@Airborne_Again I don’t know about the US, but UK law depends heavily on precedent and some things will become inadmissible via precedent. The idea is to prevent every case asking the same question again and again and thus forcing some consistency. Outside of established precedent (which a judge can overturn, if they can rationalise it) it is up to the courts as you say.
But again, I don’t think this is a case of inadmissibility per se. I believe it’s a case of applicants failing in their bid to force disclosure of material that others have and they would like access to for the purposes of arguing their case.
Nb wrote:
why getting as much height as possible over the water isn’t always the best option
That is a good food for thoughts, there is a good hierarchy of risks: terrain > weather > water then you adjust heading & height accordingly
In hardcore weather (e.g. icing, convective, low ceilings, visibility), being over water is clearly an advantage, ahem, ignoing the few spots where wind farms are planed over water, you can descend bellow ILS Cat1 DH and cruise on QNH over water if weather & terrain are one problem, if the engine quits in nasty weather, one clearly has more chances of successful ditch in water than random descent over land, although throwing avgas and following the coastline on short crossings seems to offer better risk profile
Of course, lot of this is now limited with the Danger Areas across English Channel (all is left is Cap Griz Nez to Dover in ‘stealth mode’ bellow any weather and radar altitude) but in any case it will be daft to stay in TCU/Icing or go to descend over terrain bellow MSA because of 1 in million engine failure concern when flying over water
Obviously, the above is for single engine dealing with weather & terrain, for twins YMMV
Airborne_Again wrote:
According to statistics (see e.g. this web site), successful ditching it the least challenge. Surviving until being picked up is the major problem.
All the statistics I’ve seen and almost all the ditching reports I’ve read indicate that successful ditching is indeed the least challenge, not to say that it’s not important. An unsuccessful ditching makes what follows moot. But I think the success number is somewhere around 90%. Surviving until being picked up is definitely a major problem, and a raft improves those chances significantly. Most of the fatalities are from drowning, usually inside the aircraft. Getting everyone safely out of the aircraft is by far the biggest challenge. Low wing aircraft float longer but exit is restricted to a single cabin door on the right for many/most models (especially Piper, Beech, Mooney). High wing are mostly easier to exit but prompt action is needed as they tend to sink more quickly.
I took a one-day ditching course which focussed on understanding and practicing critical exit techniques as well as the challenges involved when carrying a raft. It was a lot of fun and good preparation for a real life ditching. I would highly recommend such a course to anyone who flies regularly over water.
As I recall, the stuff you would need to have learnt to know why getting as much height as possible over the water isn’t always the best option (which has been mentioned in this thread), you only learn in the IR TK and above.
The higher over water the better but above say 5000ft adds little (unless it places you within glide range of land) because 5 mins is plenty to do the standard engine stoppage checks, set 7700, mayday call, get the cockpit cleaned up, get the raft ready.
The UK pilot punishment regime would strongly disincentivise pilots to infringe something even if life was in danger.
BTW I think that wall of IMC was entered only after they reached ~7k. That is what the track shows. A nice well controlled climb and a level-off. Then something bad happened. At 7k, FR24/FA has a very good range.
This was at 12k in the relevant bit
Here the tracking started (flight is westbound) at 4500ft.
However some tracking losses can be txp code changes.
I don’t have data at 7k within my FR24 access, and FA (Flightaware) is generally better anyway than FR24.
All the statistics I’ve seen and almost all the ditching reports I’ve read indicate that successful ditching is indeed the least challenge
I agree, so passenger briefing is important, carrying a raft, and in a PA28 not putting a “less than very agile” person in the front RHS is vital. However the ditching survival data may be slanted by a different mission profile flown in the winter months. Large chunks of European GA shut down more or less completely then.
chflyer wrote:
Surviving until being picked up is definitely a major problem
I think they key thing is being able to get located very quickly: 7700, ELT, PLB & ADBS? I usually fly without raft with life jackets but only doing short crossings: plenty of boats within reach and my PLB & Phone are kept dry, still I think it’s important to ensure switching ELT (will sink), set 7700 (will sink) and fire up PLB (stay with pilot)
Obviously, these are luxuries if going to ditch or die consciously, unlikely the case in a loss of control…
Doesn’t the PA28 have an emergency window behind.the pilot’s seat which can be kicked out.
The.PA44 which was based on the PA28 airframe does and is part of the checklist.
@gallois I don’t think so, the Aztec and Navajo had an emergency window, but am not aware the PA28 ever had one. Not sure how easy to break out without an axe. Ditching has the top door latch unlatched.
In addition to investigating a small two person raft, will invest in a marine grab bag for essentials/first aid/water/energy bars
https://www.marinesuperstore.com/emergency-equipment/grab-bags/mcmurdo-single-shoulder-bag
Try kicking out a window which is right next to you. You can’t get your legs up there 
And the vast majority of today’s GA pilots don’t have the agility to climb out through a window.
I have two kick-out windows in the TB20 but would go for the two doors every time – unless the front seat occupants were immobile/unconscious.
Then you have to get into the raft, which you prob99 won’t do if you climbed out through a window.
I am told this Aztec forced landing ASN was from the same group of 6 planes flying out from Wellesbourne.
One issue which hasn’t – as far as I know – been raised as a possible factor is the FAA AD Spar Check for PA 28.
If the plane concerned was required to have had the check (and hadn’t had it done) then it could be a factor if the plane experienced extra stresses in flight.
It wouldn’t be hard to break out a PA28 pilot’s window starting at the DV aperture. It only looks like plate glass. With the superhuman strength of adrenalin flowing, no problem at all. Getting the raft to follow you would be more of a challenge.
