Unlatching Doors During Forced Approach

[Living 5500ASL]

As we know the Cessna 172 checklist says to unlatch the doors just before touchdown during a forced approach. I was given some advice from a rather experienced bush pilot the other day to not do this. The reason given was that the doors provide extra support during a crash and prevents the plane from folding down on you like a cardboard box. I was trained the reason for unlatching them is the doors can crunch in to the point of them not being able open so this does involve having to kick out your windows if you keep the doors closed.

Now I personally don't always believe everything I hear but I can see the point. Plus I tend to give people with 50 times the hours I have a bit of credit. I figured I'd post it on here for debate, perhaps some people that have been in a real forced approach could shed some light on this. I'm sure we will see a good mix of thoughts on this one.

[Rudder Bug]

I would unlatch but not open them. As you say, doors are part of the structure on several aircraft types. What I really want is the rescue being able to take me out of the smoking wreckage if I'm knocked out or too badly injured to do it on my own power.

RB

[SAR_YQQ]

Playing the devil's advocate - maybe the checklist calls for this because the engineers designed it that way?

[iflyforpie]

I have heard this one before. I dismiss it as an old wive's tale for the following reasons:

1) The doors on a 172 are not structural. You can fly the aircraft without the doors installed.

2) A company I previously worked for had in its possession a 172 that was involved in a fatal crash (C-GRIL). Both doors simply popped out of their frames as the cabin was deformed.

I am sure the doors contribute slightly to the rigidity of the fuselage when closed and locked. But I think the greater risk is not being able to exit the aircraft once it is down. I think there would be very few instances where keeping the doors closed and locked would be the difference between life and death...

[ch135146]

Playing the devil's advocate - maybe the checklist calls for this because the engineers designed it that way?

Good point. Just as likely though, is that Cessna's legal department wrote it, given the types of liability cases that manufacturers have been hit with over the years. Lawyer-driven CYA?

[CpnCrunch]

I have to agree with Pie here. I used to own a 172 that had worn out springs in the door handles, and sometimes a door would unlatch in turbulence or on takeoff. The door itself would never actually open wide, of course - the airflow keeps it closed, and the door generally stayed closed until the end of the landing roll when it would swing open if it had unlatched. So I would imagine that if you unlatched it for a forced landing, the door would stay closed until you pretty much came to a stop. I think the danger of getting trapped in the plane is much greater than getting poked by a branch if the door does happen to open.

Oh, and if a door does open during flight on a 172 or similar, it is safer to LEAVE IT CLOSED (unless you have another pilot on board who can hold the controls while you wrestle with it!)

[Lost Lake]

I'm not an engineer, but I know the Dehavilland aircraft have bird cages (roll cages) designed to absorb the impact. Since the door is a movable, removable part of the plane, I feel fairly sure that the doors on Cessnas are not meant to part of the structural integrety. I'd rather have the doors unlatched than closed on any small single. IMHO.

[kevinsky18]

Most Cessna's are certified to fly with the doors removed. The doors provide little structural integrity.

Not only unlatch the doors but lock them in the open position to keep the door from whip lashing or somehow on impact being forced closed. To lock a door open simply open it and move the handle to the locked position the this will prevent it from being forced closed.

You do not want a jammed door after a crash. Think fuel dripping all around you and not being able to get your door open. Think water rushing all around you and not being able to get your door open. Think being unconscious or simply incapacitated and a good Samaritan not being able to pull you from the wreckage.

If you think you're going out the window of your plane think again. I've been on my back with my feet firmly pressed against the windshield and another fellow doing the same thing at the same time and together we could not get that dam window to pop out. Luckily it wasn't an emergency situation. The side windows are too small for an average person to squeeze through.

[mcrit]

Playing the devil's advocate - maybe the checklist calls for this because the engineers designed it that way?

What he said.

BUT....don't let his item overshadow more important tasks like a/c control.

[Invertago]

He may have 50 times your hours, but that is flying time, not necessary crashing time. Don't ask a pilot, that kinda question is better put to either aircraft design engineer or a crash scene investigator. If you want to ask a pilot, find one who has experience crashing, ask him how to survive, and while you're at it, ask him how to fly (then fly the opposite way)

[Lost Lake]

He may have 50 times your hours, but that is flying time, not necessary crashing time. Don't ask a pilot, that kinda question is better put to either aircraft design engineer or a crash scene investigator. If you want to ask a pilot, find one who has experience crashing, ask him how to survive, and while you're at it, ask him how to fly (then fly the opposite way)

Why do you say that Invertago? Are you saying that an engine failure in remote country, or a bird strike or some other none pilot related incident causing a forced landing or crash is the pilot's fault? I was taught that every landing was a controlled crash.

[Invertago]

I was taught that every landing was a controlled crash.

You're instructor was just trying to make you feel better

[MichaelP]

What I taught in the Cessna 172 was to unlock the doors immediately you had a problem.
Then in the forced landing scenario in the later 172s open them and latch them open, the latch would prevent them from closing.
If the Cessna 172 required the doors for structural integrity it would not have a CxA anywhere.
If in the event of a crash the fuselage was distorted by the energy of that crash then you are wearing the engine already!

I heard this idea of keeping the doors closed from the very experienced instructor at CPL groundschool a long time ago.
I asked him how many forced landings he had had: None.
But of course we all read the accident reports and we can all infer what the best course of action would be in the event of it happening to us.

There are many of these ideas out there, we have to apply our own thoughts to whether they really make sense.

Crashing could be good for business... This one is used to advertise a trial lesson (fam flight):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lodes.html

[cessnafloatflyer]

The side windows are too small for an average person to squeeze through.

That's actually not true of the Cessna 172 windows. It is a bit hard to tell, but i have been in and taught with Bryan Webster of Aviation Egress and we learn to go through the window in the pool and it is up to scale. Use it if you have to!

[Heliian]

Many other aircraft checklists mention the doors. If they're not structural, they're not going to help. As for kicking your windows or windsheilds out, good luck, because if the window is not made of a weaker material and designed to be exited through, you won't. Personally, I like flying with doors off anyway, but not in winter.

[Lost Lake]

You're instructor was just trying to make you feel better

I should be mad but that's pretty funny!!

[The Old Fogducker]

My question in these matters always comes back to "What kind of arrogance do we line-pilot types have that makes us think we know more than the people that designed and made the airplane and the Engineering Test Pilots that flew it for certification?"

I had one old guy try to convince me that Cessna engineers didn't know any more about flying and making airplanes than he did ... and I have to say, I didn't find him to be either smart, nor convincing.

The Old Fogducker

[Panama Jack]

You guys remember the old seat belt arguement?

"I don't wear my seatbelt in case the car goes out of control and ends up in the lake, or if after the crash there is a fire and if I have my shoulder broken or the seat buckle jams I might not be able to get out of the car and I would die in it."

Bush pilot vs. Cessna engineer. Hmmm. You'll hear all sorts of wierd and wonderful crackpot theories of aeronautica.
When in doubt, just follow what the documentation says.

[Oor Wullie]

Fly the plane, Pick a sufficient field. Land the plane. Have you not any soft field landing experience? Are they that bad that you have to consider the fuselage collapsing on you?

If you're nowhere near civilization when doing your training/flying, keep the doors closed if ditching in trees. Open them if ditching in water...?

[fleet16b]

As a pilot and as an AME, I was taught two things about this topic.

1) The doors on most of the high wing Cessna aircraft are NOT part of the structure and should always be cracked open in the advent of a forced approach.
This will help to avoid them being unable to open if structural damage occurs on landing.
2) The opposite for most low wing Pipers . The doors on them ARE part of the structure and should always be fully closed in the advent of a forced approach.

It's been years but I think that it is mentioned in the manuals for each a/c.
However,I don't have a manual on hand to verify that it is mentioned.

[Donald]

My question in these matters always comes back to "What kind of arrogance do we line-pilot types have that makes us think we know more than the people that designed and made the airplane and the Engineering Test Pilots that flew it for certification?"

See thread about "Blown tire...abort past 80 kts but below V1".

Enough said.

[oldncold]

well, it used to be that a emergency axe was required in the survival kit.

now these days having a axe in hand after a flight would attract the wrong kind of attension but in the beaver used to have it handy to do many little things to make the day easier. but i digress > follow the p.o.h. first sop's if available next and use common sense at all times. fly safe and may all your landings be greasers

[iflyforpie]

well, it used to be that a emergency axe was required in the survival kit.

now these days having a axe in hand after a flight would attract the wrong kind of attension but in the beaver used to have it handy to do many little things to make the day easier. but i digress > follow the p.o.h. first sop's if available next and use common sense at all times. fly safe and may all your landings be greasers

I still carry an emergency axe and I believe all transport category aircraft are still required to have them (in cockpit behind the locked door of course ).