character better than you. It may sound harsh, but it *really* does come down to your take on risk and reward ...

FF :ok:

A very sound summary from FF.

The only thing I would add is given any route at least consider the options.

Depending where you are orginally coming from, Newhaven Dieppe is around 76 stat miles, where as, Lyd Boulogne Dieppe is around 86 stat miles. The first route has a large sector out of glide range of land, the second may have less than 5 or 10 minutes.

Personally I have never understood why people go SFD L2K when in the same way Lyd L2K is only a few minutes longer, however if going to the CI the trade off of time over the sea against distance is not sufficiently worth while, so go direct.

Er well because SFD L2K is only a few minutes longer...... Personally I fly direct whenever I cross water. It makes little difference, if the donk is going to quit it will go at the most inconveniant moment. The rest is risk assessment and preperation. Thinking a slightly shorter crossing will save your ass is just fooling yourself......

"Er well because SFD L2K is only a few minutes longer"

Exactly .. .. ..

.. .. .. but I wonder how many would have thought there was so little difference in the total distance between sfd dieppe and lyd, L2K, dieppe!


"if the donk is going to quit it will go at the most inconvenient moment."

True, but not everyone believes in Murphy I suppose.

The poster also asked about ditching.

Following a ditching the evidence is most survive the impact, but die in the water. Dont kid yourself you will survive for very little time in the channel without a raft.

Thanks for your replies.
Can I also just ask your views on this, say halfway across the engine started running roughly but did not quit totally, I climbed to get the best glide distance but in doing so busted some class A airspace.

How do you think the CAA would view this infringement?

Would London Information be the best person to make a PAN call to?

Squawk 7700 - the waves (if you'll excuse the pun) will part

Not unfavourably.

No - Keep Box 2 on 121.5 and shout on that. The boys and girls in D&D are trained for that scenario and can do any "airspace bust" co-ordination that is required along with anything else you'll need on the surface.

One further point.

I'd consider a rough running engine in the middle of the channel to be a mayday.

Pan=emergency but you don't require outside assistance
Mayday=emergency that requires help.

I'd want S&R deployed immediately, and hopefully get to me before the engine quit altogether. So that would be a mayday.

dp

Well I clocked Dover - Cap Griz Nez at 8 minutes, which is 4 minutes each way. A quick calculation should give you your minimum height which will allow you to glide down from any point (bearing in mind that up on top of the White Cliffs at Dover is a couple of hundred feet amsl). And there you go. No busting controlled airspace; no splash.

Always seems neat to be able to see France when overhead Canterbury.

Plenty of good advice here, but none quite as valuable as the above nugget from FF.

Please make sure you have a decent level of post qualification experience before embarking on this trip (sorry, but the language of your post suggests you might not). Just because you are entitled to do something under the terms of your rating, does not mean you should launch straight into it.

I had four hours flying off the AI with an FI in the week before my first water crossing. I was grateful for every second of it as that horizon disappeared, the sky merged with the water and the view ahead was of bugger all use in maintaning straight and level flight.

The Wombat

Blimey you will be insisting on a "cross channel checkout" next.......

There is nothing difficult about flying accross the channel, I really fail to understand why people make such an issue of it.

I agree, but then I've done it lots of times and have IMC. For a new vanilla PPL out of sight of land on a grey day when the sky and sea are indistinguishable, it can be down right frightening:uhoh:

That is a pretty cavalier response x boy.

How do you square your assertion that "There is nothing difficult about flying accross the channel" with the potential loss of an external horizon. This is the issue I highlighted. I suggest it is real for the very reason that I don't know what Robinpiper's experience is. Maybe you do know Robinpiper and are happy with his / her ability to fly IMC?

It is not only common sense, but good piloting to be current on flying off the AI before crossing water.

You really should reserve you bar-room banter for those people who know better and not spew it on people who might take what you are saying as legit.

The Wombat

Maybe so but then it should be down to a judgement call on the part of the pilot making the flight as to whether they are current enough to deal with the conditions. On such a dark grey day then all the advice of climbinbg high is not going to be valid as they will be in cloud and even with an IMC they can't cross the FIR boundary in cloud.

There is far to much of people trying to project there own fears onto others rather than giving straight advice. Crossing the channel is no different any other flight. Plan properly, prepare and go. Wear life jackets, carry an EPIRB and go. The EPIRB is probably the best bit of kit you will buy, the mcmurdo fast find in the channel is likely to get you out of the water in under 30mins, hypothermic but alive. If it makes you feel better take a life raft as well.

Oh and suggesting that people learn to fly off the AI without proper instrument training (which is a damn sight more than a couple of hours) is even more "bar room cavalier". If the conditions require flight or possability of flight on the AI then the conditions are not VMC and the flight should not be undertaken by a basic PPL. So go "spew" your crap elsewhere.

Channel crossing
 

I've done it dozens of times in several different aircraft.
Being based at Plymouth I just take the direct route and it is about 30 mins to Guernsey, 40 to Jersey in my Mooney.

Decisions as to how long an overwater leg to take depend upon characteristics of pilot and aircraft and also prevailing weather.

For a newbie PPL it really feels like a big deal and gives a tremendous sense of achievement at having made it over the water without having the hassle of ferries etc...

Good luck with your flight.

The aircraft does not know when it is over water.;)

SB

Bose -

I essentially agree with your last post.

However, there are occasions when whilst conditions are VMC over the land, by the time the aircraft is mid channel and has climbed high because the pilot thought this was a good idea, he is struggling to fly visually. Kid yourself not, that is often the situation so expect it and brush up on those basic instrument skills if in any doubt.

After a good day out, and in spite of the forecast, perhaps conditions are a little worse on the way back. Perhaps a recipe for unsettling some new pilots.

For that reason also, if Robinpiper is going to France for the first time, a shorter crossing may have some advantages. Firstly, if you get uncomfortable the coast is within sight before you know it and secondly there is far less time to think you are hearing the engine start to run rough.

As always though on this sort of topic, horses for courses, if you are happy with the longer crossing just get on with it.

Robin - is it your first crossing, and where are you starting from? Also let us know how you found it please - some feedback is always interesting on these threads.

So sensitive x boy to someone pointing out the obvious. And the best you can do is attack my suggestion that it is prudent to be practiced in flying off the AI before crossing water.

If you want to be a serious contributor on the forum, you really need to consider your audience when making the kind of stupid sweeping statements which has triggered my ire.

The hole just gets bigger for you. Grow up.

The Wombat

May I just point out again that Lndon FIR, fine fellows that they are HAVE NO RADAR and if you do have to ditch they will know you are going to get wet, and that's about it. Bournemouth, Southampton, Manston Wattisham, Norwich, Anglia Radar are all radar units who will be able to plot your position down to the point you go below cover & can vector other units on to you. Cover from Manston, Wattisham, Anglia & Norwich overlaps with Continental radar cover so you can be tracked all the way

:ok:

Wombat,
I think you should look inwards a bit, as if you fly of the handle after just reading a post here, then what do you react like when in a high workload situation(2hrs IMC and then need to divert for some reason?)I think maturity(or growing up as you put it) would be needed to keep a level head and respond in a well calculated way! Also if you take a newby up and spend a good few hours flying on the AI, make sure you remember to tell him about fuel, radio monitoring carb ice, t's and p's and altitude!(Or FREDA for short) What i am saying is a normal instument scan, the basic "T", where you scan from the AI to DI,VSI,ASI etc. Also i thought the hours of straight and level during the PPL syslabus would have given plenty of practice of that particular skill. Add on the instrument appreciation at the end of the sylabus and off you go. I have flown on days where the horizon is no where to be seen doing a X/C over land! If your out there IO540, one advantage of learning DR might possibly be keeping straight and level on heading for long(ish) periods without an auto pilot? The only other advice i would offer to the original poster is, if the donk does quit mid channel, see if you can find a smaller type of boat to land next to(EG:-less than 200' long) as the bigger boats wouldnt be able to stop in time to pick you up. Other than that, just go and enjoy yourself and dont indulge in the local brew if your on a day trip:=

Waaaaahhhh, I'm gonna tell my mummy on you.......:p

Your suggestion that a basic PPL having a couple of hours AI practice before hacking out into IMC like conditions is the one that strikes me as less than prudent. I am perfectly comfortable with my ability to contribute to the forums, perhaps you should take a look at your own.........:E

For a first crossing then it would be prudent to pick a good day not a marginal day, but then the same goes for flying across land as well. Our flying improves by practice and building experiance. Crossing water really is a no brainer and too much is made of making it sound difficult. I would ccetainly not reccomend a basic PPL holder having a couple of hours instrument practice and heading out. A basic PPL is taught enough about flying on the clocks to hopefully survive a 180 turn and get the hell out of there. An IMC gives you the ability to make a sustained flight in the marginal conditions described.

I agree completely with you fuji, the point being in that situation the pilot should be aborting the flight not carrying on having had the suggested couple of hours of AI flight.....

Just a personal observation but flying Dover Calais has a different vibe to flying Exeter - Aldernay even though both are Channel crossings.

We are well cocooned in our nice warm cosy cockpits and have a surreal feeling of well being (VFR or IMC), HOWEVER winter is a lot different to Mid July and having stood at the rear of a cross channell ferry halfway between Poole and Cherbourg in early January hostile is a very apt description of the environment. Mist and Fog, howling winds and rough seas.....couldn't help looking and thinking that if I ditch here, that wave there could well be where I end up.....aother thoughts.....Nobody is going to find me in this lot Dinghy or Not.

Could well be flying VFR on top enjoying the sun until that one engine quits

Dover Calais, nice and high, radar service, reasonable weather, lots of ships down there - much more comforting !

This whole debate comes down to one's attitude to risk and how to manage it. The name of the game is to always have an escape route.

I happily fly SE over water, hundreds of miles on occassions, because I carry a raft. Sure, it may be defective and may not open and then I will die, but that would presume a failure of two unconnected systems (the engine and the raft) which is very unlikely - assuming the raft has been serviced and not been lent to some flying club where somebody tampered with it to see what is inside the package...

I don't fly at night, well not on a proper dark night, because there is no escape route. You will almost certainly hit something pretty hard. My night flying is either little bits getting home in the early evening, or whatever was needed for the UK night rating, the FAA PPL and the FAA CPL. I would dread doing the FAA ATPL in a SE (even if one could) since that requires 100hrs of night x/c.

I don't fly if the 0C level is below (or anywhere near) the MSA, unless the flight has guaranteed VMC all the way.

It's funny how many people cross the Channel without a raft (at least 95%, IMHO, including most school-sponsored fly-outs) yet most are happy to do a night flight.

Curiously, flying over mountains is something most won't do, but when you are up there over the Alps at FL160 you are usually totally spoilt for landing sites. Many large elevated flat spots are covered in thick snow, which is pretty good. No chance of recovery of the airframe but anybody should be able to land there. In practice one would aim for one of the valleys.

What evidence do you have for your implicit assertions that:

* carrying a life raft increases your chance of survival to a useful level
* "You will almost certainly hit something pretty hard [in a night forced landing]"?

I would have estimated the overall probability of surviving a forced landing at night over land as higher than that of surviving a ditching at sea with a life raft on board (but without immersion suits). But I don't have statistics.

Been across on many occasions good & bad vis so the lack of a horizon is something I'm not concerned about. Usually go Lydd - Cap Griz Nez (As instructed)
Last time return leg was flown direct Dieppe-Lydd great weather so I thought why not, used GPS and LYD VOR. Great saving on the tacho too!

However I was just wondering if it would raise a few eyebrows in the clubhouse if in the future I started submitting flight plans with direct mid channel waypoint included in it.

If somebody then questioned my reason for doing this, you have all now told me that I'm not the only person out there doing it!

Thanks all for all your posts :ok:

Some stats from the NTSB

90% of ditchings are survived (93% get out of the plane but some drown) 82% of mid ocean ditchings are survived.

97% of land foced landings are survived, however, 35% of forced landings in trees result in serious injury (vs. only a few percent serious injury in ditchings).

No stats on the relative survival rates with and without rafts. However, in the text of the reports only 3% mention a raft.

The odds day in the water with a PFD and EPIRB look good, with a raft they have got to be better, with all of the above + immersion suit its got to be close to the egress rate (93%), at night over land you have got to be more likely to wind up in trees or carying too much speed before impact so I would have thought your survival rate has got to be down close to ditching.

Disappointingly 1/3 of the ditching's were the result of fuel contamination, mismanagement, or running out of it:ugh:

For wt and space reasons I don't carry a raft in the cub. I reckon chances of getting it out would be small anyway. I sometimes wear an immersion suit, but it takes up a lot of baggage space on a long European trip. I do wear a good lifejacket (Switlik helicopter Crew) and do carry a Mcmurdo Fastfind Plus GPS beacon. I also do the short crossing.

Read about it, think about it, create your own strategy to accord with your own attitude to risk and the demands of your own situation.

What evidence do you have for your implicit assertions that:

* carrying a life raft increases your chance of survival to a useful level
* "You will almost certainly hit something pretty hard [in a night forced landing]"?

I would have estimated the overall probability of surviving a forced landing at night over land as higher than that of surviving a ditching at sea with a life raft on board (but without immersion suits). But I don't have statistics.

Just my opinion, bookworm, plus what I see, read and hear through hanging around GA.

I may be more confident than some re the raft but then I do spend time in the sea in my other hobby and the prospect of ditching doesn't bother me at all. And I hope you would agree re my "unconnected system" comment.

I think getting good data will be very hard, because of the uneven geographical distribution of GA activity versus which parts of the population do sea crossings.

The biggest GA scene by far is in the USA. Yet, very few pilots there have a pressing need for sea crossings.

Next is Europe, where I guess UK is the biggest, Germany comparable, France #3, and who is #4? Switzerland maybe? I don't know.

We all know that few UK pilots venture abroad and those that do are mostly going to N. France. Engine failures (even counting running out of juice) are rare and ditching should be very rare, which is in fact the case, which is why we have so little data. Also S&R is quite quick around these parts, so less chance to die of hypothermia than elsewhere.

Germany has little need for water crossings. France has even less, and French GA is done mostly internally anyway; they have that sort of club scene. Central Europe has no need for water crossings.

The place which does have a pressing need for long water crossings, and where GA would have real utility value, is Greece, but I am reliably informed that the total # of GA planes there is in 3 digits, i.e. 1-2% of the UK. So, not a lot of data is going to come from there. Greece would provide useful data on raft usefulness because S&R won't be that quick over there. OTOH they have somewhat warmer waters than here...

Italy is an interesting one, but there is very little GA there too.

There is a small group of IFR pilots in Europe who do occassionally ditch but they tend to do it from quite a height so have more time to organise things. Again, the data will be slanted.

The thing I would absolutely dread is ditching in a PA28 (or any other single door plane) with an unfit or disabled passenger in the RHS. Yet, this is quite a common mode in GA outings: an elderly passenger or relative in the RHS.

A lot of ditched pilots are never found and neither is the wreckage. One can't tell what happened to them. A good chance they got out, the (not very visible) corpse bobbed about in the life jacket for a few days/weeks and then sunk. If the plane ended up in one piece, nothing will remain floating. I reckon a lot of them could have done with a raft but this could be argued both ways, since nobody knows.

Almost nobody carries an EPIRB... activations followed by missing crew would tell us they got out, but the data on this is missing because most people won't spend the £500.

As for night forced landings, I know for sure that if I just descended at Vref until it hits the ground, I am going to seriously wreck it. Any data collected here will also be slanted because GA pilots that do fly at night tend to do so on not very dark nights, where one can still see something. As I wrote, I was talking about a real dark night.

The average temperature of the water in the Channel in winter is 11C. At this temperature you are likely to be unconscious within 45 minutes and dead in around 2 hours, 3 hours if you are very lucky.

As previously commented, there have been a number of surveys suggesting that in around 90% of ditchings the pilot and passengers leave the aircraft successfully.

There can be little doubt the chances of surviving the initial impact on water are remarkably good. However the secret to ultimate success is avoiding hypothermia before you are rescued.

It is evident that the chances of doing so in our climate in the winter or spring are very poor unless you have the protection of a life raft. Whilst immersion suites may prove effective, their key to success is the level of insulation worn underneath - which may be poor given many would consider this creates a less than comfortable environment whilst in flight.

There are a number of AAIB reports which deals with aircraft which it would seem have “successfully” ditched but the passengers and crew died in the water.

The FAA annual reviews would suggest that of the accidents that happen at night compared with during the day you are 2 and a half times more likely to die.

However I am not aware of any statistical examination of your chances of surviving a night forced landing compared with a day. Such a study would be revealing. Leaving aside the far greater likelihood that following an engine failure pilots are less likely to maintain control of the aircraft through out the forced landing than during the day logically one would surmise the chances of severe impact damage are going to be greater.

This may be relevant to those considering crossing if you havent already read it.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_GAD_WEBSSL21.PDF

It seems to strongly support the idea of carrying a raft. I have spent many years skiming across the channel - and even though SAR are very good in the channel - you need to plan on 2hr+ to be rescued mid channel.

Therefore I now always carry a raft. Having said all that I have not come across any actual evidence to support the theory. AND I have not actualy practiced escaping from a plane (probably injured) and then climbing into a raft. I have done it in a boat and upside down in a car and it is not easy.

Does anyone know if such simulations exists for the non military or oil rig types?

Fuji

You can always check the Channel water temp here at Pevensey.

FWIW in the RN FAA we had to wear immersion suits at water temps of 14C and below, so long there was confirmed SAR within 30 mins of ditching. I forget the temp for no SAR within 30 mins, but you can reckon it would be 16 or above.

This chart shows the accumulated sea temp data for the Pevensey buoy.

Note that only in July, August and September is the temp consistently 15C and above.

This is just for the persons information i haven't got anything to do with the sale.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Mini-B-300-EPI...QQcmdZViewItem

Seems a reasonable price. We have this type in our rib. Quite sturdy and easy to use.

I really don't think that a raft is going to be of much use to you either its going to be a complete pain in the bum to have it anywhere that you can get the thing out quickly if required.

On ebay as well there are plenty of diving Dry suits for sale at under 100 quid.
Or am sure you could rent a dry suit for a couple of days for 30 quid.

Don't go for the thin type. Go for a neoprene thick one. They turn into wet suits if they leak and still retain some bouyancy (although not much).

Personally I think the beacon is a good idea for that price but I wouldn't bother with the rest of the kit apart from the life jackets. Persoanlly the accident statistic for ditchings in UK waters and G reg aircraft, one in the last 3 years at Dundee, and one up in my old school 5 years ago ish, are good enough that its inside my not worth it zone. Single engine IMC has very similar risks if not more so but it doesn't seem to generate as much debate.

MJ i agree with everything apart from the dry suit recomendation.

A neoprene dry suit is very bulky and will hamper movement in the cockpit. Flooded it gives you no more thermal insulation as neoprene works as an insulator only when water is trapped in a VERY thin layer direct against the skin. A neoprene dry bag does not work that way. One of th greatest fallacies in diving generated I suspect by Northern Diver to sell the 8mm "commercial" neoprene suits in the old days. In the older days we wore these suits with a 2mm neoprene wet suit and and pumped hot water into them from the surface via the nemo umbilical instead of air.

A membrane suit with a thinsulate under suit will keep you warm even flooded (5hrs deco in a flooded membrane bag in norway.....) and is no more bulky than normal clothes and a coat.

I wear a goretex mix boating dry bag with a weezel undersuit for long sea crossings. This is waterproof to 5m but breathes through the goretex so keeps you comfortable on the flight. I have the latex boots and wear 5mm neoprene boots over them. Very comfortable even on a very long flight.

I had a suspision you would come back with that Bose-x (who i suspect is a DIR person)

I have also had the zip go in both a membrane with thinsulate and otter compressed. I obviously would have prefered the zip to do it's job. But was warmer with the otter. I proberly don't have the same quality of suits you use and a 300 quid otter compressed does the job way better than a cheap membrane and woolybear.

Each unto there own. Anyway I wouldn't bother wearing either of them.

Whats it with this channel crossing thing?

It seems to have developed into a elite sport for pilots.

****ty horizon and fly for 30 mins in a straight line with no visual ground reference you can recognise. Sounds like every nav ex I have done in the Vale of York.

Land at an airport with the ATCO having a funny accent and not speaking the same English as you. Again this can happen at most airports in Yorkshire and Lancashire .

The most difficult navigation exercise you will have flying into L2K is working out where the prick on the push bike wants you to park.

I have to do my survival ticket once every 2 years for working on the rigs. Last did it up at Teeside and it costs £500 for a four day course, not sure if you can break it up and just do the submerged escape? I will ask, if enough people are interested.

Steady on stroke.......... :) I can't be DIR I am a rebreather ITT......:p

I get my suits sponsored by OThree, 2.5mm kevlar coated compressed neoprene!

I do agree with you, there seems to be a real meal being made of an absolute no brainer trip. When i suggest it is a no brainer I get hammered for being bar room gung ho.....

Cheating buggar that is a posh thick one thats just a bit baggy (for the nappy that they all wear). And also I might add about 1.5k's worth of equipment.

Joking aside if you do go down the route of a suit make sure it has a decent hood and you have access to it.

If in the exceeding unlike event you do go in. When you combine the water temp and the wind chill on wet hair on your head if you don't have a hood on you might as well not bother with the rest of the suit.

Ps I will try a persude someone that has done the dunking course who operates fixed wing to give you thier views on if it does actually give you any training worth while. I suspect not as your hitting the water at 80mph and not as in a helicopter you land and the thing then rolls and sinks.

Whilst completing my PPL training this summer I twice had the pleasure of flying out to France under the watchful eye of an instructor. Discussing the possibility of an engine failure he suggested that the best option for survival (after making mayday calls etc and assuming out of gliding distance of land) would be, if possible, to fly low across the path of any passing ship in order to attract the attention of its crew, and then ditch nearby.

There is a fairly basic problem with "drysuits" (I am using this as a generic term as there are different types) and that is that most passengers won't wear them.

It's OK if you like to fly alone, which I accept many pilots do, but that doesn't exactly make going places much fun. A lot of passengers even really dislike headsets, although the Bose X seems to be fine with everybody I have flown with.

You also have to have different sizes for passengers of different sizes.

A raft is the only way that makes sense. It is a small package, under 10kg, which lives on the back seat (in easy reach of the pilot if flying alone) and it gives you a chance. Come on, all those not carrying one... let's admit it's down to the cost ;)

nah you would be better with a 10kg yellow brick for the pool with a bit of red string stuck on it, that has "Life raft" stenciled on the side. Then the local PPL police think you have listened to them.

The reduction in heckling and abuse in the bar thus reducing the stress level before flight. Will have more of increase in safety than having a beacon, life jackets, inflatable boat, seat belt knife, dry suit, back up ICOM,backup back up ICOM with VOR thingy on it, and all that other pish they would have you carry. Its developed it an arms race of who can out safety each other. As soon as everone has the kit some pillock finds something else to up the anti.

20 quid/ crate of beer spent getting an engineer to take the cowls off, check the plugs and compressions. Would be far better money spent IMHO.

Apart of course from a GPS :p

"I really don't think that a raft is going to be of much use to you either its going to be a complete pain in the bum to have it anywhere that you can get the thing out quickly if required."

With that I would strongly have to disagree.

A raft offers you the best, and possibly the only chance of survival during most of the year.

I would agree a raft just might not suite all aircraft. However my raft is not much bigger than a lever box file. Crossing water it "lives" on the rear seat within easy reach of either the passenger upfront if there is one or it on to P2seat without a passenger.

In the event of an engine failure it would be on the P2 passengers lap immediately or attached to me with the layard already provided for the purpose.

I can assure you the liferaft is coming with me if and when I get out! A few trips across the atlantic in yachts, races around the Channel and in the water after diving or whilst sailing dinghies in the middle of January have taught me just what a dangerous enviroment the Channel can be - and I love water!!

To be blunt in my opinion crossing the Channel without a liferaft is just irresposible unless you are happy to gamble with the odds of having an engine failure, which I would be the first to agree are very heavily stacked in your favour. Trouble is I bet you will regret it if your number comes up when you are swimming away from the aircraft in a three foot swell, dusk is descending and you were wishing for a change you were up there instead of down here :) .