and more importantly, the FAA wouldn’t have anything to investigate, which they should be doing.
This is going viral. First voices heard it might be a publicity stunt.
So if the camera plane had to climb to get radio reception with twr(?) because no reception at 500 ft then how could the guy in the water call the camera plane pilot on his cellphone? Is this realistic? or maybe the “my buddy lost visual with me but I called him on his phone to direct him” part was for effect…
Wouldn’t go so far as to suggest the whole thing was staged though. If it was staged at least I would have expected them to have life vests at least.
Also, why would someone ditch with anything other than full flaps? Honest question. I always brief to ditch with full flaps.
HBadger wrote:
why would someone ditch with anything other than full flaps?
It has electric flaps?
By the time you switch master OFF you loose comms but also stall warner, electric flaps/trim…
Even if it is a stunt, I find that ditching as perfect as it could be and it is not something you can get trained for 
HBadger wrote:
So if the camera plane had to climb to get radio reception with twr(?) because no reception at 500 ft then how could the guy in the water call the camera plane pilot on his cellphone?
Cell reception lower down is better vs. vhf radio reception is better higher (quasi optical).
Ibra wrote:
I find that ditching as perfect as it could be
Indeed. There’s nothing to discuss there.
Obviously the „stuff during fuel sump“ and no survival equipment part is interesting.
No vests, raft, plb, signalling devices…
The circling plane couldn’t give ATC coordinates, so the controller quickly asked for an „ident“. It makes sense to have coordinates ready (especially when you’re low level over the ocean).
The circling plane actually lost them for a while.
Where can I buy long lasting water dye color? I don’t want smoke/rockets due to hazmat.
Snoopy wrote:
Cell reception lower down is better vs. vhf radio reception is better higher (quasi optical).
Maybe not for VHF airband but VHF on marine bands should beat cell phones for emergencies tough at sea level barely give you 20km range, most people I know doing sailing use their IPhone or SatPhones now
While air-band VHF and new cellphones cost some quids (200$-600$), you can get a decent marine band VHF transceiver for 30$, knowing which frequency to dial by heart is tough 
I carry a Standard Horizon 870 floating marine vhf with me when flying over the med. You can call ships on channel 16 before hitting the water.
HBadger wrote:
So if the camera plane had to climb to get radio reception with twr(?) because no reception at 500 ft then how could the guy in the water call the camera plane pilot on his cellphone? Is this realistic?
Yes. The California coast isn’t flat by any means and at 500’ there could quite easily be terrain between you and the ground site for the radio. However, cell towers are everywhere , and there will likely be numerous cell towers giving coastal coverage.
Well, I guess each person is free to choose his own lifestyle…so whether I may personally approve or not, I’ll aim to stick to the aviation side of the event.
There is a lot of important safety knowledge we can gain (and perhaps re-gain) with the very useful information these persons openly shared, so, regardless of the motivation to share, thanks a lot!
My main take-aways:
Most importantly no-one got significantly hurt so the outcome was good.
Sea state (from windy.com) was apparently <1m wave, 17C and <5kt wind , so quite benign.
Despite this, his (non-trained) friend lost apparently lost sight of him while flying at <1000MSL…which shows how difficult it is to pick a mostly submerged human amidst the big seas.It was difficult to find them despite the close proximity to the coast.Think: high vis lifevests, streamers, sea-dye, flares, flashing beacons, mirrors and…PLB! Yes, marine band xtr also useful!
Also, despite the mild temp, hypothermia set in after 30 mins (for him, not so for her). Think: liferaft!
Despite the no-wind, no-flaps approach (read high groundspeed) , the untrained pilot (are there any pilots trained for this?) managed a low-deceleration touchdown. Think: gear up must help a lot ! On rougher seas this also gives me hope that a high wing which does not catch on the waves must also help with the no cartwheeling/low deceleration.
Despite the little damage to the airframe, time afloat was counted in seconds rather than minutes…maybe a pressurized aircraft is different, or maybe there was significant unseen underwing and underfuselage damage, but that is preciously little time! Think: train in advance for a quick evac from your airplane type!
Also, the airplane stayed afloat level (ie not nose-down) for a few seconds (with people standing on the wings) before pointing straight nose-down …how could that be when there is no flotation in the heavy engine compartment? I always brief my pax to expect a heavy nose-down attitude in the water and hence always exit towards the back of the plane.Think: I must be wrong…how could that be?
