Casanova85
New Member
Glad that at least they found the wreckage.
Sad, surreal story that shouldn't have happened, almost out of the '50s or '60s.
Sad, surreal story that shouldn't have happened, almost out of the '50s or '60s.
Parachuting in zero visibility is non option, especially in freezing temperatures in the middle of the channel. Even if they survive the impact with the water they will have under an hour to find rescue and in the middle of the night is close to impossible. Their only chance in case of mechanical/pilot error given the circumstances was controlled landing into terrain in bright daylight setting off the ELT and getting help asap, which was not the case.
I also read that the plane is manufactured over 30 years ago. In case of mechanical failure and falling like a rock from 5k feet for example the g-force would be so strong they could barely move, let alone time to put a parachute on. You also have to factor disorientation and change of pressure if there is a loss of cabin pressure.
At least the families would have some closure after this. I know that hope dies last, but as soon as contact is lost and there were no news from them, the chances of surviving impact were close to 0.
These planes even don't have life jackets?
They have lifejackets
So there could still be a possibility of their bodies floating on the water? The temperature might have been the decisive factor. A Miracle is least expected though.
These planes even don't have life jackets?
They have lifejackets
If operating a commercial air tour compliant with part 136, and such tour is to take place over water beyond minimum gliding distance in a non-compliant aircraft except for the purposes of takeoff and landing, then the code in 14 CFR §136.9 is more strict: occupants must wear life jackets until at least the period when the flight ceases to be over water.
commercial guidelines where such tour is to take place over water beyond minimum gliding distance in a non-compliant aircraft except for the purposes of takeoff and landing, then the code in 14 CFR §136.9:
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, the operator and pilot in command of commercial air tours over water beyond the shoreline must ensure that each occupant is wearing a life preserver from before takeoff until flight is no longer over water.
(b) The operator and pilot in command of a commercial air tour over water beyond the shoreline must ensure that a life preserver is readily available for its intended use and easily accessible to each occupant if:
(1) The aircraft is equipped with floats; or
(2) The airplane is within power-off gliding distance to the shoreline for the duration of the time that the flight is over water.
(3) The aircraft is a multi engine that can be operated with the critical engine inoperative at a weight that will allow it to climb, at least 50 feet a minute, at an altitude of 1,000 feet above the surface, as provided in the Airplane Flight Manual or the Rotorcraft Flight Manual, as appropriate.
(c) No life preserver is required if the overwater operation is necessary only for takeoff or landing.
I'm not sure to be honest. Smaller airplanes that aren't designed to fly over large air bodies like the channel aren't required to carry lifejackets - just seatbottom cushions. The Piper itself isn't really an overseas airplane but designed for small hops.
However if we're using the FAA for example:
Of course I highly doubt Sala wore a lifejacket in the duration of the flight, being a private jet.
Since the aircraft is recovered we most likely will have more information in the coming months, but structurally this aircraft isn't designed to carry passengers overseas, and whether the flight covered a distance more than 100 nautical miles - where you are required to be equipped with life vests.
Yeah unfortunately it won't make a difference in a case like this.My assumption was that as soon as he was hired to fly Sala over the channel, he was obligated to make lifejackets available, but i can easily be mistaken.
Not that it makes much of a difference in this case anyway.
I don't think it necessarily means that but for the families' sake I hope so. The wreckage was found miles away (24 miles north of Guernsey) from any land so even if they had managed to escape before it crashed and survived impact - both of which are very unlikely - they wouldn't have lasted long so just the news that the wreckage was found would have been devastating. If they have found the bodies, they'll be badly decomposed and sea life would have done a lot of damage too so they won't be a pretty sight.I think it is pretty clear from the wording of the search team that they did find the bodies:
"This is about the best result we could have hoped for the families but tonight they have heard devastating news and in respect of the families I won't comment any further about what has happened.
"All I will say about the wreckage is there is a substantial amount of wreckage on the seabed."
More details will be revealed tomorrow.
Yeah unfortunately it won't make a difference in a case like this.
The only thing that needs to be investigated is whether it is a pilot error or mechanical error (ice build up on the wings causing the request to slide to a lower altitude before losing contact) in order to prevent cases like this!
A single propeller like that shouldn't be allowed to make night hops, especially after all those unsuccessful take offs and considering the conditions might have not being the best during the time.
No many planes can actually land on water safely. It's not like you hit the water and the plane keeps itself together. Take the 737 for example, when they plane hits the water it can't skim the surface gently with it's belly. The two engine acts like cups and drag the plane violently that it actually breaks the plane into pieces.Do planes still not have floatation devices? It's crazy that it still isn't mandatory or at least a new rule. Invent the damn things into planes. You'd think owners with €100m planes will want to be salvage at least. It'll save countless lives. Horrible way to go.
Do planes still not have floatation devices? It's crazy that it still isn't mandatory or at least a new rule. Invent the damn things into planes. You'd think owners with €100m planes will want to be salvage at least. It'll save countless lives. Horrible way to go.
Mearns, speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, said: “The biggest surprise to us was that most of the plane is there. We were expecting to find a debris field. It is broken but most of it is there.”
Asked if the bodies of Sala and his pilot David Ibbotson were onboard, Mearns said: “That’s a possibility and they’ll be planning for that. There’s a number of things the AAIB have to consider, but their main role is to conduct their investigation on what caused this crash.”
Sala’s family wanted the plane to be brought to the surface, Mearns said. “I was in touch with the family of Emiliano Sala last night, by text and through Emiliano’s agent, and the family would desperately like the plane to be recovered.”
I honestly have no idea, just theory I read on Reddit! Also the pilot might have panicked? All i was suggesting is they may have had parachutes etc, but they probably had no time to use them.
Also parachuting into the English channel in those temperatures? They'd be better off crashing.
Same here. That flight shouldn't have been allowed to take off. Shades of Munich as well. When circumstances are on the edge you should never allow flights like that and put lives at stake.What transpired that night after all that odd variables like weather condition and failed take offs will remain a mystery that needs to be solved.
Who insisted on flying and all that, I really want to know.
Will air crash detectives try to get the full chronology of what happened or usually small aircraft accidents isn't worth the effort?
If the plane stalls the time from the stall to it spiraling down and falling like a rock could be literally seconds.I still think the likelihood is the wings iced up and the plane stalled, which would lead to a relatively slow impact into a small area of water i.e a little debris but a recogniseable aircraft on the seabed.
Just saw the breaking news. How have they found a body within the wreckage. I mean, what techniques are they using at the moment? They haven’t got a submarine or anything right? And surely they didn’t pick up a body via sonar?
We don't know the angle of attack at which the stall (if it was a stall) occurred and it could be accelerated to some serious numbers. A small aircraft in accelerated stall from 2000 ft. could still be obliterated on impact.
It's astonishing such an expensive signing is made to board such a dodgy plane.
There's possibility the plane skidded of the water if the pilot lost awareness of the altitude. The Piper should have GPWS equipped with it (although I saw it was optional on some units) but still with no visibility and if he was disoriented might be an option.Relatively slow still could be 100+mph. Slow enough to keep it in recognisable pieces, unlike powered flight into terrain. AF447 hit water at about 110mph IIRC.
Not over water, but flying at night in instruments only conditions is also what led to the Buddy Holly/Big Bopper/Richie Valens crash in the 1950s.A pilot not equipped to fly at night over water on instruments only, etc. Wasn't the thing about airplane accidents that they learn from each one how to prevent the specifics to happen again?
Too soon guys.
Got to try and continue as normal as possible despite the horrible circumstances.
I have no idea if clubs carry out insurance for such purposes, I’d assume so?