Survival in the Arctic - 18 hours on an ice floe

I haven't seen anyone post about this story yet.

http://tinyurl.com/5mfx85

Two Swedish citizens (one was an Australian and the other Danish by birth) lost both engines, one shortly after the other, on a trans-Atlantic ferry flight, south of Baffin Island. I have to say, when I first heard the reports, I thought the SAR guys would be lucky to find the bodies; I was amazed to hear that both men had survived.

They landed on the ice, but it wasn't strong enough to support the weight of the aircraft; they managed to scramble out, but the aircraft sank immediately taking their liferaft with it. They were able to scramble to firmer ice, and were picked up, after 18 hours in -20 C temperatures, by a fishing boat that had joined the search.

First of all, good for them for surviving. Their survival suits kept them alive, and the pilot presumably did a good job of putting the plane down on the ice. (A SAR spokesman said that 'if the two men from Sweden had been forced to land on water their chances of survival "would have been very, very much lower."'

My first question, though, would be "What good is a life raft if you can't get it out of the plane in time?" Presumably, the idea behind having a life raft is to use it if you have to land in the water; these guys had more time than that, but still barely managed to get themselves out.

Second question: what would you have done if you were one of the two pilots? (I'm not asking what you would have done differently, because the story doesn't contain enough detail on what they actually did.)

The two men were NOT wearing survival suits and life preservers flying that Cessna, I CAN GARANTEE THAT!
They probably grabbed those two items first and couldn't get the liferaft in time, but they did have the most essential gear under the circumstances.
Unless you'r flying a floatplane or amphibian, no plane is going to remain buoyant very long.
What would I do if the copilot? Move to North Africa, buy an old flying boxcar and effect a Jimmy Stewart stutter.

My father's old flying buddies always said, "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing".

I think they did a good job, given the circumstances.

The article says they climbed through a window to get out of the plane, so it may not have been possible for them to get the life raft out, or there just wasn't time. There's no real indication that the plane was upright at the time -- it might have been on it's side or something. If I had the choice between getting out directly onto ice and staying dry vs. diving into the water to get the raft, forget the raft.

Being someone who left my purse and paycheck on the seat when my car caught fire (many years ago), I can attest to the single thought of "GET OUT!" It's all that is in your mind.

Sue

I'm standing on a piece of ice in the Northern Atlantic.
My life raft, which would have made an expedient shelter didn't.
I reach into my pockets and belt.
Yes, oh yes,yes,yes! My ATAX, Tom Brown Tracker, Busse Battlemistrss is JUST what I need for that whale swimming by.
And then I'll make fire with my favourite Highland New Guinea fire piston made of exotic wood and maya dust.
A PLB, some signaling items, chocolate, fruitcake would be in my pockets (I hope.)

Maybe they were dimensionally challenged and that allowed space for the Mustang suit and pfd.

And the waiter asks "PLB anybody??"

Why do you say that? From the reports, it does sound like they were wearing them when they ditched in the water. Not having ever worn one personally - do you know if it possible to be reasonably comfortable and able to fly a plane in one?
18 hours overnight in -13*C weather and at likely at least partly wet could not have been fun!

It would be hard to leave my Nuclear Meltdown Fusion Battlemistress behind, you never know when you may have to chop an iceberg in half and kill a whale with one chop. You gotta love INFI.... Just kidding though, any landing you can walk away is a good landing and survival suits are top priority when traveling over water, I don't think they had a PLB on them though.

P.S. Chris the Busse INFI Khukuri will be released next year and it is a devastating chopper with INFI steel, I know how you Love Busse knives (I can see you gritting at the teeth).

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=597295

The Busse Khukuri design has been finished for quite a while and all field testing has been completed . . . .

It is very cool. . . .

There are some pretty cool design surprises for those of you who have been following the Busse Khukuri thread. . .

Boy howdy!!!!. . . . just when you thought you knew what to expect. . . . BANG everything changes!!!! . . . . YOWZA!!!!

It will be released sometime next year (2009)

Prepare for HOGZILLA!!!!!!!

Jerry

When a light plane lands hard the structure may bend so that the door (yes there is inly one) will not open. I had this happen to me in a 310 that the polit tried to fly through the run way. So here you are after having the stuff scared out of you comming to rest on the ice , first you get out, with out the door through the window is a tight fit, so you step away from the aircraft and take a deep beath and about that time the ice starts to crack and break up so the choice is the move the a better place where you will not have to swim for it or go back from life raft ect. I think they made the right choice.

I have heard it said what you have on you is the survial equipment the stuff in the back of the plane is camping equipmnet just to make things easier.

While some light aircraft have only a single door, many light aircraft have two or even three doors.

This wasn't a ditching, in the classic sense, so who knows what, exactly, transpired. However, there are plenty of occasions when the life raft does make it out, some when it does not. Lots of issues could impact how that happens. Bottom line, as others have noted, if it isn't with you, it cannot save you(tm).

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/how-aus...8584809193.html

I think that makes the point about your basic survival gear being on you.

Signal Mirror.
Torch.
Beacon.

They would have been rescued a lot quicker.

A bit more information has come to light - I'm quoting only part of the article.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/12/09/7688681-cp.html




To those who think that having your fire-starting gear with you would have been a good asset in this case - I ask you one question - Besides your buddy's clothes what other fuel do you have that you can burn sufficiently to increase your chances of survival? Last time I checked, ice floes don't burn very well and they don't have a lot of vegetation!

"To those who think that having your fire-starting gear with you would have been a good asset in this case - I ask you one question - Besides your buddy's clothes what other fuel do you have that you can burn sufficiently to increase your chances of survival? Last time I checked, ice floes don't burn very well and they don't have a lot of vegetation! smile smile smile"

True you can't burn ice and water very well but the blast match and the silva matchcase stuffed full of crushed up wetfire tinder (which can be lit on ice or water) would give me a nice little hand warmer for a little while aside from being completely useless. Every little bit of heat counts as long as you can get it, it may buy you some extra time.

[/quote]

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.

as just an aside--it looks like the goverment search had given up but a private fishing vessel burning up time and fuel kept at it--

"...eight minutes to prepare for a crash landing - just enough time to put on their survival suits..."

Wow, that is amazing. Two people putting survival suits on in the cockpit of a dieing light aircraft in eight minutes!!!

When I studied the manual on the US Army U-6 (de Havilland Beaver), it said to jetison the doors prior to a water landing (it also said to jump out prior to the aircraft contacting the water). But not all aircraft have that feature...

Unlikely they donned them from scratch. Typically, with these Gumby style suits, the pilot sits in the seat with the suit on, but rolled down to the waist. In an emergency you pull the top of the suit on and finish zipping it off. Difficult enough, believe me!

Pretty rare to have jettisonable doors in civilian GA aircraft. As for jumping out prior to impact, not sure I'd recommend that, personally.

Meanwhile, a few thoughts

I spent this past weekend in nearby Santa Paula, at the airport for a fundraising event for the aviation museum.
SP is a lemon grove surrounded community that still holds onto a California of years past.Nearby Camarillo AP, a korea war era F 86 base,is rapidly becoming home to WW2 and other warbirds as Van Nuys AP hikes fees that only owners of Mitsubishi personal jets can afford, not old B 25s.
But SP is small, so small it was almost lost to river erosion during El Nino.
The ships are small too; Cliff Robertson keeps 3 vintage biplanes; two deHavilland Moths and a french trainer.
Almost 30 years ago, I was just home and
working at the second home of a retired art director. We were sitting out front having lunch, I brought some beers, and this loud motorcycle could be heard, violating the CCRs.
My friend's dad, Jan C. Van Tamelen smiled.'Ah that has got to be Steve!'
I didn't think much about that, until Steve pulled in,saw my beers and asked for one.
A few days later I helped drive back a car from Phil Hill's restoration shop after a hilarious ride in a vintage VW bug stuffed with a full race Porsche engine, picking fights with bloulevard cruisers in ferraris owned by orthodontists and tort lawyers.
Steve talked about his new passion, flying and this great place he found in Santa Paula where nobody made a big deal over his presence.
We talked flying, I suggested he carry a usefull pocketknife and a lighter, gifting one of several swiss Champs I had bought at the base PX for gifts before my seperation ( all of $15)
and my paper pocketbook edition of WIND,SAND AND STARS.
Sadly, Steve died within a year of cancer.
This weekend was a memorial of sorts; his wife Barbara came down to the small airport they lived at in a hanger, his memorabilia was on display and some VERY good pilots recalled he was an incredible student, flying up to 4 hours a lesson, remembering everything, duplicating everything perfectly ( honed by fast cars and motorcycles) fearless but never stupid.
The show's high point was not some impressive flyby of P 51 mustangs, but the flight of his bright yellow personal aircraft.
Steve McQueen could afford just about any aircraft available, and probably fly it, even at 59 years old and unknowingly possibly in the first stages of cancer.
He served his apprenticeship, never had a problem, always had fun-and always carried that SAK and a lighter over the green and yellow orchards and blue mountains and ocean.
His ship was a Stearman biplane, and if he didn't fly a P51 or go on hazardous flights, he still knew his full measure.

NOT FIRESTARTING. SIGNALING!

Torch. Beacon. Flares.
And whilst we are at it, if they found a stable icefloe being able to cut iceblocks to make a windbreak or shelter could make all the difference between life & death.
Candle to bring the temperature up inside a shelter.

Candle--absolutely.

When in different environments, the EDC or BOB kit needs to be re-adapted to the situation. While I don't normally carry emergency candles on me, my travel kits (a five gallon bucket) does.

I haven't flown in a small aircraft in years, but regardless of the transportation, (air, land, sea) I can figure out what I may need in a ditch.

Sounds like for the most part they did the right thing. As a non-aviator, I leave that to those with experience. As someone who tries to be prepared, I'd have had that suit on to start the trip (at least legs in) and my kit on my person with a BOB close.

"...jumping out prior to impact, not sure I'd recommend that..."

I kindasorta felt the same way. But that is the Army for you. Yet another reason I joined the AF...

"...Difficult enough, believe me!..."

I do. I have never seen an aircraft cockpit with any spare room to move around...

Signalling was the big gap, at least from what I've read.

A SAR aircraft came close to them, but couldn't see them.

In a radio interview, Hansen said they chose to hit the water instead of the ice. Good idea?

12 hours on the ice, not 18.

More info :
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/12/09/crash-survivor.html

That would depend on the surface of the ice. Many might think the surface may be smooth and flat. That isn't always the case. It may have pressure ridges that rise several feet. Not sure how well they could discern the surface condition, as time of day, angle of attack, etc, would affect their ability to make that judgement. Not to mention being occupied with getting their exposure suits on.

They may have determined they knew what the sea state was and went with the "known" quantity. Also, I'm sure the ice looked very small to them. Would be interesting to see a comprehensive debrief of the pilots.

Ditto. How high above the water does the Army recommend executing this jump? Estimating your height above the surface can be difficult. Jump too high and you're toast.

Problems with jumping out prior to impact is that your water entry is now a direct impact with the water at a speed possibly higher than the aircraft's, but short of terminal V; at least in the aircraft you can somewhat control your impact and minimize damage to your person.

By jumping, rather than being strapped inside an airframe that will absorb the impact, you get to take the water impact directly up your nose at a velocity of gravity's choosing -- I'd guess a fairly high velocity. I'll pass. . .

Whomever in the Army made that recommendation must not have spent too much time running the numbers. Underwater egress training is something every Naval aviator has to do.

You are right the 337 has two doors one on each side but given monocope structure I would not bet on eather one working after a crash.

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.

Hey guys, I think the idea may be being missed on what is meant about an Arctic Survival Suit / Immersion Suit.

I suspect this suit is the kind needed for the region's environment. I am not a pilot, but have ridden in more small aircraft than I care to count and have done one drill in this style suit. I don't think there would be "room" to operate the aircraft in one.

Just curious, what is the hard grey object on your left shoulder on your vest? Almost looks like a large pager or is it a PLB?

That is what is typically referred to as a Gumby style suit. It is constructed of neoprene foam which provides both insulation and inherent buoyancy. It's traditionally what is worn by pilots flying the North Atlantic route, easily rented from numerous sources at a modest rate, and is rolled down to the waist during flight. Yes, it is awkward to fly in and has significant drawbacks. There's lots of variations of this suit by numerous manufacturers.

Another alternative is the "rubber" suit which is worn with included insulation. The Mustang Survival Ocean Commander is an example of this style. Somewhat better, but still inherently buoyant in some designs and still typically worn rolled down at the waist. Depending upon how it is configured and the insulation chosen, may also require a separate vest for enough buoyancy in the water

The latest technology are Gore-Tex based suits worn with insulation under and a inflatable vest over as they are not inherently buoyant. You can adjust the insulation for the expected conditions. These are the type suits worn by the military and Coast Guard aviation and rescue swimmers.

Some examples are the Switlik U-Zip-It Aircrew Anti-Exposure Flight Suit (this is a PDF file) or the Mutltifabs Aircrew Survival Suits. These are also made by a number of manufacturers with various features. These are worn just like a regular flightsuit (and are very similar in many respects to suits used for kayaking and sailing). These are what I recommend (and what I own), but they are much more expensive than the Gumby suits.

How about attaching a $5 strobe to the shoulder of a survival suit, maybe if they could've done something a little more sensible to signal the rescuers besides waving their arms and shouting in the pitch black they might've only spent an hour or so on the ice instead of the whole night.

Doug, you're right, they were HMs on the Darwin awards list.

[/quote]

Just curious, what is the hard grey object on your left shoulder on your vest? Almost looks like a large pager or is it a PLB? [/quote]


Hi Desperado

The "pager" is a CO detector.

I stopped wearing it. I realized I wouldn't be able to hear the alarm when the engine is on...

I have compiled a few of my comments from this thread on my blog:

Pilots Survive Ditching Despite Mistakes: www.equipped.org/blog/?p=101

Just curious, what is the hard grey object on your left shoulder on your vest? Almost looks like a large pager or is it a PLB? [/quote]


Hi Desperado

The "pager" is a CO detector.

I stopped wearing it. I realized I wouldn't be able to hear the alarm when the engine is on...

[/quote]

I figured it was something like that. I just remember having a two-way alpha-numeric pager that looked almost exactly like it. If it was a PLB I was interested due to size. Obviously, I am not a pilot.