AVIATION SURVIVAL KITS. WHAT'S THE POINT.

I should have known this was too controversial of a subject. My Bad. It was not my intent to upset anyone. It was a legitimate question. My most humble apologies. As for my location, I prefer to keep that private.

Emergency off-airport landings are different and often more survivable than crashes. That would be my primary situation to prepare against.

Snake,

LEARN TO FLY!!!

Yes, most crashes are deadly, but they don't need to be. In over 20 years of SAR with Civil Air Patrol in the Rockies, many survived the crash, and many more could have if they had known how to deal with a glider (with a very poor glide ratio). My father started flying when they were "unexpected landings", not crashes. Lost 2 B-17's and several other aircraft during WWII. Put them all down and never lost a crewmember. His contention was that you could land an airplane anywhere and walk away from it. I think he was pretty close to right. It is true that most crashes are not survived, but most survival kits are owned by pilots who will probably not have a crash - because they are planning ahead and avoid the problem. So, in a way the survival kit helps to prevent the accident ;-). It is certainly a sign. Just like being on this forum.

The biggest mistake is not flying the aircraft to the ground. Stall/Spin is not the way to walk away from it. The second is trying to save the airplane.

Respectfully,

Jerry

Why spend hundreds of dollars? One answer would be, "because you are worth it"... But preparedness doesn't always have to be expensive. Thoughtful preparations and organization can be accomplished for very little money.

I don't own a plane, so when I fly non-commercial, I am only concerned with personal survival preparations. Most of it is really simple. Don't wear synthetics. Keep PSK items on your person, with nothing bulging. Learn exit procedures. Be aware...

Hey Jerry,
IF I ever get back in one of those flying death traps known as small aircraft it will be with a parachute, survival vest and an AR-15. There are simply safer ways to travel. You have valid points and I thank you for them and your kind response. Your father sounds like a great guy with some great adventures. Thanks again.

Snake,

I don't know where you live, but in this hemisphere the light aircraft is one of the safest ways to travel. Particularly when compared to a car.

Respectfully,

Jerry

P.S. Why would you want to carry an AR? Not a very ideal survival tool, particularly in the woods.

Hey Hiker,
I do all that. Commercial crashes are even worse. The only one I've heard of having survivors was the soccer team in the Andes. And we ALL know how that one turned out.

I live in the southwest. The AR would serve as hunting and defense. I'm comfortable with it.

"Fly it until the last piece stops moving."

There was a Korean airline crash which impacted a hillside short of the runway on Guam that had survivors too. According to Korean Air Flight 801 on Wiki and the Korean Air Flight 801 Official Crash site there were 26 survivors. Not a simple off-airport landing, but people did survive.

The point is to take whatever cards you're dealt following a crash and continue playing the game. Your question indicates you are looking at the odds and throwing in the towel before the game starts.

The event my aviation survival kit is designed for is a water ditching. It's based on a Switlik survival vest and has more signalling ability than the vest I wore while on active duty. Following a ditching at sea or jumping out of a plane before a crash, I'll take a PLB, GPS, radio and signal mirror long before I'd even think about an AR. I hope to be found and rescued long before I need to start hunting sustenance.

The crashes which have pictures on the news are the ones near the airport. Reason is that the TV news folks don't go very far.

Crashing elsewhere may mean you'll be on your own for awhile.


We get ridgetop crashes here in Colorado that take considerable time and effort to reach which don't get anything but a 'broken airplane' graphic on the news if they get reported at all.

On the other hand, the folks who crash on the ridges generally aren't well trained which implies they aren't prepared which means they probably have little gear to help them.

So if you carry all your survival gear, you probably won't crash. That's my theory anyway.

That close they had no need for survival gear. While the chance of a water landing is extremely rare here a PFD would be a good Idea. My survival vest is based on an old ALICE version with gear inside and out. I also made one for short kikes from an old BDU blouse. Not at all. I've seen the crashes and have concluded it would be foolish to put myself in a small aircraft. Just as it would be foolish to walk through a bad nieghborhood at night counting my cash.

Another reason for the AR is all the meth labs out here. The people running them are a lot less likely to go after someone with a serious weapon than a guy with a fanny pack. And if they are foolish enough to try I can defend myself. Also if you spot a home out in the desert it's not a real good idea to approach it. You never know what kind of reception you'll receive.

Just a note.

Your posting location is identified as "Planet Earth."

Water landing, as an average probability across Planet Earth is actually quite high.
(Seeing as how Planet Earth is 3/4 water and all......)

Here we have deserts and mountains. Not a whole lot of water. Summer hikes require carrying a lot of the wet stuff.

Following a ditch at sea or an "Emergency off-airport landing" on the dry side of the beach, I'll stay near the plane and activate my PLB. If I'm floating in my vest or raft, I'll turn on my radio to Channel 16 and give a call out while my GPS warms up and gives me a location; if dry I'll just sit near the wreckage. I don't need to go anywhere, they'll come to me.

Where is "here?"


(Hint- YOUR PROFILE SAYS "PLANET EARTH" which isn't real specific)

It's not meant to be specific. I live in the Southwest.

Southwest Planet Earth?

Southwest Maine?


Dude- you started a rant about survival gear for trips you won't take and refer to places known only to yourself.

I don't think I'll reply to you any more.

Sorry i offended you. Have a good day, sir.

As I reread the thread, even though the title specifies "AVIATION SURVIVAL KITS", I think your main gripe/rant is with the hazards of small General Aviation (GA) aircraft and not with survival kits per-say. The survival kit I have is not for GA flights; when I fly, 90%+ is IFR over water. Some flights it's 99.9% over water.

That said, if I was to go for a joy ride in a Cessna 172 I'd definitely take the vest whether or not I was feet wet or feet dry.

If you chose not to fly, you're in good company. The chances of a crash are low but real. The chances of crashing and surviving are just as real. We've read and discussed several stories where people have crashed and survived, especially in small planes. I prefer to be an optimist and be as prepared as I can be for that outcome. I hate flying. I only do it rarely. Not because I'm afraid of crashing, but because I don't want to get stuck on the ground without the supplies I need to survive and/or be comfortable.

My question is, if you choose to fly, why wouldn't you give yourself the best odds of surviving a crash?

Ooops. Double posted somehow. Sorry!

Snake,

Lots of airliners have crashed and had survivors. The Hudson River is just a well known one. A quick google brought up 10 or more in the last few years. Good friends were on one in the 70's that no one was lost. Thankfully they were only 2 miles from the airport so they were in the bar soon after.

The AR is an OK hunting rifle and a good defensive one, but if I crash I will be like Russ - loaded with signaling devices. In most of the world (including Viet Nam during the war) many pilots found that weapons were excess baggage if your people could find you. In the US, even with the problems of drug growers and labs, the chance of needing an AR is even more remote than being in a crash. Not that it might not be fun to while away the time till rescue, it would be very low on my priority list YMMV.

Respectfully,

Jerry

Exactly. Why bother with the kit when no one survives. And we have not had one survivor here.

This area is full of labs, people are welcome to carry what they wish. I refuse to be a victim. I'll stick with my choice of weapons. You must also remember that they spent millions looking for downed pilots in Viet Nam. Does anyone remember Capt. Scott O'Grady and all the effort spent looking for him? I doubt they spend that much effort and expense here in the civilian world. A better question would be, why do they crash so often?

Snake,

You are wrong about no one surviving lots of them do - as well as not having survivors here.

Respectfully,

Jerry

That is why signaling gear is more important than weapons. We have a lot better stuff today than we did back then.

Why do they crash so seldom is the right question. Look at the safety record of light aircraft - it is much safer than driving a car, playing baseball or even taking a bath. The number of crashes (not just fatal ones) is much lower than many of the things we do every day. Most especially driving!

Respectfully,

Jerry

Hey Jerry,
No need to say respectfully. I have tough skin. I am saying there have been no survivors here. I covered that in a reply to bacpacjac, but the wifi kicked me off just as I hit send.
The closest we have had to a survivor was an old guy in an ultra light who crashed in someones back yard and spent a long time in the hospital. Even on a cell phone it took them hours to find him. His insurance bought him a new one and he plans on terrozing the skies again. There's a rumor he plans on suing the home owners for having a pipe in thier yard and causing his crash to be worse.

You indicate that: “I should have known this was too controversial of a subject. My Bad. It was not my intent to upset anyone. It was a legitimate question.”

In my humble opinion, the purpose of these forums is to discuss and share knowledge relating to survival situations. One must be prepared to conduct the risk/benefit analysis one performs in relationship to probably encountered situations. If I am the owner and/or frequent flyer in small aircraft my analysis of my risks/benefits might lead to me to the decision to carry a well stocked survival kit and hopefully I will tailor it to the type of environment I am currently flying in or might encounter.

Just as a car driver might analyze what to carry in their car if traveling in icy/snowy conditions vs. desert travel to survive an unexpected emergency. If, you chose to believe that investing money in an aircraft survival kit as a waste of money, so be it. Just as someone else might think it a waste of money to purchase an AR just in case one was to encounter a meth lab in the wild.

Each of us has different experiences that shape our perception and thought processes. Just be open to ideas and you may just change how you feel on a particular subject.

Pete

Not to echo unimogbert too loudly, but you keep referring to "here" which is rather meaningless when know one knows where "here" is. Further, you are making a general "no one survives" comment when we know for a fact that people do survive.

Hi Pete. Thanks for the input. And the AR was purchased for my former line of work, not as a survival tool.

I have yet to see one report of a single survivor. And my location is my business alone. I have not asked one single person for thier location. If desert and southwest is not enough for one to have a general idea that's not my problem. I'm not being rude, i'm being security concious. I had a problem with an internet stalker who decided to visit me irl a few years ago. Fortunately I was gone when she arrived but she did a lot of damage. So I am cautious when people push to pin point my location. I'm sorry if that offends some.

My idea is the big kit on the plane. I always believe in carrying a PSK in any sort of travel. Mr. Ritters PSK is a good start. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

The tone needs to be improved in this thread.



chaosmagnet

I did a quick check and one source sites a 24% survival rate during the decade just passed for passengers in an aircraft carrying ten or more. While those are not fantastic odds, they aren't hopeless, either. It seems to me you are safer flying (at least commercially) than in an automobile....

Didn't a certain commercial aircraft do an "unanticipated landing" in the Hudson River a while ago with all (138?) aboard surviving?

I personally have survived a crash landing of a small aircraft. It was a Cessna 210 with a STOL kit, full up with six people, them being the pilot, my parents, my siblings and myself. The bird got bent but we all walked away from it. This was almost thirty years ago on a dirt airstrip.

Other than my Leatherman PST (my first multitool and a treasured keepsake now) and a few bottles of water, we were utterly unprepared for being stranded eighty miles from the nearest paved road. Fortunately the purpose of the flight was to visit someone and with his help we were able to get back to where we were staying on the same day.

Statistically, General Aviation is very safe, comparing very favorably with highways, but less safe than scheduled commercial flights. GA seems to be roughly even with train travel from my few minutes of googling.

I agree with carrying PSG. My survival is my responsibility. And a glance at my gear would make one think I'm a pyro. Thanks for the input.

I spoke with some of our local pilots this afternoon, just to be fair, and they all agreed they had not seen a news report with survivors. One even called two others with the same results. Now they are wondering about this themselves. Thier best guesses were inadequate maintence, pilot error and fatigue. I don't know, but I do know that it's ground transportation for me from now on. Thanks for taking the time to look it up and get stats.

Location specifics:Desert Southwest w/myriad of tweekers,ok,It's not gonna' be 29 Palms(The Stumps)that's reason enough for those who know,It's not gonna' be W.Mojave ie. China Lake/Ft.Irwin,for the same as above,so I'll have to say you'd be flying in/out of the Palmdale/Landscatter area.Personally,I'd be more wary of driving to the airport/airstrip in that AO!Flying is Fun,just squeeze yer'cheeks together& plant both feet directly beneath you,do that everytime the plane dips,& You'll be just fine!Carry a Doug Ritter psk in your front pocket,you could while away the time by taking it apart/assembling it with your eyes closed,then All of a sudden... you realize you've reached your designation,"Wow! that wasn't so bad!

LOL! But in a land vehicle I don't have a pilot complaining about the wieght of the gear. Thanks guys, but no more flying for old Snake.

Statistics around the number of people or miles flown still shows flying as safer than ground travel. Look at the death rate of car crashes.
Main difference here is generally ground travel I'm in control so I can eleminate some of the highest causes such as not driving while texting, under the influence, etc.

Snake:

While I can't directly speak to the pasts of anyone on this site, I can say that the hosting site, equipped.org has case file scenarios and analyst of real plane accidents. On equipped.org you will find several reports of accidents of people who crashed and survived to find there way home. Regrettably there are also reports of people who survived the Plane crash but did not survive to get home due to lack of preparedness.

This world is full of risks, many that we see, and many that are unseen. If you chose to not fly, that is your choice, and that is OK. There are those of us who do fly, and prefer to do our best within reason to prepare for things if they do go wrong. Much like we can't fault you for choosing to not fly, it would be expected you would not seek to find flaws in our desire to fly and prepare ourselves.

Tyber

Snake,

A quick look at the NTSB statistics (1 found 96 first) showed 1681 total GA accidents. Only 323 were fatal. That means that people survived 1358 accidents (some people almost certainly survived in the other 323). For airlines it was 21 total and 3 fatal. If you don't want to fly, don't. Just don't blame it on the safety of the transportation.

Respectfully,

Jerry

P.S. I have been in 3 light aircraft accidents - and survived 2 of them!! :-)

RIP, Jerry.

Alaska is generally regarded as being a dangerous place to fly. While I don't have official statistics handy, the combination of frequent and severe bad weather, mountains, remote and poorly maintained airstrips, and bush landings (gravel bars, tundra, glaciers, beaches, etc) means that we have many crashes and many fatalities. However, many people do survive crashes in Alaska.

Below is a random and incomplete sample from recent years in Alaska, of small aircraft crashes in which people survived.

Cook Inlet plane crash survivors live to tell harrowing tale : Cook Inlet water is very cold, year around.

1 killed, 1 injured in Alaska plane crash

Details emerge in Triumvirate Glacier plane crash "I will give him kudos that he was fortunate to have a survival kit that allowed him to survive in those elements," Shaver said.

Family of 4 survives Bush Alaska plane crash that killed 2 others Two C-130s and a Pavehawk participated in the rescue.

Three rescued following Alaska plane crash near Rainy Pass

In GCI crash, grassroots search and rescue led to 'horrible' crash scene This was the crash that killed former Senator Ted Stevens. Four of nine aboard survived. There are photos and preliminary NTSB info here.

Seasoned Alaska pilot recounts Knik Glacier crash landing , Part 2, andPart 3. PJs, a C-130, and a Pavehawk help in the rescue. A Blackhawk crashes trying to fly them out. Who says we don't invest major resources trying to rescue civilians?

I have only grabbed examples from the last few years where at least some people aboard survived a crash. There are certainly many other examples where all aboard perished, but to say everyone always dies is just not so. I have a hard time believing that flying in the Southwest is anymore dangerous than it is in Alaska.

My own first priority when bush flying is, DRESS FOR CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND! Some of these folks had to wait awhile, often injured, before rescue.

Great stuff AKSAR, thanks.

The most likely unique factor about flying in the Southwest would be the wide variation in altitude (and hence temperature and environment) over a very short distance as a flight transitions from low altitude deserts to relatively high mountains. This makes dressing for conditions on the ground somewhat tricky - best to dress in layers....

On reflection, of course, Alaska sees some fairly major variations in altitude, like from sea level to 20,320 feet ASL, which does indeed dwarf the altitude range present in the southwest.

I have done a fair amount of work related flying, as well as SAR related flying, in the southwest, primarily around Tucson in the vicinity of mountains. Over the years, I have lost more colleagues to automobile related mishaps than to plane crashes, just as the statistics would predict.

Thank you for some very revealing stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke

Great story. One of the classics on my bookshelf is The Survival Book, by Paul Nesbitt, Alonzo Pond, and William Allen. From the Preface - "This book has only one purpose - to aid and insure your survival after emergency aircraft landings regardless of geographic location."

Published in 1959, its language and some of its techniques are dated, sometimes charmingly, but most of its principles are still valid today. I still find it a valuable basic reference.

So someone must e walking away from airplane crashes.....

You misunderstand. I have no problem with people flying, or carrying kits, my question was why bother?
I myself tend to over prepare and have a lot of wieght to carry. I have been down with the cold but have found stories of survivors of small aircraft crashes. And remembered the book Hey I'm Alive. Granted in thier case a kit and rations would have been a big help. But today, and this is just my opinion, personal gear, such as a vest would be a better choice. IF you survive, and have to get out in a hurry you may not have time or strength to go for that kit. Then fire up your PLB and wait for rescue. I choose not to fly because of the news reports I have seen. I will still use commercial airlines when forced to. )r private jets which seem to be a bit safer. Thank you for your well worded comment tyber. I hope to hear from you in the future.

Wow! Thanks for doing all the research and supplying the links! Obviously the people elsewhere are better trained to receive thier pilots licenses than they are here. Very informative. Thanks again.

congrads on surviving twice lol.

I say this to express my outlook on the matter."Tis better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it."The host of this site says says"that if it isn't on you it can't help you".I do agree that a vest is a good way to go.Having extra kit in the plain is just an additional layer of safety....


BOATMAN
John