Landing on the lake technique

[FenderManDan]

There is a "sweet spot" in my neck of the woods 6-7 NM from CYTZ shore line, where in the case of engine out emergency there is no good suitable road or area (that I observed) to land. The narrow beaches are full of people during the summer time so landing on the water close to beach is probably the best option. I usually fly at 2000ft ASL inbound to CYTZ (250 ASL) so I have roughly <3 miles in glide in a c-172.

What technique would you use to land on the lake such as lake Ontario?
Did any body here had an emergency landing on the water and lived?
Have you at tented or can recommend water egress course?

Cheers

Dan

[FenderManDan]

Nobody is trying anybody?

Ok here is mine.

Trim to best glide
Stabilise and fly the plane, watch a/s
Check the water surface for obstructions
Try to figure out the vawes and wind
If time permits which is probably a bs, do a cause check
Issue mayday
Brief passangers to bend over and kiss their a.. Goodbyye
Try to decrease the descend rate to 300 ft/min
Approach close to the surface upwind
Stall if a few feet above water
I dont know what else....

Sorry tuping on my phone...

[old_man]

There are lots of forests in Canada that do not have suitable roads or 'areas' to put an airplane down in. People fly over them all the time and do go down in them with various degrees of success. I would research what technique the ones that survived used.

I, personally, would be very hard pressed to choose to ditch in water than go to land. In a C-172 with fixed gear I would imagine there is a good chance you will flip over. So there you are upside down and in water. You now have to get you and your passengers out of there while being completely disoriented and submerged. If you somehow manage that then you have to consider how you are going to float. I assume that no one was wearing a PFD at the time. Maybe the plane will keep you afloat until helps arrive. God help you if this happens in the winter time.

Again, my personal 2 cents but I would almost always choose land.

If you want a technique on how to do it there maybe a section on 'ditching' in your POH. The last airplane I flew had one.

An easier way might just be to fly higher and thus increase gliding distance.

[North Shore]

Have you at tented or can recommend water egress course?

Yes.
http://www.dunkyou.com/

[ahramin]

Nobody is trying anybody?

Ok here is mine.

Trim to best glide
Stabilise and fly the plane, watch a/s
Check the water surface for obstructions
Try to figure out the vawes and wind
If time permits which is probably a bs, do a cause check
Issue mayday
Brief passangers to bend over and kiss their a.. Goodbyye

Sorry tuping on my phone...

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong.

In a piston single cause checks are supremely important. Do you really want to be that guy who wrecks an airplane because of carb ice or a bad mag?

Try to decrease the descend rate to 300 ft/min
Approach close to the surface upwind
Stall if a few feet above water

Number one rule for crashing an airplane: Don't stall. Under no circumstances do you ever stall and aircraft when crashing it. And what's with decreasing the descent rate to 300 ft/min? Fly your best glide speed to get to your crash site, adding speed for headwinds, then fly it into the ground or water as smoothly as possible. Obviously the slower you hit the better, but it's all for nothing if you just give up and hit uncontrolled. Be in control of your aircraft at all times, crashing or not. In the case of rising terrain you will want to be going as fast as possible (usually Va) when you transition from the descent to the crash in order to retain control as you put it into the ground.

[cptn2016]

Regarding ditching over forested areas, assuming you have nowhere else to go, I've been thinking - would it be better to glide into the trees or should you attempt to stall it just as you start brushing the treetops to decrease your forward speed as much as possible and hope the tree branches somewhat break or cushion the plane's more vertical fall?

I would probably opt for the 2nd one but I have nothing to base that on other than it seems slightly more surviveable than the first option.

But back to the topic at hand, I think I would also take the trees over water, although neither sounds fun. You'd better have some good karma saved up either way.

[Rowdy Burns]

Regarding ditching over forested areas, assuming you have nowhere else to go, I've been thinking - would it be better to glide into the trees or should you attempt to stall it just as you start brushing the treetops to decrease your forward speed as much as possible and hope the tree branches somewhat break or cushion the plane's more vertical fall?

I would probably opt for the 2nd one but I have nothing to base that on other than it seems slightly more surviveable than the first option.

But back to the topic at hand, I think I would also take the trees over water, although neither sounds fun. You'd better have some good karma saved up either way.

I also have nothing to base it on, but IMHHO I would take the AC in flying. Meaning glide it into the tress. Two key benefits to this. You have the engine in front of you even though you'll aim between the trees, I think the aircraft, like a car, is disigned to handle a straight in crash better, ldg jokes aside. Second you don't stall. The other option (stalling) could cause a wing drop, or a substantial downward momentum (pretty thin floor).

[cptn2016]

I also have nothing to base it on, but IMHHO I would take the AC in flying. Meaning glide it into the tress. Two key benefits to this. You have the engine in front of you even though you'll aim between the trees, I think the aircraft, like a car, is disigned to handle a straight in crash better, ldg jokes aside. Second you don't stall. The other option (stalling) could cause a wing drop, or a substantial downward momentum (pretty thin floor).

The way I see it, when you stall it, you don't have that far to drop if you're at the top of the trees (of course some old-growth forests are quite tall), and the aircraft will tend to pitch nose down, so you won't be dropping tail-first, keeping the engine in front of you. I think because of the branches and short distance to drop, you won't have time to end up in a nosedive.
I do agree that the floor and belly of the aircraft are probably not designed to withstand any significant force, such as that of a low-altitude stall, but my thinking is that even in a 172 you're going to glide in at anywhere from 41-65 knots. That would be akin to plowing into a tree at highway speeds in a car, and those are at least equipped with airbags, crumple zones and the like. I'm not sure I want to hit a tree dead-on like that, especially with fuel in the tanks.

However, it seems that people with vast amounts more experience than I have seem to be saying never to stall the aircraft if you're going to crash...I think if god forbid this ever happens to me, I'll defer to them and glide it in.
Am I overestimating how bad a glide into trees will be, or underestimating a stalled fall through trees and branches to a soft-ish (relatively speaking, compared to asphalt) surface below? I guess a 150ft drop is no picnic either.

[Cat Driver]

Would you rather be hanging unconcious upside down in the trees breathing air, or be hanging upside down in the water breathing water?

[Shiny Side Up]

Would you rather be hanging unconcious upside down in the trees breathing air, or be hanging upside down in the water breathing water?

Nevermind the dangers of drowning, most people over estimate their ability to swim particularly when the water isn't warm. It ain't ever considered warm in this country. I'm intimately familiar with hypothermia from a variety of misadventures, if one is interested in survival, you should become so as well. Operative bits to the topic from the above link.

Heat is lost more quickly in water than on land. Water temperatures that would be quite reasonable as outdoor air temperatures can lead to hypothermia. A water temperature of 10 °C (50 °F) often leads to death in one hour, and water temperatures hovering at freezing can lead to death in as little as 15 minutes.

Personally the water would be my last choice in most instances. I might choose it before landing in an erupting volcano, a minefield or a quarantine zone of a zombie apocalypse, but not much else.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The AOPA safety foundation had a study which looked at the success rate of controlled ditching. That is where the aircraft (land aircraft not seaplane float planes) contacted the water under control after an engine failure. Using I think data over 20 years worth of accidents 93 % of the accidents had no fatalities.

Fromm a review of the overall accident statistics the data strongly suggests that the survivable ones where the aircraft hit upright and in nearly level pitch attitude and did not hit a solid immovable object at flying speed. That is there was some forward motion before the aircraft stopped which helped reduce de-acceleration forces. FWIW a steady 9 Gee De-acceleration from 60 kts to stopped only requires 25 feet.

[old_man]

The AOPA safety foundation had a study which looked at the success rate of controlled ditching. That is where the aircraft (land aircraft not seaplane float planes) contacted the water under control after an engine failure. Using I think data over 20 years worth of accidents 93 % of the accidents had no fatalities.

I wonder how many of those were with retractable gear types with crews that had the proper survival equipment on. Just curious.

Actually, I just read one AOPA article on ditching.
http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/inflight9907.html
Mentions similar stats but offers warnings as well.

[FenderManDan]

Nobody is trying anybody?

Ok here is mine.

Trim to best glide
Stabilise and fly the plane, watch a/s
Check the water surface for obstructions
Try to figure out the vawes and wind
If time permits which is probably a bs, do a cause check
Issue mayday
Brief passangers to bend over and kiss their a.. Goodbyye

Sorry tuping on my phone...

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong.

In a piston single cause checks are supremely important. Do you really want to be that guy who wrecks an airplane because of carb ice or a bad mag?

Try to decrease the descend rate to 300 ft/min
Approach close to the surface upwind
Stall if a few feet above water

Number one rule for crashing an airplane: Don't stall. Under no circumstances do you ever stall and aircraft when crashing it. And what's with decreasing the descent rate to 300 ft/min? Fly your best glide speed to get to your crash site, adding speed for headwinds, then fly it into the ground or water as smoothly as possible. Obviously the slower you hit the better, but it's all for nothing if you just give up and hit uncontrolled. Be in control of your aircraft at all times, crashing or not. In the case of rising terrain you will want to be going as fast as possible (usually Va) when you transition from the descent to the crash in order to retain control as you put it into the ground.

Well decreasing the sink slows down the vertical speed, theoretically speaking. Which means softer kaboom. Stalling it just above surface 5-6 feet before wheels are dunked are to prevent tripping and flipping. Again this us just a theory in my mind.

As far as landing on tree tops, not an option here. If anybody is bored take a look at google maps between pickering power station and cytz. Nothing but the lake and Kingston rd or hwy 401.
Inbound to control zone we have to fly 2000 asl to go under the pearsons control zone since heavies are descending in the 4000 ft range. Pearson controlers alow entry only when not too busy.

[old_man]

Well decreasing the sink slows down the vertical speed, theoretically speaking. Which means softer kaboom. Stalling it just above surface 5-6 feet before wheels are dunked are to prevent tripping and flipping. Again this us just a theory in my mind.

Again, I, personally, would go in controlled the best I can as oppose trying to stall it at the exact right time and then cartwheeling it in. The article I posted does mention doing your best to keep the nose up once you splashdown but I don't think it mentions stalling it in beforehand.

As far as landing on tree tops, not an option here. If anybody is bored take a look at google maps between pickering power station and cytz. Nothing but the lake and Kingston rd or hwy 401.
Inbound to control zone we have to fly 2000 asl to go under the pearsons control zone since heavies are descending in the 4000 ft range. Pearson controlers alow entry only when not too busy.

[/quote]

If the unfortunate happens you will be the PIC and only you will be at the controls. You will have to choose what is best...water to whatever is on land.

However, if in your mind you are flying over water and you are considering ditching as one of your actions I hope you and all your passengers have PFDs strapped on before take off. Proper egress training and a very good passenger brief would most likely also go a long way.

But to answer your earlier question. Yes I would recommend proper underwater egress training. I have had it and it was a very valuable training. Mind you being upside down in the dark with your primary exit jammed shut and out of air is not fun.

[esp803]

When I flew gliders you always had 2 speeds, best glide and min sink... If I'm going to crash I would opt for min sink... slower is better. It's unfortunate that min sink speeds are not published for powered aircraft.

e

[old_man]

Maybe I am missing something but isn't the point of the flare to reduce the sink to almost nothing?

[Dagwood]

If I have to ditch, I'm going for broke: brakes locked and maximum forward speed

[Grantmac]

When I flew gliders you always had 2 speeds, best glide and min sink... If I'm going to crash I would opt for min sink... slower is better. It's unfortunate that min sink speeds are not published for powered aircraft.

e

Try opening a POH, even my 6-page leaflet from 1949 has Vx and Vy.

-Grant

[Big Pistons Forever]

When I flew gliders you always had 2 speeds, best glide and min sink... If I'm going to crash I would opt for min sink... slower is better. It's unfortunate that min sink speeds are not published for powered aircraft.

e

Try opening a POH, even my 6-page leaflet from 1949 has Vx and Vy.

-Grant

So ? Neither one has anything directly to do with the minimum sink speed. The only way to find the min sink speed is to do a polar graph. That is to graph a series of sink rate vs airspeed data points to get a performance curve. The top of the curve will be the min sink rate airspeed.

As a rule min sink rate is not published in the POH for 2 reasons. Best glide will provide the most options on where the aircraft can reach for a forced approach and second it will be an airspeed well above the stall speed. Min sink speeds tend to work out to be quite slow and so flying this speed will result in mushy controls and the greater possibility of stall.

In the event of a forced approach the most important thing to do is to maintain control of the aircraft therefore best glide should be maintained until the flare and the speed bled off, if practical in the flare prior to touch down jus like any other landing.

[Krimson]

I was taught that water is the better option over trees. If you are going for trees, the tops will not "cushion" your descent at all. You will go right through them, tangle up and go vertical one way or another with a high speed to the ground. Stalling into the trees would be even worse, as you are dropping uncontrolled to the ground from an unknown height. You could get lucky and tangle up in a tree without hitting the ground, but you'll get tossed around pretty well inside the cabin regardless.

The preferred option (of the two) would be for the water. You definitely do not want to stall the aircraft into the water, you're likely to go unconscious and drown. Always keep control of the aircraft, and always keep it flying. For the procedure, right from the POH, use a slower than best glide speed with a low sink rate. High winds, ditch into the wind; light winds, ditch parallel to the swells. The important part, which was briefly mentioned only once is to lock your brakes. With the wheels unlocked, as soon as the aircraft touches the water, the wheels will spin creating a moment about the aircraft, which causes the aircraft to flip. Keeping the brakes locked will allow you to fly right into the water. Unlatch your doors prior to touchdown, be ready for the seat belts to get undone, and keep calm. Just take yourself and your passengers out, nothing else. All objects should be tied up or thrown out as soon as ditching becomes the option.

Now if this was in winter with the water at -40, you may want to reassess, however never stall the aircraft. Always maintain control.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Like pretty much every similar discussion this topic started about what to do after the engine failed. The accident record shows that at least 80% of all engine failures where directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot with fuel exhaustion/mismanagement/contamination and carb ice the top causes. I tell all my students the best way to handle an engine failure is not to have the engine fail in the first place.

Flight training is no help here. The classic "instructor suddenly closes the throttle simulating an engine failure" represents the least likely possible engine failure scenario, that is a smooth running engine with plenty of fuel and normal engine gauge readings that suddenly just stops........

[robertsailor1]

If I was flying a low wing retractable then I might take a crack at the water next to the shore but if I was in a high wing fixed gear I'd try to stuff it between a couple of trees and hope that having the wings ripped off might decelerate enough to allow the cabin to make it...me in it of course

[ahramin]

Regarding ditching over forested areas, assuming you have nowhere else to go, I've been thinking - would it be better to glide into the trees or should you attempt to stall it just as you start brushing the treetops to decrease your forward speed as much as possible and hope the tree branches somewhat break or cushion the plane's more vertical fall?

I would probably opt for the 2nd one but I have nothing to base that on other than it seems slightly more surviveable than the first option.

But back to the topic at hand, I think I would also take the trees over water, although neither sounds fun. You'd better have some good karma saved up either way.

Again ... Number one rule to crashing an airplane: DON'T STALL. In the treed example above, if you stall it at the treetops you are going to descend far easier - in other words faster - through the trees and hit the ground at a much higher vertical speed. This can make the difference between dead and alive. My friend's kid put a cub in the trees a couple years ago. Fortunately they didn't stall it in and both walked away without a scratch. Would have been a very different story if they had stalled it in from 30 feet.

Don't stall.

[ahramin]

I think I need to be a little clearer about this, some of you don't seem to be understanding. This is an important thing to understand, as it can often be the difference between a crash that you walk away from and a fatal one.

Don't stall the airplane. Under no circumstances will stalling the aircraft make for a softer landing. If you come in as slow as possible, still controlled, you will be able to get your horizontal speed down to a minimum and your vertical speed down to zero. Whether it's going into trees, water, or anything else this gives you the best chance for survival.

However if you misguidedly try to reduce your horizontal speed by stalling before you hit, you will be going a few knots slower, and a whole bunch of bad things happen: Your vertical speed starts increasing rapidly, you lose control of your pitch and your bank. Think about how quickly your nose drops the second you stall. This increases your chances of flipping over, not the other way around.

If you are still not convinced, try stalling it in on your next few landings in order to reduce how violent your touchdowns are. Start from stalling it onto the runway from a few feet. If you still have a working airplane, try it from five feet. That should cure any talk of stalling aircraft into the ground.

[trey kule]

Not sure I agree with the try stalling it when landing higher and higher..There are some things in aviation you must understand without having to have them demonstrated or experienced.

The general technique for landing in trees is to set up a normal landing for the ground...fly it as if you are going to do a normal landing at ground level. Some suggest when you make tree contact put in some rudder to allow a wing to go first. Not sure about that idea.
In any event, as Ahramim above has alluded....dont stall the aircraft or try to land on the top of the tress...fly it through them.

A friend of mine and I had this discussion many years ago...we were always concerned that when the top of the trees were approaching we would instinctively pull up, and how we should best plan for that problem. A year of so later, as it happened he had a engine failure in a single and put it in the trees. As he was coming down he remembered our conversation and flew it though..Walked away. He did however mention that there is almost uncontrollable urge to level off at the tree tops as you realize things are going to start getting broken in a few seconds.
Trees can be quite high, and freefalling 75 feet or so you will get hurt...You might driving through them but it is a better option.

BTW...I am not a fan of landing on water in a land plane under any circumstances. If you have a choice, it should mean some sort of shoreline is there and you can fly into the trees at shorline height or a bit above it if the terrain is rising.