I didn't quite understand this part: "Think of an automobile--even one mired in snow or mud--as a survival ark. It is windproof, waterproof and an excellent source of insulation . (You can tear up the seat cushions.)"

I am kind of assuming that if you're alone, you can sleep in either the front or back seat, and rip up the other one for insulation. But if there are more than one of you, it seems that ripping up the seats would be counter-productive. I'm not exactly sure what the seat stuffing is made from. If it came out in sheets, maybe.

And if you made a brush shelter, you could fill it with the seat stuffing and spend your time pulling it apart and fluffing it up as insulation to put around you, like a hamster's nest.

But that isn't using the car as an 'ark'. Cars themselves aren't insulated, other than a fraction of an inch of foam attached to the headliner.

Am I missing something here?

The references to food not being necessary: This may have been to assuage the worries of the non-prepared, to indicate that food was not a main priority.

Personally, I would think that having food with you would tend to calm most people. In a possibly life-threatening situation, you need to focus on the important stuff, like shelter, fire and water. If you've got food, that's one less thing you'll be stressing over. And you know that most people would worry about not having food, esp if they had children with them.

My basic opinion on these magazine type articles on survival, if well done, give your average American something to think about, without pushing them over the edge into "that's too scary to think about" country. If it pushes a thousand people to actually buy a $4 6-volt lantern, a couple of disposable lighters and two cheap mylar blankets from WallyWorld and put them in the car, they are ahead of most of the pack. And who knows, it might get them thinking more about it, and lead them them to ETS!

KI6IW: "I found the red X on the wing (first photo) to be interesting. I seem to remember that an X on a wing meant that the crash was "old" but could not be removed. Perhaps someone with SAR could comment on that."

That could be true. The first page of the article says that the magazine had the wrecked Cessna towed to the site for the survival scenario. Someone probably "dinged" (that's what they call it!) their plane, and PM gave them a few bucks over salvage for it.

Sue