Peter wrote:
A social media influencer would have had at least five go-pros around the aircraft
I would hope so, unless they were only doing a reconnaissance trip.
This tragedy is a wake-up call to some of us who visit remote and very cold places in the 172:
I don’t think it’s goulish to wonder what went wrong.
Aveling wrote:
This tragedy is a wake-up call to some of us who visit remote and very cold places in the 172:I don’t think it’s goulish to wonder what went wrong.
It’s all about keeping a safe altitude. The west coast of the lake has fields big enough for a 172 to land and some roads too.
All 4 bodies now recovered. Aircraft looks in good condition, and they’re hoping to recover it tomorrow.
Flying around REK at this time of the year in a SEP, maybe not the worst idea to wear thermal immersion suits like the stuff used for NATL crossings. Or at the very least life jackets. There is a whole lot of water around REK.
Given the nature of some of the pax on board one wonders what altitude they were flying at. They were reasonably close to REK so any radio call would have been heard there, the absence of which makes me wonder about the nature of this thing. I gather from reports that the PIC was quite experienced, so the absence of any form of radio call tells me they had no time at all.
Seba wrote:
It’s all about keeping a safe altitude. The west coast of the lake has fields big enough for a 172 to land and some roads too.
Excellent point! I’ll remember it.
I generally extend to experienced 172 pilots, credit for their understanding of lack luster performance in a heavy 172. Getting low and slow, with the expectation of a go around will lead to disappointment, even near sea level. I further extend credit that experienced pilots aren’t coerced into “exciting” flying by thrill seeking passengers – unless it’s a thrill type plane, which a 172 is not. Less well understood is the visual confusion caused by low flying with glassy water as a vertical reference, though that’s really only a factor if one is flying off shore, and away from it.
For cold water overflight, immersion suits are a minimum. That said, there is not enough room in the back of a 172 for passengers wearing immersion suits – on purpose! No one should be riding in the back of a 172 if an immersion suit is a good idea for the flight, exit is much less easy. ‘Sounds like the people might have exited, which itself would have been a accomplishment. Perhaps very agile, adequately briefed and prepared people, and that’s credit to the pilot. But, if they had to get out into very cold water, with no immediate help, the flight should not have been in that place in the first time.
As for diving depths, I claim no particular knowledge of the limits for deep diving, but from the many rescue/recovery events I’ve been involved with, I have always seen very experienced divers, who considered safety first, and making a recovery after second. The fact that a person can get themselves to a remote location, from where recovery is difficult, does not impose upon our skilled rescues personnel the obligation to take on great risk to recovery their body. Sometimes it’s not safe. There was one case in western Canada where some foolish mountain hikers got themselves stranded on a very remote mountain ledge, and froze to death. The coroner pronounced them dead with binoculars from the helicopter. The families wanted the bodies recovered. The authorities said we won’t take that risk, you may hire a private company if you wish. To save a life, take a lot of risk, to recover a body, take much less risk….
Perhaps a recovered camera will yield clues.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
The families wanted the bodies recovered. The authorities said we won’t take that risk, you may hire a private company if you wish.
That situation is well known also in the Himalayas. With the recent development of air rescue in those places, more bodies of people with wealthy friends or relatives are being flown down, the huge remainder stays where they die. Not pretty but I’d say well known enough that people should know what they are doing.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
For cold water overflight, immersion suits are a minimum.
I agree and yet for many applications this does not work and never will. Lots of airfields are close to lakes and any airplane which experiences EFATO or even on the circuit will likely end up in water. Nobody wears even life jackets on those. I learnt to fly out of Altenrhein and there you will (and some did) end up in the lake 80% of the time if you take off from the main departure runway. Yet in the few ditchings there were, even in less than hospitable weather and climate, boats were on the spot fast enough so far. I know other airfields where ending up in water is likely. I used to put on my airline style life jacket for departure for a while in the C150 but had to note fast that pax don’t like this at all at all and run far and away at the looks of it.
This lake here is not next to the airport and I don’t see any reason to fly low enough to having to ditch in it.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I used to put on my airline style life jacket for departure for a while in the C150 but had to note fast that pax don’t like this at all at all and run far and away at the looks of it.
Really? I explain to my pax that on an airliner the life jacket is under the seat and you have enough space (and time) to put it on if required. In a light aircraft you don’t so if the life jacket is going to make any difference it has to be worn from the start. I also explain the evacuation procedures and where the fire extinguisher and the PLB are located. No one has complained yet…
In a light aircraft you don’t so if the life jacket is going to make any difference it has to be worn from the start Quote
This.
