182 down by Smithers

[photofly]

It's a subject that's well worth research. Here's an AVWeb article on old wives' tails:
https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/tec ... ves-tales/
which itself references this article from Paul Bertorelli:
http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

Whatever your chances in a ditching are, they will be improved by appropriate training.

[cncpc]

In a ditching, assuming the pilot handles the airplane so that it is at minimal flying speed and level at touchdown, or dragging the tail low, a fixed gear airplane with a stall speed of 55 landing into a 10 knot headwind on still water touches down at 45. The plane will likely entirely decelerate within 25 feet. Provided seat belts are on and baggage is stowed, it is very unlikely anyone is going to be injured in the deceleration sequence. The airplane, depending on the headwind available, will either go tail high and then settle back, go on the nose, and start to sink, or flip on the back. Everyone will be back on the earth, facing the next immediate challenge, getting out and on shore.

I'm afraid I need to make clear that the idea that it is very unlikely that anyone will be injured overall in a fixed gear aircraft landing in water is false, in my opinion. One need only google something like Aircraft Flipover Water Fatal to see multiple fatal examples. And there is a significant likelihood of flipping over with all the issues that go along with it from injury, shock, fear, disorientation, escape difficulties, current, hypothermia, and likely other issues. Be very careful about considering a ditching in a fixed gear aircraft. It may turn out better than tree landing, but do not believe that injuries are very unlikely overall during the event from touchdown to leaving the water. I know that is not exactly what was quoted but it could be grossly misinterpreted.

Which is exactly what you did. We get it. You're a guy who has decided he's a man for the trees, with all the risks that entails. That's fine. Until somebody else's life depends on your choices. Then it's not an abstract discussion. It's not fine if some young pilot who has read your view and acts on it and everyone perishes if there was a shallow water shoreline also available at the edge of those trees or within gliding distance.

I'm not speaking from a theoretical position I actually have ditched an airplane with four people on board into San Francisco Bay. After engine failure due to carb icing. I had to abandon a forced approach at 50 feet into a landfill site when a truck pulled in front of me on the small road where I was going to crash land. The only choice was the Bay alongside the landfill. From the time I switched from land crash to ditching to the end of the ditching was less than 15 seconds. I landed with a 23 knot tailwind. The tail went in first, I went through the windshield, swam to the surface, saw the airplane, a 172, on its nose with the passengers climbing out of. It went on its back as I swam back to it and the three passengers, two carrying their luggage, just stood on the underside of the wing. We'd landed within feet of a small boat, and they took everybody to shore, although a Coast Guard Sikorsky did come out from SFO. Other than myself, nobody got wet above the ankles. Nobody was hurt. I had a tetanus shot. The doors were jammed open with clothing as part of the forced landing drill. My own seatbelt got missed in that.

Must take a lot of experience to do that? No. Next to none. I'd just finished my PPL at Langley the week before. At the time of the accident, I had 33 hours PIC. It seems that level of experience is not correlated with any particular outcomes in ditchings. I would think it has to be in tree landings.

I have a whole lot more now. In this case, I'd have made the same decision this pilot made, although it seems it might have been influenced by the company suggestion to take trees over water in spring freshet conditions. I would think that when you've got 46000 hours, you're well capable of making good on the spot decisions. It's all a matter of a few feet sometimes. Had he been 20 feet left and passed by that tree, the best outcomes of the tree landing approach may have occurred.

I don't think it contributes to the understanding of this complex choice to weight one side with worst case scenarios. Exhaustively. It would put a person off chocolate cake if a sentence could be constructed linking it with "...injury, shock, fear, disorientation, escape difficulties, current, hypothermia, and likely other issues." Other than current, every one of those problems can also be associated with a tree landing.

[cncpc]

It's a subject that's well worth research. Here's an AVWeb article on old wives' tails:
https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/tec ... ves-tales/
which itself references this article from Paul Bertorelli:
http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

Whatever your chances in a ditching are, they will be improved by appropriate training.

Thanks. I knew those articles were out there, and was looking for them to reply to Pelmet's post, but couldn't find them.

The talk is always of trees or water. Somehow that seems to exclude what will actually happen, the choice of "Water, as close as possible to the trees"

There's a whole lot of other choices out there. Water or corn field, water or relatively flat reforestation patch, water or rough ground, water or small opening that probably isn't long enough. In each of those, water isn't the choice. It really only is where there is a good possibility of injury or death from the environment in which the contact with earth happens.

[pelmet]

In a ditching, assuming the pilot handles the airplane so that it is at minimal flying speed and level at touchdown, or dragging the tail low, a fixed gear airplane with a stall speed of 55 landing into a 10 knot headwind on still water touches down at 45. The plane will likely entirely decelerate within 25 feet. Provided seat belts are on and baggage is stowed, it is very unlikely anyone is going to be injured in the deceleration sequence. The airplane, depending on the headwind available, will either go tail high and then settle back, go on the nose, and start to sink, or flip on the back. Everyone will be back on the earth, facing the next immediate challenge, getting out and on shore.

I'm afraid I need to make clear that the idea that it is very unlikely that anyone will be injured overall in a fixed gear aircraft landing in water is false, in my opinion. One need only google something like Aircraft Flipover Water Fatal to see multiple fatal examples. And there is a significant likelihood of flipping over with all the issues that go along with it from injury, shock, fear, disorientation, escape difficulties, current, hypothermia, and likely other issues. Be very careful about considering a ditching in a fixed gear aircraft. It may turn out better than tree landing, but do not believe that injuries are very unlikely overall during the event from touchdown to leaving the water. I know that is not exactly what was quoted but it could be grossly misinterpreted.

Which is exactly what you did. We get it. You're a guy who has decided he's a man for the trees, with all the risks that entails. That's fine. Until somebody else's life depends on your choices. Then it's not an abstract discussion. It's not fine if some young pilot who has read your view and acts on it and everyone perishes if there was a shallow water shoreline also available at the edge of those trees or within gliding distance.

I'm not speaking from a theoretical position I actually have ditched an airplane with four people on board into San Francisco Bay. After engine failure due to carb icing. I had to abandon a forced approach at 50 feet into a landfill site when a truck pulled in front of me on the small road where I was going to crash land. The only choice was the Bay alongside the landfill. From the time I switched from land crash to ditching to the end of the ditching was less than 15 seconds. I landed with a 23 knot tailwind. The tail went in first, I went through the windshield, swam to the surface, saw the airplane, a 172, on its nose with the passengers climbing out of. It went on its back as I swam back to it and the three passengers, two carrying their luggage, just stood on the underside of the wing. We'd landed within feet of a small boat, and they took everybody to shore, although a Coast Guard Sikorsky did come out from SFO. Other than myself, nobody got wet above the ankles. Nobody was hurt. I had a tetanus shot. The doors were jammed open with clothing as part of the forced landing drill. My own seatbelt got missed in that.

Must take a lot of experience to do that? No. Next to none. I'd just finished my PPL at Langley the week before. At the time of the accident, I had 33 hours PIC. It seems that level of experience is not correlated with any particular outcomes in ditchings. I would think it has to be in tree landings.

I have a whole lot more now. In this case, I'd have made the same decision this pilot made, although it seems it might have been influenced by the company suggestion to take trees over water in spring freshet conditions. I would think that when you've got 46000 hours, you're well capable of making good on the spot decisions. It's all a matter of a few feet sometimes. Had he been 20 feet left and passed by that tree, the best outcomes of the tree landing approach may have occurred.

I don't think it contributes to the understanding of this complex choice to weight one side with worst case scenarios. Exhaustively. It would put a person off chocolate cake if a sentence could be constructed linking it with "...injury, shock, fear, disorientation, escape difficulties, current, hypothermia, and likely other issues." Other than current, every one of those problems can also be associated with a tree landing.

I would suspect that for every successful ditching, I'm sure there has been a successful landing in the trees, and for every fatal fixed gear ditching, there is quite possibly near as many fatal landings in trees.

I was just pointing out that there are multiple examples of people dying while ditching to ensure that anybody, perhaps new to aviation, would understand that.

Like current, and most importantly drowning doesn't come with a tree landing, and drowning can easily result from injury, shock, fear, disorientation, and escape difficulties. Something to weigh when it comes to a difficult choice.

Once again, this doesn't mean that landing in the trees is the better choice.

Thanks for your story. I am certainly glad that you were not knocked unconscious when you went through the windshield or else the outcome may have been very different.

Speaking of shallow water ditchings...here is an interesting video of possible outcomes....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gz9ogCtkeI

[photofly]

I don’t know there are all that many examples of deaths following a ditching; as opposed to uncontrolled crashes into water. Could we hear about some? I do recall some famously successful ditchings though, including that helicopter that went down off the coast of Greenland.

[pelmet]

Of course, there have been quite a number of aircraft on amphibs that left the wheels down and flipped over on landing with fatal results(likely at low speed and tail low at touchdown). Meanwhile, some reading material...….

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=LA

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=LA

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=LA

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=FA

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=FA

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=FA

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... l&IType=FA

[photofly]

Ok, so have a life vest, but don’t inflate it before exiting the aircraft, don’t ditch into freezing water, and make sure you wear a shoulder harness. And if your ditching instructions say to jettison the canopy, then jettison the canopy. Those things are not hard to arrange. Did I miss anything else?

I’m not sure I can conclude anything else from those reports.

[pelmet]

Ok, so have a life vest, but don’t inflate it before exiting the aircraft, don’t ditch into freezing water, and make sure you wear a shoulder harness. And if your ditching instructions say to jettison the canopy, then jettison the canopy. Those things are not hard to arrange. Did I miss anything else?

I’m not sure I can conclude anything else from those reports.

Thanks,

Those were just a few of them. As you can see, ditchings lead to deaths sometimes. Things happen in emergencies, tunnel vision, errors, etc. and simple items can be forgotten. One poster on this forum said that after getting carb ice and then ditching, he had forgotten the simple act of doing up his seat belt and went through the windshield.

As you can see in the video I posted earlier, the flipover can be extremely violent and no doubt disorienting. That doesn't mean that it won't be worse if you choose to land in the trees, but just review that video and ask yourself how long that pilot has before breathing in water and what exactly should he do to get out. I'll probably choose the trees but it may end up being a worse choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gz9ogCtkeI

The really smart guys who rarely make a mistake, fly near perfect, have all the answers, and seem know in advance how the water landing will work out may choose differently but I am just an average pilot. And at least I have air to breathe in a tree landing while injured, disoriented, etc.(unless there is a fire of course).

Keep in mind that for a retractable gear aircraft, I would seriously consider a gear up water landing.

[goldeneagle]

Of course, there have been quite a number of aircraft on amphibs that left the wheels down and flipped over on landing with fatal results(likely at low speed and tail low at touchdown). Meanwhile, some reading material...….

Amphib left the wheels down for a water landing is not a ditching, quite a significant difference.

[BeaverDreamer]

I agree with the idea that a ditching is favourable to trees in many situations and the impact is often not terribly violent. However, even in the middle of June at much lower water levels I wouldn't like my chances if I were to jump into the Babine River in a controlled manner today. That water is cold. It is fast moving. Even with a life jacket survival doesn't seem anywhere near guaranteed. Nevermind the part where you have to ditch and egress along with three other people. In early May I'd hazard survival in this scenario is damn near impossible. A cold river in freshet is a hell of a lot different than a lake or an ocean.

[pelmet]

Of course, there have been quite a number of aircraft on amphibs that left the wheels down and flipped over on landing with fatal results(likely at low speed and tail low at touchdown). Meanwhile, some reading material...….

Amphib left the wheels down for a water landing is not a ditching, quite a significant difference.

Definitely differences but definitely some similarities. A good chance of flipping upside down suddenly in the water is quite a significant similarity. Near stall speed and likely tail low.

Unless you have some specific info that these flip overs are somehow different.....but based on the quality of posts I have seen from you....I doubt it.

[pelmet]

I agree with the idea that a ditching is favourable to trees in many situations and the impact is often not terribly violent. However, even in the middle of June at much lower water levels I wouldn't like my chances if I were to jump into the Babine River in a controlled manner today. That water is cold. It is fast moving. Even with a life jacket survival doesn't seem anywhere near guaranteed. Nevermind the part where you have to ditch and egress along with three other people. In early May I'd hazard survival in this scenario is damn near impossible. A cold river in freshet is a hell of a lot different than a lake or an ocean.

Exactly...…the water is damn cold and if even if uninjured, strength is sapped away quickly. And then there is the consideration for those deciding to ditch of.....can you or your passengers even swim. Might want to ask that to them before choosing water over land. Survived without a scratch but.....drowned after the plane sank.

[cncpc]

I agree with the idea that a ditching is favourable to trees in many situations and the impact is often not terribly violent.

No, it's not.

Neither is going through a windshield. In my case, I did get launched out of my seat, but mostly just fell headfirst through the windshield when the plane went on its nose. Aircraft windshields are strong in the being hit from the outside direction, not so much people going through from inside. I'm sure its no problem to sit on a front seat and just push the windshield out with one or both feet.

Imagine going 50 mph in a car and having brakes that would bring you to a stop in 25 feet. That's about it.

[pelmet]

In the past many 182s have gone down with carb ice. And there is a good explanation.
The 182 has a constant speed prop. Pilots, particularly those who are not familiar with CS props expect carb ice to cause a drop in RPM...They are not looking at the MP. By the time it becomes noticeable in the RPM it is pretty much to late. It happens more frequently in 182s because they are a step up plane.

The second issue, not exclusive to 182s is the use of partial carb heat without a carb temp guage.

The C182 POH states that after using carb heat to remove carb ice, partial carb heat can be used with the minimum amount of heat required to prevent it from forming. It states that 'trial and error' can be used. There is no definition of what error would be. That seems to go against conventional wisdom of not using partial heat without a carb temp guage.

[cncpc]

My understanding of this, which comes from info around the time of the accident, is that the adapted 0-470 carb heat system, even if working and used perfectly, will not provide sufficient heat to remove ice in conditions of heavy carb icing. I think the logic is that there is more moisture in each intake stroke of a 550 than in a 470 because the intake volume is greater, while the heat produced is not.

[photofly]

The C182 POH states that after using carb heat to remove carb ice, partial carb heat can be used with the minimum amount of heat required to prevent it from forming. It states that 'trial and error' can be used. There is no definition of what error would be. That seems to go against conventional wisdom of not using partial heat without a carb temp guage.

Here's the entry:

Screen Shot 2020-06-17 at 10.23.59 PM.png (139.53 KiB) Viewed 2098 times

[PilotDAR]

even if working and used perfectly, will not provide sufficient heat to remove ice in conditions of heavy carb icing. I think the logic is that there is more moisture in each intake stroke of a 550 than in a 470 because the intake volume is greater, while the heat produced is not.

This has been my experience in all carburetted Continentals. So, which this less than ideal characteristic, I optimize the wording of the Flight Manual which Photofly quotes; I "readjust the throttle" earlier in the process. As if I really need carb heat to have the most effect, as soon as I have applied it, I'll lean (to cause maximum EGT). I'll evaluate the effect (which may include the engine stumbling as ice melts and is ingested), and as I can, I'll close the throttle as much as I can accept the lesser power, and lean more. The closed throttle reduces induction airflow, and thus reduces the amount of cold, moist air which must be warmed by the carb heat.

On one un-nerving night flight, that was not enough. I was really high, so as I descended under limited power, I gently used the primer to add a little power to the engine, and it was enough to have deicing effect, and I got power back.

[pelmet]

even if working and used perfectly, will not provide sufficient heat to remove ice in conditions of heavy carb icing. I think the logic is that there is more moisture in each intake stroke of a 550 than in a 470 because the intake volume is greater, while the heat produced is not.

This has been my experience in all carburetted Continentals. So, which this less than ideal characteristic, I optimize the wording of the Flight Manual which Photofly quotes; I "readjust the throttle" earlier in the process. As if I really need carb heat to have the most effect, as soon as I have applied it, I'll lean (to cause maximum EGT). I'll evaluate the effect (which may include the engine stumbling as ice melts and is ingested), and as I can, I'll close the throttle as much as I can accept the lesser power, and lean more. The closed throttle reduces induction airflow, and thus reduces the amount of cold, moist air which must be warmed by the carb heat.

On one un-nerving night flight, that was not enough. I was really high, so as I descended under limited power, I gently used the primer to add a little power to the engine, and it was enough to have deicing effect, and I got power back.

The manual says apply full throttle, not a reduction in power. Are you saying that the manual is incorrect or the manufacturers technique is not as effective as reducing power?

[PilotDAR]

Are you saying that the manual is incorrect or the manufacturers technique is not as effective as reducing power?

Sadly, and with reluctance, I am. Yes, usually, I'm the person stating that the flight manual should be followed. If you were flying one of the two C 185's I STC approved with a carb, you would read my flight manual supplement which states a procedure as I describe. During my testing for that approval, that procedure was the difference between pass and fail for the carb air temp rise requirement - repeatedly. Anyone flying a plane with a carb air temperature indicator can very safely experiment with this (you don't have to wait to have carb ice). No harm can be done experimenting with carb heat application and power settings, as long as peak lean is respected. Watch the CAT to see what happens... I did.

While, in my posts, I try really hard to align what I write with the flight manual procedures for the aircraft, I know, as others do here too, that there are "tricks" which are not published, which once understood, result in a better yet outcome. My only guess would be that Cessna's lawyers would rather that a flight manual say to apply full power if in doubt, than to use a technique which could result in using power inadequate to maintain level flight, if not cautious. Caesar Gonzales was the Cessna guru on this kind of stuff, and I met with him a number of times at the ASTM gasoline meetings during my Mogas research. Caesar would tell me things about his experimentation, and his operation of his C 150M on Mogas which were very informative (and not always in line with Cessna's corporate position), and from his information I built on my knowledge. Discussion with him about induction airflow and carb heat was a part of this learning for me.

[photofly]

That is a very counter-intuitive result, and definitely calls for some experimentation