Inhot,
My specific background (and me) is of little consequence, but yes, I am comfortable, as much as one can be, with the prospect. As much as dealing with in flight fires and structural failures, systems losses, powerplant failures, etc. I have direct personal experience in each area, and while we all certainly hope to only deal with such eventualities in a simulator or the classroom, I have learned by expeience that most all such scenarios are not necessarily emergencies, but learning moments of intensity.
Aside from water training, I have practical experience putting airplanes in the water, as a floatplane pilot. I also have practical experience getting from the water into a raft, floating for extended periods without support gear, and swimming in flight gear. This also includes water jumps and water work with parachutes and jump equipment. This should be minimal training for anyone considering overflight of large expanses of water, and in the very least, specific training with the equipment to be used.
The point of my previous post is that for the most part, it matters little where the forced landing under adverse conditions occus, because ultimately you're likely to die. I've spent considerable time working airplanes in very low visibility close to the ground in rough terrain. Under such conditions it takes very little to put an airplane in the hillside, and it is very rarely survivable. The same for night work in the mountains, or low level, or low level night work. Over water work presents it's own unique hazards, not the least of which is drowning.
Impact issues and hydraulic forces may excessivley damage structures, trap occupants, and the environment may lead to hypothermia and death even if escape is successfully made. Emergency water landings have unique risks such as depth perception, which may cause some spectacular failures when attempting to approach the surface. Glassy water scenarios are one such example.
One may survive impact, only to be unable to properly use survival or lifesupport equipment. I was acquainted with an individual years ago who successfully ejected from an aircraft, but broke both arms upon exiting the airplane. The high speed ejection, and subsequent physical injury prevented him from activating his LPU on impact with the water, and despite being conscious, he drowned. Now, water activated LPU's are standard. Then, they weren't. All he needed to do was pull a little cord, and instead, he slowly drowned.
Is ditching a minor deal? No. It's a big deal. However, my response was that it doesn't bother me much. I've spent much of my career working in high risk situations, and working in high risk employment. One could spend all day becoming neurotic dwelling on the risk, or one might spend all day working professionally to mitigate the risk. I choose the latter. It doesn't bother me, because I have more important things to think about. I have routinely been in situations in which equipment failures or other concerns would cause situations to develop, about which I could do nothing. If one can do nothing, then one shouldn't worry. One should concentrate on situations that can be dealt with, and leave impossibilities to fate, and to the preventative measures taken to keep fate at bay.
I don't care which way you're leaning. Have you something to contribute to the question at hand, or is the time best spent attacking the credibility of other posters? How do you feel about single engine work over mountains, at night, and over water? I believe that was the question, not what avbug did to feed his family for the past xxx years. What avbug did doesn't really matter, nor does avbug. I don't care for being in the water, over the water, or on the water. That doesn't prevent me from being there, as needed. I don't care for heights, either. That doesn't prevent me from flying an airplane, or exiting an airplane when occasion permits, or the need arises. In short, no; I don't let those things bother me.
Save your veracity. Dismiss the opinions if you find them too strong. Others do.
My specific background (and me) is of little consequence, but yes, I am comfortable, as much as one can be, with the prospect. As much as dealing with in flight fires and structural failures, systems losses, powerplant failures, etc. I have direct personal experience in each area, and while we all certainly hope to only deal with such eventualities in a simulator or the classroom, I have learned by expeience that most all such scenarios are not necessarily emergencies, but learning moments of intensity.
Aside from water training, I have practical experience putting airplanes in the water, as a floatplane pilot. I also have practical experience getting from the water into a raft, floating for extended periods without support gear, and swimming in flight gear. This also includes water jumps and water work with parachutes and jump equipment. This should be minimal training for anyone considering overflight of large expanses of water, and in the very least, specific training with the equipment to be used.
The point of my previous post is that for the most part, it matters little where the forced landing under adverse conditions occus, because ultimately you're likely to die. I've spent considerable time working airplanes in very low visibility close to the ground in rough terrain. Under such conditions it takes very little to put an airplane in the hillside, and it is very rarely survivable. The same for night work in the mountains, or low level, or low level night work. Over water work presents it's own unique hazards, not the least of which is drowning.
Impact issues and hydraulic forces may excessivley damage structures, trap occupants, and the environment may lead to hypothermia and death even if escape is successfully made. Emergency water landings have unique risks such as depth perception, which may cause some spectacular failures when attempting to approach the surface. Glassy water scenarios are one such example.
One may survive impact, only to be unable to properly use survival or lifesupport equipment. I was acquainted with an individual years ago who successfully ejected from an aircraft, but broke both arms upon exiting the airplane. The high speed ejection, and subsequent physical injury prevented him from activating his LPU on impact with the water, and despite being conscious, he drowned. Now, water activated LPU's are standard. Then, they weren't. All he needed to do was pull a little cord, and instead, he slowly drowned.
Is ditching a minor deal? No. It's a big deal. However, my response was that it doesn't bother me much. I've spent much of my career working in high risk situations, and working in high risk employment. One could spend all day becoming neurotic dwelling on the risk, or one might spend all day working professionally to mitigate the risk. I choose the latter. It doesn't bother me, because I have more important things to think about. I have routinely been in situations in which equipment failures or other concerns would cause situations to develop, about which I could do nothing. If one can do nothing, then one shouldn't worry. One should concentrate on situations that can be dealt with, and leave impossibilities to fate, and to the preventative measures taken to keep fate at bay.
I don't care which way you're leaning. Have you something to contribute to the question at hand, or is the time best spent attacking the credibility of other posters? How do you feel about single engine work over mountains, at night, and over water? I believe that was the question, not what avbug did to feed his family for the past xxx years. What avbug did doesn't really matter, nor does avbug. I don't care for being in the water, over the water, or on the water. That doesn't prevent me from being there, as needed. I don't care for heights, either. That doesn't prevent me from flying an airplane, or exiting an airplane when occasion permits, or the need arises. In short, no; I don't let those things bother me.
Save your veracity. Dismiss the opinions if you find them too strong. Others do.