Not looking good now, reports this morning that Sala sent audio messages to his WhatsApp group saying the plane felt like it was falling apart and if they hadn't heard from him in an hour and a half to send someone to look. His last words, I'm very scared
And yet people and organisations (including air sea rescue and Oil companies ferrying crew to rigs in the North sea) use helicopters that have all the glide properties of a grand piano) Whilst I know helicopter pilots can feather the rotors and control a descent, I would rather be in an aeroplane with a stalled engine than in a helicopter if an engine fails. Re the Leicester crash, we know what happens when a tail rotor fails. These single prop planes are "everyday aircraft "with hundreds of thousands of incident free flights every day in countries all over the World. Particularly in Europe and the US Even privately owned planes have to comply with air worthiness certification and strict service regulations so I don't believe they are any more of a risk than commercially run planes. I am not so sure about some of the far flung countries e.g. South America and Africa though. In many instances if someone uses it to fly him/herself and loved ones around they are probably even more aware of the risks of poor maintenance. I know I would be. Flying, is still statistically the safest form of travel whatever mode you choose.
If I've done my maths right that could give them an 11 mile glide which would have taken them back to land with quite a lot to spare. That is of course assuming a simple engine failure and not a catastrophic failure of some kind.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the first part of your post but there's a very obvious reason why oil rigs and search and rescue crews use helicopters. Any other aircraft wouldn't be suitable.
Also all the passengers are trained in evacuation from a downed helicopter. Its not the safest mode of air travel though crashes are thankfully rare Regarding the comments that a single engined plane isnt suitable to cross the channel - that seems a bit strange to me - from the information to hand it doesnt sound like a simple engine failure - if that had happened the pilot would have had plenty of time to broadcast a mayday and almost certainly glide back to land or if expecting to have to land in the sea give some indication of where The thing that is strange is if the story about the wattsap posts are true and the plane really was in difficulties why didnt the pilot land in France?
Sorry just re-read this- Im not sure if you were referring to others saying a single engine would be unsuitable or me saying that anything other than a helicopter would be unsuitable for the examples tekkytyke gave? I'm assuming its other people's comments but just to clarify I meant that if someone is spotted in trouble at sea an helicopter can hover and collect them etc...
Awful, awful thing to happen. You feel for Cardiff to a point but over and above that, it’s his friends and family, his old teammates that you think of. Terrible shame.
I was responding to both to some degree Of course a helicopter is the only practical aircraft for landing on rigs and rescuing from the sea (or land). Well possibly a Harrier jump jet might be an option but not really (and its single engined ) - what I was saying is helecopter travel to rigs is not quite as safe as other forms of air travel as evidenced by the need for passenger training on the rig routes. Its still safer than driving though! I was also expressing some surprise that anyone would consider a single engined plane unsuitable for crossing the channel - if they really were so unreliable they wouldnt be much use. Personally I would prefer 2 engines in a plane though and I dont think there are any commercial scheduled flights operating single engined planes (I might be wrong on that though)
Better to be safe than sorry. Flyers shouldn't get complacent to think one is enough and that a tragedy would never happen to them. It's always best to have two engines for peace of mind should something happen to one of them.
Of course it is safer to have 2 engines than one - though maybe this guy disagrees "When you have two engines, you have two engines that can fall to bits. When you have four, you have four that can fall to bits. The less engines you have, the safer you are. — Frank Fickeisen, chief engineer for Boeing, replying to a complaint made by the American Airlines Allied Pilots' Association about the dangers of flying two-engine airplanes across the Pacific" I'm sure there is a quote by a CEO of either Boeing or Lockheed where he said the opposite though and when asked why he always flew on 4 engined airliners said something along the lines of "because there arent any commercial Jets with 5 engines" but |I couldn't find it at a very quick search Seriously though if there was an unreasonable risk flying a single engine plane they wouldnt be certified as safe to fly
I feel nothing at all for Cardiff but I am saddened for the poor souls involved in the crash. Unfortunately you have to fear the worst and that means a lot of hurt families and friends.
Unfortunately, the Channel Islands Head of Air Search has stated that the hope of finding anyone alive is now highly unlikely. Sala was only wearing a short sleeved cotton T shirt , so he was not dressed for the conditions if the plane has gone into the sea. For their part, Cardiff City have said, they had no input into the players transport arrangements and left it to him to arrange how he was going to get from France to Wales. Tragic for all concerned.