Landing on the lake technique

[Colonel Sanders]

Don't stall the airplane

I think I'm number 5 endorsing this ... DON'T STALL OR SPIN!

Impact under control, with minimal forward and vertical speed.

Time for me to tell my story again. It's called the "Tale of Two Comanches".

There was a nice old guy, used to rent a single-engine Comanche at an FBO near Ottawa. Ran it out of gas, stalled/spun it in. Killed himself and his grandson.

There was another guy, who has a leak in his exhaust and went to sleep in his Comanche in the USA. Ran out of gas eventually. Auto-pilot ran the trim all the way nose up to try to maintain altitude, could not. Slowed the airplane down, though. And kept the wings level in the descent. Aircraft touched down in a corn field, pilot eventually woke up with a hell of a headache and a broken wrist.

Now children. Which pilot did better? The one that was conscious, and was working really hard, or the one that was asleep, and let the aircraft fly itself?

Reminds me of watching a low-time pilot jack-hammer himself under the hood in turbulence. He has a PIO going in pitch, because he is not skilled enough to damp out the oscillations. I tell him, "Let go of the controls" - and we get a much smoother ride.

Low-time pilots insist on working really hard and making the airplane behave much worse.

[Cannonballer]

The Caravan has a ditching procedure in its POH. It has been quite some time since i read it but the jist of it is this...

Fly the A/C on to the water. No flair, constant rate of decent. (i believe 300 fpm was their number but i have to double check.) The theory is that if you land on the water main gear first the deceleration will cause a forward moment and possibly flip the airplane over. This is what i would expect if somebody stalled the airplane onto the water. No matter how good your stall is you never lose all forward speed. you are still traveling between 50 and 60 knots. that is around 80 to 100 km/h. Don't let the low numbers fool you ... you are still moving pretty fast. (That is why if given the choice i would prob go for the water over the trees... but that is just me.) If a constant rate of decent with no flair is used then the nose wheel touches around the same time as the mains and although there will still be a forward moment it will not be as forceful. Also the nose and cowling will act as the bow of a boat and cushion and help the plane stay right side up. They give a time that the aircraft should float before sinking too. All of this is theory of course as nobody that i have ever heard of tried it out to see what would happen in an actual senario. I think the consensus is drive'r on, don't stall no matter what terrain you choose. Maintain control to the end of the trip and don't ever stop flying the aircraft.

Seeing as a most cessna singles all share some inherent design similarities i would probably try this technique out the first time ... if it didn't work out maybe try something else the second time ...

My 2 cents.

[fish4life]

I think type of trees should be factored in if it is a forest of big oak trees water may be better but if it's smaller spruce then trees would be preferable.

[Cannonballer]

There are lots of factors to consider ... Time of year (water temp) location (time to rescue, boats in the immidiate area) size and type of trees and density of the forest. I don't think there is one right answer to this question ... Lots of different views tho and that makes for interesting discussions.