Water entry can be hard or soft. Crashing into the water is not good, "landing" on the water can be very survivable.

Also remember the main thing that would cause the aircraft to flote that is the fule tank is in the wing which in the Skymaster is on top of the cabin. Not good in a water landing or any situation where you need to flote.

I have a mental image of two occupied survival suits skipping across the water like bullets. Does not sound like the lesser of two evils IMO.

Coming from the army, it doesn't surprise me. They had some unusual ideas about more than just that when I was in.

"...How high above the water does the Army recommend executing this jump?..."

I just don't remember, it was tooooo long ago. I did a lot of overwater flying with Army Warrant Officers (who were civilians a very short time ago), so I looked thru the manual just for my info. But I always figured that popping the door while inflight was OK, but I didn't really like that jumping out part. I seem to remember that the top speed/altitude for jumping from a helo is 30mph/30 ft MSL. Unless the pilot did a good job of stalling the aircraft at the proper altitude a Beaver jumper would probably exceed both...

A few notes:

First: Either they didn't listen closely in class, OR they hadn't received good instruction (or never attended or read any good ditching info). It is impossible to "hold" the door open in a ditching. That's the reason we teach that you either block the door open with something (a book of approach plates is often a readily available choice) or lock it open (on those aircraft that allow for this).

Second: With a high-wing aircraft (or inverted low-wing), you basically have to wait for the water to enter to equalize pressure and then you can exit, or you have to smash the window and exit that way. SOP. By wearing inherently buoyant survival suits, they all but eliminated the ability to exit underwater. A bad idea that's doubly bad with a high wing aircraft.

These guys were very lucky. They appear to have been Darwin nominees that survived despite everything.
[/quote]

Doug, with respect, under those conditions, your chances of living long enough to don that suit after swimming out are zero. They didn't have any "good" choices. The one's they made worked. That surely is the litmus test of what is right or wrong.

One thing that should be done is getting all the various Aviation licensing authoritys (American, EU etc) to make it illegal for anyone to ferry a plane untill they have done ditching, survival at sea etc and been properly licensed. Mandatory refresher every 5 years or so.

I don't see anywhere that I suggested that they don their suits after egress. If I somehow gave that impression, I apologize (and if you could point it out, I'll edit it). I personally favor the modern Gore-Tex suits with insulation that you can wear like a normal flight suit, nothing at all to be done if needed except maybe finish zipping up or removing a neck ring (depending upon style).

As for a "litmus test," I'll respectfully disagree. These guys survived DESPITE making a number of serious errors in preparations. They were extremely lucky in the end. That's often the case, but hardly a reason to claim that makes what they did good choices. Survival due to fortitude and good luck is better than not, but we can learn a lot to ensure we don't have to face such difficulties.



Sorry, but in my opinion we have more than enough licensing requirements, so I disagree. Most folks who chose to do this, take some instruction. These guys may have, I don't know. I am very much opposed to the concept of a nanny society. Personally, I don't think we need any more of government licensing. You might just as well suggest that we require that children and people be licensed to cross the street. We lose lots more folks that way every year than we do the occasional pilot who fails to survive a ditching as a result of some lack of training. Ditchings, even in the north Atlantic, are pretty highly survivable events, even without such a licensing scheme and there's very little to suggest such a required expense would significantly impact the survival rate, given that most already avail themselves of some sort of training.

The thing is, they walked in a 1 meter circle, since they didn't know how stable that icefloe was. I'm curious - how does one fly a stable ice floe while in the midst of making crash preparations?

However... yes, a windbreak probably would have been GREAT for them to have.

You are not a marketer, sir.
There is no higher compliment.
The American Heart Association has marketed basic and advanced life support (BLS/ACLS)training de facto licensing requirements for emergency medical pursuits, and they pretty much have the franchise. It raises a ton of money for them, even tho it has consistently lagged behind the science of resuscitation. Imagine a federal requirement that all pilots (heck, why not all passengers?) complete a ETS approved basic birdman survival (BBS)course. You need only establish an instructor-trainer program, a series of multi-media review and instruction programs, a selection of certificates,lapel pins, patches and t-shirts. Then you make the BBS credential expire every two years to guarantee an income stream into the future.
This could be bigger than Amway.

And you probably won't do it, because you have integrity.
You are not a marketer, sir.

Dress for Egress !

When you ditch an aircraft and have seconds to get out, your life raft and the survival gear bag (that were most likely stowed in the back)won't help you.

The raft and the survival gear will most likely sink to the bottom of the ocean.

I never fly without wearing my survival vest WITH a PLB in it !

It IS restricting and annoying, but it might save your life if you find yourself in the middle of an ocean or in the desert.

Back in my Rotary wing days, We all had on our survival vests while in the air. You soon get used to wearing one.