182 down by Smithers

[CpnCrunch]

Maybe the really smart guys know better and know when heat is really needed but I have never had a significant issue with my regular checks since that day where the whole airframe shuddered for several seconds as the ice melted in a Cessna 150.

That's just about every flight in a C150 when the temp is between 5-12 degrees and you're near the sea. You get used to it pretty quick! The (one) nice thing about carb icing in a 150 is that it's never hidden...you always notice the engine start to run rough (usually in the climbout at full throttle). And once the engine heats up it's generally not an issue any more.

[BeaverDreamer]

It is hard to not notice that the TSB early on commented that the operator had a section in its manual in which it was "suggested" that when river levels were high and currents fast, forced approaches should be made into trees rather than water. It seems that there was a message in that inclusion. I have never seen an operations manual, or training manual, with that advice in it. It may be there with the best of intentions, but it is based on a flawed analysis of what the risks are in each choice.

Maybe I am misreading this. Are you suggesting it would be better to ditch into a fast flowing remote river in early May than into the trees?

[pelmet]

Maybe the really smart guys know better and know when heat is really needed but I have never had a significant issue with my regular checks since that day where the whole airframe shuddered for several seconds as the ice melted in a Cessna 150.

That's just about every flight in a C150 when the temp is between 5-12 degrees and you're near the sea. You get used to it pretty quick! The (one) nice thing about carb icing in a 150 is that it's never hidden...you always notice the engine start to run rough (usually in the climbout at full throttle). And once the engine heats up it's generally not an issue any more.

Thanks,

It’s a bit vague now but I believe the temperature was quite a bit warmer that day. Was during the summer and close to the end of the flight(heading back to the airport after practicing diversions for a while).

[cncpc]

It is hard to not notice that the TSB early on commented that the operator had a section in its manual in which it was "suggested" that when river levels were high and currents fast, forced approaches should be made into trees rather than water. It seems that there was a message in that inclusion. I have never seen an operations manual, or training manual, with that advice in it. It may be there with the best of intentions, but it is based on a flawed analysis of what the risks are in each choice.

Maybe I am misreading this. Are you suggesting it would be better to ditch into a fast flowing remote river in early May than into the trees?

I'm saying what I said.

I said the TSB determined that it was relevant to their report to include that portion of the operator's manual. It may, or may not, explain the pilot's choices which led up to the landing which eventually was made. But the TSB thought that was important.

I think this pilot flew the emergency portion (that from just below Silver Hilton) based on an honest belief that he was bringing the aircraft to a place where it could be landed safely. I expect he believed he was almost at Silver Hilton.

I made a call to a friend who is very familiar with the Babine area. He did say that at that time of year, the river would be full and fast flowing. There would be no sandbars. The trees on the shoreline would be big. There may be wood in the water. I didn't suggest anything about this pilot's choice, mainly because he didn't really have any in the seconds leading up to impact.

I will say that a choice to ditch in the river would have resulted in everyone surviving the landing, most likely without injury. However, the risk is not just injury in the landing. It is connected to exiting the airplane and getting to shore. That can be a factor that would be given weight in pilot's thinking, in including the suggestion of trees over water. He stuck to that in the end.

Not saying it shouldn't be in the manual, but I do think that there should additional material to make the pilot aware making either choice of trees or water is very situation dependent. The water had risks greater than the not insignificant risks of flying into trees.

You asked if I was suggesting it would be better to ditch into the river than the trees. On the day that's really up to the person looking out the window. Neither choice was an easy one.

[pelmet]

It is hard to not notice that the TSB early on commented that the operator had a section in its manual in which it was "suggested" that when river levels were high and currents fast, forced approaches should be made into trees rather than water. It seems that there was a message in that inclusion. I have never seen an operations manual, or training manual, with that advice in it. It may be there with the best of intentions, but it is based on a flawed analysis of what the risks are in each choice.

Maybe I am misreading this. Are you suggesting it would be better to ditch into a fast flowing remote river in early May than into the trees?

I'm saying what I said.

I said the TSB determined that it was relevant to their report to include that portion of the operator's manual. It may, or may not, explain the pilot's choices which led up to the landing which eventually was made. But the TSB thought that was important.

I think this pilot flew the emergency portion (that from just below Silver Hilton) based on an honest belief that he was bringing the aircraft to a place where it could be landed safely. I expect he believed he was almost at Silver Hilton.

I made a call to a friend who is very familiar with the Babine area. He did say that at that time of year, the river would be full and fast flowing. There would be no sandbars. The trees on the shoreline would be big. There may be wood in the water. I didn't suggest anything about this pilot's choice, mainly because he didn't really have any in the seconds leading up to impact.

I will say that a choice to ditch in the river would have resulted in everyone surviving the landing, most likely without injury. However, the risk is not just injury in the landing. It is connected to exiting the airplane and getting to shore. That can be a factor that would be given weight in pilot's thinking, in including the suggestion of trees over water. He stuck to that in the end.

Not saying it shouldn't be in the manual, but I do think that there should additional material to make the pilot aware making either choice of trees or water is very situation dependent. The water had risks greater than the not insignificant risks of flying into trees.

You asked if I was suggesting it would be better to ditch into the river than the trees. On the day that's really up to the person looking out the window. Neither choice was an easy one.

Obviously both choices have risks. The river seems like a guaranteed flip over. I have decided for myself that I prefer trees over water. Part of that is based on comparison of possible worst case scenario for each......blunt force trauma death versus drowning.

Another consideration is freezing cold water and it’s effects versus a potential cushioned landing in trees. There are articles out there about how the wings being ripped off dissipates energy and is a good thing. Obviously, not in this case.

My preferred choice doesn’t mean I am right, it is just some of the things I have considered. Who knows, what was successful one day between the two options may be reversed in the same scenario the next day at the same location.

Others might have their own considerations.

[trey kule]

First of all, I found this type of comment more than a bit unfair at this point when the facts are not known

It sounds like poor management of the carburetor heat,

That being said, and without alluding to this accident,

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.

Lastly is the situation that when you do have bad carb ice and you add carb heat, the power and rough engine gets worse ( for a little bit). The tendency when you do something and it makes things worse is to undo it. Which if you put the carb heat to off actually will make things worse.

And I want to be clear. i am not referring to this accident in any way. It is just plain wrong to speculate on pilot mismanagement at this point. But a good time to talk about carb ice in general, as more and more basic trainers have injected engines, and carb icing is relegated to a ground school item.

[youhavecontrol]

First of all, I found this type of comment more than a bit unfair at this point when the facts are not known

It sounds like poor management of the carburetor heat,

That being said, and without alluding to this accident,

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.

Lastly is the situation that when you do have bad carb ice and you add carb heat, the power and rough engine gets worse ( for a little bit). The tendency when you do something and it makes things worse is to undo it. Which if you put the carb heat to off actually will make things worse.

And I want to be clear. i am not referring to this accident in any way. It is just plain wrong to speculate on pilot mismanagement at this point. But a good time to talk about carb ice in general, as more and more basic trainers have injected engines, and carb icing is relegated to a ground school item.

You cut the second part of my sentence out, but anyways like you said, the facts are not known, which is the sad part, especially since the report has been released. I think it's reasonably fair to say it could have been either poor management or a faulty carb heat system. The rest of what you wrote relates to carb heat management anyways, so if what I said wasn't a fair observation, why write how carb heat management is important? Why not write about faulty carburetor heat systems too? We can't discuss an accident without outlining possible scenarios.

[PilotDAR]

But a good time to talk about carb ice in general,

Yes, and while we're doing that; if you are using carb heat because you really need to, you need to make it be effective for you as fast as possible. The carb heat will have the most effect heating and deicing the carb if, after applying it, you lean the engine more, to make the exhaust hotter, and reduce power as much as practical, to reduce the total volume of air flowing into the carb. If the total air is less, the heat will heat what's flowing with greater effect, and melt the ice faster. As long as you have enough power to maintain level flight, you have what you need to allow the carb heat to have effect.

[trey kule]

What bothers me most about these kind of accidents is the provincial governments lack of regard for safety.

Saskatchewan and Ontario require this to be done in multiengine aircraft.
Alberta and BCdont. Why not? Because there are no government workers on board so they can reduce the margin of safety to save money. And there are companies out there who will blast off into the mountains single engine either not recognizing the potential outcome of an engine failure, or ignoring it.
As tragic as this is, no one in the government will be liable for anything.
If there were govt employees as crew members you can be assured they would require multi engine...

[rookiepilot]

But a good time to talk about carb ice in general,

The carb heat will have the most effect heating and deicing the carb if, after applying it, you lean the engine more, to make the exhaust hotter, and reduce power as much as practical, to reduce the total volume of air flowing into the carb.

Knew the first part, offsets the mixture richening from carb heat.

Second part I didn't know: Doesn't reducing power reduce the temp though to melt the ice? Or lean even further after?

[photofly]

I"d go for whatever gave maximum exhaust gas temperature, seeing as the exhaust gas is the heat input to the heat exchanger. Which would be a lot of fuel flow - as much as you can get through a partially obstructed carburettor throat, and a lean mixture. But how long does it take to melt off the carburettor ice, anyway? Never more than a few seconds, in my experience.

[cncpc]

Maybe I am misreading this. Are you suggesting it would be better to ditch into a fast flowing remote river in early May than into the trees?

I'm saying what I said.

I said the TSB determined that it was relevant to their report to include that portion of the operator's manual. It may, or may not, explain the pilot's choices which led up to the landing which eventually was made. But the TSB thought that was important.

I think this pilot flew the emergency portion (that from just below Silver Hilton) based on an honest belief that he was bringing the aircraft to a place where it could be landed safely. I expect he believed he was almost at Silver Hilton.

I made a call to a friend who is very familiar with the Babine area. He did say that at that time of year, the river would be full and fast flowing. There would be no sandbars. The trees on the shoreline would be big. There may be wood in the water. I didn't suggest anything about this pilot's choice, mainly because he didn't really have any in the seconds leading up to impact.

I will say that a choice to ditch in the river would have resulted in everyone surviving the landing, most likely without injury. However, the risk is not just injury in the landing. It is connected to exiting the airplane and getting to shore. That can be a factor that would be given weight in pilot's thinking, in including the suggestion of trees over water. He stuck to that in the end.

Not saying it shouldn't be in the manual, but I do think that there should additional material to make the pilot aware making either choice of trees or water is very situation dependent. The water had risks greater than the not insignificant risks of flying into trees.

You asked if I was suggesting it would be better to ditch into the river than the trees. On the day that's really up to the person looking out the window. Neither choice was an easy one.

Obviously both choices have risks. The river seems like a guaranteed flip over. I have decided for myself that I prefer trees over water. Part of that is based on comparison of possible worst case scenario for each......blunt force trauma death versus drowning.

Another consideration is freezing cold water and it’s effects versus a potential cushioned landing in trees. There are articles out there about how the wings being ripped off dissipates energy and is a good thing. Obviously, not in this case.

My preferred choice doesn’t mean I am right, it is just some of the things I have considered. Who knows, what was successful one day between the two options may be reversed in the same scenario the next day at the same location.

Others might have their own considerations.

The choice isn't something that can be made prior to flight. I, from very direct personal experience, will say that I prefer water. That doesn't mean I'd be looking for water as soon as the engine quit. At that point, everything within gliding distance is an option. There is considerably more uncertainty in what is going to happen in a tree landing than in a water ditching. It is nowhere's near equal risk in the portion up to where the airplane stops moving.

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.

With trees, it is extremely optimistic to think that no one is going to be injured in the deceleration, or even killed. You are committing your life and your passengers to the unknown when you line up for a forced landing into trees. In a ditching, I think it's fair to say the pilot is not committing his or the other front seat passengers life to uncertainty. But, it is a different calculation for those in the back seat. As everyone may survive a tree landing, everyone may not drown in a ditching. In either case, everyone may end up fine.

Had the pilot chosen and been able to turn left at the final crossing of the Babine, it is still likely that the back seat passengers would have been lost in ditching into that water just before the curve in the Babine and upstream of that slide. So long as the doors are popped, and the touchdown is made near the shore (very near), the front seat people are ok, but then it has to be factored that they are going to remain with the aircraft trying to save the back seat pax, and... Those would have been very difficult circumstances.

I've flown survey. There is a lot of stuff going on behind you, gear, laptops, cables everywhere. Not a great situation to be in when you've got maybe 30 seconds to be out of that back seat.

[pelmet]

I have made that choice before flight....so, yes it is a choice that can be made before flight.

Is it the choice that will work out most favourably.....maybe not.

But I do know we won’t drown if injured or unconscious. And I also know that I won’t get hypothermia. And I know that I won’t have any currents to fight. But there could be a fire and other bad things that could happen that would be avoided in a ditching.

I have made my choice.....or at least a strong preference that probably would only change under fairly extreme circumstances.

Then again, who knows what you will really do until in the situation.

Once again.....I make no claims to this being the best choice.

[cncpc]

It's a puzzle as to how the pilot didn't know where Silver Hilton strip was.

This Google Earth image is taken from an eye altitude of 5200 feet, from overhead one of the dots on Figure 2 as the pilot headed out on the track that ends at the accident site. It seems from the conversations that he thought he was 5 miles west of Silver Hilton when he radioed that he was unable to reach and would land in that spot.

The pin at the bottom right side of the photo below marks perhaps 30 seconds after the first call at 8:32, in which the pilot says he was going to land at Silver Hilton. The eye elevation is 5200 feet, close to the altitude the aircraft would have been then. Silver Hilton is plainly visible then, one mile away. So, when the pilot said he was going to land at Silver Hilton, the strip was right in front of him.

The Start pin marks the location of the survey run when it began at 8:22. The aircraft then was 6000 feet. At that eye elevation, Sliver Hilton would be very hard to miss. The red curve marks the aircraft's flight path while on the survey line prior to the problem. Silver Hilton would have been almost directly below the left wing, about 400 yards away.

On closer reading of the narrative, it seems the pilot made a choice to land in the trees. He said that was what he was doing in his transmission one minute before the accident.

[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.

[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.