"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
[...]
Expecting to be able to contact someone after the crash seems optimistic
to
me.

That's why no one is suggesting that it's expected.

By posting your message in reply to my post, and in reply to this tangent of
the thread, YOU suggested that it's expected.

You might think about being more clear about your point. This tangent in
this thread started out about whether to carry survival gear or not. All of
my replies have been on that topic. You replied to one of my replies, with
the implication that you were asking about how a handheld aviation radio
relates to the question of carrying survival gear.

However, I think the
more options you have the better, and if you can carry a portable radio
- why not? It's another option.

If all you're asking is whether a handheld radio is a useful tool, you might
want to start a different thread. Though, the answer is obviously "yes".
Even if you don't wind up crashing, you could still have an electrical or
radio failure (a more likely reason to need a handheld, IMHO). Just as
having modern avionics, seatbelts, fuel, wings, and a host of other things
is useful. But the question of whether any of those things is useful
doesn't really fit in here. We're talking about whether some form of
communications is sufficient for negating the need for survival equipment.

When you depart the topic, it's pretty hard for people to figure out what
you're really asking.

Pete