Aircraft, car, MC, horse. If the ice won’t hold, it doesn’t matter how you got yourself out onto the ice.
News of Accident Report :
https://www.icelandreview.com/society/landing-on-frozen-lake-led-to-fatal-crash/
Wreckage being recovered today, Friday 22 April.
https://www.icelandreview.com/society/preparations-made-to-recover-plane-crash-wreckage/
eurogaguest1980 wrote:
I don’t fly many passengers – essentially family only or other pilots – but most people do not understand the risks of flying in a small aircraft, and they should before they get in. If a life jacket scares them away, perhaps they need a more complete briefing on what they are about to do, and the risk that there will be a problem.
I agree with you, however it is easier said than done often enough. Right now, I am no longer flying on an airport where life jackets are an issue anymore.
Also this was 30 years ago. Then flying was still much more of a new thing which scared people far more than it does today. I had two instances where when I told a pax it would be wise to wear a life jacket for take off that they decided to run. Most of the other time I flew with other pilots or my then GF who knew enough about it not to mind. But at the same time, I was the only pilot out of there I ever knew that did this and I also only started that habit long after my training, where this never had been a topic at all. It is always interesting to see how people see risks. Yet again, none of the ditching survivors wore jackets to my knowledge.
As for briefing, when does this really happen and how do you do it in a positive and confident way, not quite like an insurance salesman who always try to scare the bejazis out of people to get higher coverage sold.
I normally explain to occasional passengers the things they see in airliners too, where is the exit, there is a fire extinguisher and life jackets are available as appropriate. I also tell them what to do in case of an aborted take off or if they need to get out after landing and other basic stuff. But getting into risks of small airplanes would most probably cause 99% of the pax to run away. That is not really what anyone wants. It is also one thing pilots often do wrong, discussing accidents while spouses or other pax are present. Not a good idea, also not before airline flights.
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.
You’re absolutely right about this. No recovery is worth losing another life.
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.
I don’t fly many passengers – essentially family only or other pilots – but most people do not understand the risks of flying in a small aircraft, and they should before they get in. If a life jacket scares them away, perhaps they need a more complete briefing on what they are about to do, and the risk that there will be a problem.
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.
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…
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.
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.
