Snowbird crash in CYKA

[photofly]

We don’t teach students to turn back to the departure runway at low altitude.”

And perhaps that’s the problem.

One cannot help but observe that if it was something that was taught instead of improvised on the spot, outcomes would improve.

[fleet16b]

We don’t teach students to turn back to the departure runway at low altitude.”

And perhaps that’s the problem.

One cannot help but observe that if it was something that was taught instead of improvised on the spot, outcomes would improve.

The reason it’s not taught is that it’s a dangerous practice.
It’s been one of the #1 “don’t do’s “
from the very beginning of aviation.

[photofly]

Dangerous like spins? And stalls?

[fleet16b]

Dangerous like spins? And stalls?

Exactly like spins and stalls

Look at the Kamloops incident
The pilot zoomed as per training .
However , he was did not maintain sufficient forward airspeed in order to assess the situation resulting in a stall /spin scenario
In other words he never even got the stage where he could have attempted a turn back

[Big Pistons Forever]

We don’t teach students to turn back to the departure runway at low altitude.”

And perhaps that’s the problem.

One cannot help but observe that if it was something that was taught instead of improvised on the spot, outcomes would improve.

Thread drift I know so apologies in advance. For PPL students I teach no turn backs below 1000ft AGL. A turn back is 8 times more likely to result in a fatal accident vs crashing straight ahead. Practically speaking the EFATO danger zone is less than 2 minutes of every flight so I personally think that it gets more attention than it deserves. You are more likely to have the engine fail in the 58 other minutes of your typical 60 minute flight so practicing the cruise flight engine failure scenario is IMO of more practical value.

The secret to surviving a forced landing is hitting the ground in a wings level, slight nose up attitude under control and at a moderate speed. If you do that you will likely survive no matter what you hit. The reason turn backs are so often fatal is that it requires a steep low altitude turn. Get a little slow and the airplane departs controlled flight and hits the ground in a steep bank very nose low attitude which is almost always fatal.

Finally the accident statistics suggest that at 2/3 rds of the engine failures are caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. The best way to handle an engine failure is to not have the engine fail in the first place or immediately restore power.

[photofly]

We don’t teach students to turn back to the departure runway at low altitude.”

And perhaps that’s the problem.

One cannot help but observe that if it was something that was taught instead of improvised on the spot, outcomes would improve.

Thread drift I know so apologies in advance. For PPL students I teach no turn backs below 1000ft AGL.

Hopefully military pilots aspire to a higher standard. Especially military display pilots. What do you teach CPL students?

…it requires a steep low altitude turn. Get a little slow and the airplane departs controlled flight

I would have to dispute this characterization, as would anyone who regularly practices accelerated power-off stalls, say in a 45 degree bank, as every pilot should. Of course the aircraft is not aware of the altitude, and a pilot’s ability to conduct a gliding steep turn at low altitude need not be any worse than their ability to conduct a gliding steep turn at high altitude, which is to say excellent, with appropriate supervised training and practice.

TP13747 even recommends instructors review this scenario with students.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The problem is ground rush. As a result of working as a bird dog and fire bomber pilot I have a lot of experience maneuvering at low level. The visual picture out of the windshield in a steeply banked altitude and low to the ground can be frightening especially if the pilot is already stressed by a sudden critical emergency.

This would be exacerbated if the shock of the emergency results in a delay lowering the nose which means the airspeed has dropped and the airplane is rolled before establishing a sufficient nose down altitude.

I would suggest that this is a good example of what should be vs what is. The accident record suggests that the average pilot is better flying straight ahead or only turning enough to avoid a large obstacle while concentrating n maintaining good control of the airplane, rather then Immediately starting a maneuver that must be done almost perfectly to succeed and which will have a very high penalty if poorly performed

I tell CPL students the same 1000ft. A 200 hr CPL is still a very low time pilot

[photofly]

With respect, I think your argument is circular: you’re using the poor accident record of a manoeuvre that isn’t trained as evidence that the manoeuvre should not be trained.

I think it’s pretty clear that not training it isn’t dissuading pilots from trying it, so not training it isn’t the answer. I interpret the poor accident record of the untrained manoeuvre is evidence that it should be trained, until it can be done.

And as usual, the glider pilots in this community are laughing at us.

I also think your characterization that is has to be done “almost perfectly, or else” is overstating the case.

[Big Pistons Forever]

With respect, I think your argument is circular: you’re using the poor accident record of a manoeuvre that isn’t trained as evidence that the manoeuvre should not be trained.

I think it’s pretty clear that not training it isn’t dissuading pilots from trying it, so not training it isn’t the answer. I interpret the poor accident record of the untrained manoeuvre is evidence that it should be trained, until it can be done.

And as usual, the glider pilots in this community are laughing at us.

I also think your characterization that is has to be done “almost perfectly, or else” is overstating the case.

To train the maneuvers you would have to actually do it from a low altitude. I think the risks this imposes is unacceptable for the given benefit. Training the maneuver at altitude is IMO negative training because the ground rush is absent.

When I was as a full time instructor the club I worked at required an annual proficiency check for renter pilots. A PPL flight test style forced approach was one of the required exercises. In a 2 year period not one of the pilots were able to execute the forced approach to the PPL flight test standard on the first attempt. So if the average PPL could not handle a engine failure in cruise flight, is practice turn backs going to make them safer ?

If you look at the accident record the No 1 cause of fatal accidents is loss of controlled flight at low altitude, generally a stall/spin during a very badly mishandled circuit. The number one cause of non fatal bent metal accidents are various landing and takeoff mishaps as a result of poor aircraft handling skills,

So if you want to practice maneuvers that are most likely going to result in an accident practice slow flight maneuvers and precision landings.


I also have a current glider instructor rating. I teach the current widely used glider rope break SOP. Below 250 Ft AGL land straight ahead, above 250 AGL turn back. Since the glider will have at least 4 times better glide performance the time from rope break to land and the relative difficulty is similar to a GA airplane having an engine fail at 1000ft AGL. If anything the glider 250ft turn back is easier than a powered airplane turn back from 1000 ft yet glider turn backs from below 250 are not considered an appropriate response to a low attitude rope break.

[photofly]

Your perspective is appreciated. I still disagree with the tenor of your argument which is that this is too difficult so don’t train for it.

To put some perspective on it, every single engine trainer I’ve flown can execute a gliding 180 degree turn and lose no more than 250’ altitude. Every single one. 300’ if you’re sloppy with airspeed. It would be up to a pilot of a more sophisticated type to familiarize him or herself with the relevant performance of their airplane. I don’t align myself with your low expectations of other pilots.

What one decides to do with a power loss is up to the PIC at the time but I think it’s negligent not to teach people both what is achievable, and what they can achieve.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Your perspective is appreciated. I still disagree with the tenor of your argument which is that this is too difficult so don’t train for it.

To put some perspective on it, every single engine trainer I’ve flown can execute a gliding 180 degree turn and lose no more than 250’ altitude. Every single one. 300’ if you’re sloppy with airspeed. It would be up to a pilot of a more sophisticated type to familiarize him or herself with the relevant performance of their airplane. I don’t align myself with your low expectations of other pilots.

What one decides to do with a power loss is up to the PIC at the time but I think it’s negligent not to teach people both what is achievable, and what they can achieve.

In order to validate a 300 ft AGL turnback you actually have to do one from 300 feet AGL, which in my opinion is too risky. Practicing at altitude is I firmly believe, negative training as it does not replicate the windshield full of dirt that creates the strong desire to pull back on the wheel, which I think is why you see so many turn back stall spin tragedies. For what it is worth the 2 turn back attempts I am personally aware of both resulted in fatal accidents. One was a very experienced ex military and airline pilot.

With respect to the EFATO I do teach at altitude, the transition from full power climb to power off glide from a variety of speeds down to Vx. This will usually be a 2 step process, if the speed at power loss is below best glide then a pitch down to well below best glide attitude is required to regain airspeed, it it is above best glide than a slightly nose up attitude should be maintained until the airspeed is near best glide and then the airplane should be transitioned to best glide. Most of my students required numerous practice attempts to achieve a smooth transition from full power climb to stable on speed gliding attitude. This is an exercise I believe worth practicing and in any case unconscious competence in this would be IMO a prerequisite to teaching turn backs.

Photo

I think we have hijacked this thread enough and would suggest if you wish to continue this conversionation we start a new thread

[photofly]

Your perspective is appreciated. I still disagree with the tenor of your argument which is that this is too difficult so don’t train for it.

To put some perspective on it, every single engine trainer I’ve flown can execute a gliding 180 degree turn and lose no more than 250’ altitude. Every single one. 300’ if you’re sloppy with airspeed. It would be up to a pilot of a more sophisticated type to familiarize him or herself with the relevant performance of their airplane. I don’t align myself with your low expectations of other pilots.

What one decides to do with a power loss is up to the PIC at the time but I think it’s negligent not to teach people both what is achievable, and what they can achieve.

In order to validate a 300 ft AGL turnback you actually have to do one from 300 feet AGL, which in my opinion is too risky. Practicing at altitude is I firmly believe, negative training as it does not replicate the windshield full of dirt that creates the strong desire to pull back on the wheel, which I think is why you see so many turn back stall spin tragedies. For what it is worth the 2 turn back attempts I am personally aware of both resulted in fatal accidents. One was a very experienced ex military and airline pilot.

With respect to the EFATO I do teach at altitude, the transition from full power climb to power off glide from a variety of speeds down to Vx. This will usually be a 2 step process, if the speed at power loss is below best glide then a pitch down to well below best glide attitude is required to regain airspeed, it it is above best glide than a slightly nose up attitude should be maintained until the airspeed is near best glide and then the airplane should be transitioned to best glide. Most of my students required numerous practice attempts to achieve a smooth transition from full power climb to stable on speed gliding attitude. This is an exercise I believe worth practicing and in any case unconscious competence in this would be IMO a prerequisite to teaching turn backs.

Photo

I think we have hijacked this thread enough and would suggest if you wish to continue this conversionation we start a new thread

Sure. Just one comment - I didn’t say anything about validating a turn back from 300’. The airplane can reverse course in 300’, but that doesn’t give you any manoeuvring room. I find 500’ agl to be a reasonable starting point, and it becomes clear with practice whether a safe on-field landing could be made or whether the practice manoeuvre should be terminated well before descending below 200 agl.

[pelmet]

I think the answer to this is the same answer to so many questions………it depends on the situation.

There is aircraft type(already discussed with gliders). Are you in a biplane or a Diamond DA40. Not interested in a turnaround in a biplane at 400 feet but very interested in considering it in a Diamond.

Depends on winds, landing options ahead, runway length, training practice, and other factors.

I did my turnaround training in. Piper in Georgia from 400 AAE. It worked out well but one wants to be disciplined in how they do it. Aggressiveness with minimal hesitation in proper technique seemed to be important. Reviewing prior to departure is probably very helpful for success. Willingness to abandon the complete procedure is likely important in case it is discovered to not be working out as planned.

My opinion for me is it is an option that may or may not be achievable from moment to moment and flight to flight. Definitely an advanced maneuver that is likely beyond PPL training.

[cncpc]

The secret to surviving a forced landing is hitting the ground in a wings level, slight nose up attitude under control and at a moderate speed. If you do that you will likely survive no matter what you hit.

I've seen you make this post before and I may have commented then, but I want to say again that this is some of the best advice ever presented in this forum. I hadn't seen it put that way until a couple of years ago when I was on the phone with an old associate who is a very experienced and retired TSB investigator. He literally knows the difference between the quick and the dead. Your comment is almost word for word what he said.

I will add this...try very hard to avoid making a rock wall or cliff your first point of contact. This advice does contemplate a staged deceleration, but you would be very surprised how short the difference is in which that takes place.

I see you are a flight instructor BPF. Your students are very lucky.

[photofly]

That’s great, until you realize that in a lot of places what you will hit, wings level, and under majestic control, is deep, cold, cold water, and for at least six months of the year you’re going to drown with hypothermic shock, long before anyone gets to you.

In that sort of scenario an urgent return to the field at least gives you somewhere flat to “[hit]the ground in a wings level, slight nose up attitude under control and at a moderate speed”.

The theory of go “straight ahead whatever”, doesn’t survive its first brush with reality, in many places.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The theory of go “straight ahead whatever”, doesn’t survive its first brush with reality, in many places.

Reality was a Nall report study. They looked at every GA crash including aircraft that hit mountains bridges, houses water etc etc and correlated aircraft attitude with survivability. The conclusion in control, wings level, level or nose up pitch attitude = 92 % no fatalities. Any room to decelerate and the chance of fatalities drops dramatically. FYI 60 kts to stopped with a 9 Gee deacceleration needs 25 feet or one airplane length.

Not trying to be a smart ass but I know you fly out of Toronto Island. How many aircraft that crashed into the water in a controlled ditching with a successful cabin evacuation had people freeze to death before rescue ? By the way I fly out of a coastal airport with water off both ends. That was one of the reasons I took a dunker course. This IMO should be mandatory for anyone operating off an airport where you could wind up in the water after takeoff

[photofly]

The theory of go “straight ahead whatever”, doesn’t survive its first brush with reality, in many places.

Reality was a Nall report study. They looked at every GA crash including aircraft that hit mountains bridges, houses water etc etc and correlated aircraft attitude with survivability. The conclusion in control, wings level, level or nose up pitch attitude = 92 % no fatalities. Any room to decelerate and the chance of fatalities drops dramatically. FYI 60 kts to stopped with a 9 Gee deacceleration needs 25 feet or one airplane length.

Not trying to be a smart ass but I know you fly out of Toronto Island. How many aircraft that crashed into the water in a controlled ditching with a successful cabin evacuation had people freeze to death before rescue ? By the way I fly out of a coastal airport with water off both ends. That was one of the reasons I took a dunker course. This IMO should be mandatory for anyone operating off an airport where you could wind up in the water after takeoff

The only local GA ditching I’m aware of was some years ago where a twin ran out of fuel on approach; the aircraft landed on the water in the harbour successfully, but the pilot drowned. I don’t know what season that was.

By the way, here’s a video of some people finding it harder to get rescued from cold water than they thought it was going to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2tzvmYFMJU

You can take your chances ditching into the Humber bay in February, when the surface temperature is -20 and the ice breaker is out clearing the way for the vehicle ferry. I prefer to look at other options. Which is only an option if you train for those other options.

[rookiepilot]

This is an excellent thread with valid points for pilots to consider:

Type of aircraft, considering choice of runway to depart (with light winds), even departing VFR or IFR.

I’ve flown extensively out of the Toronto island airport over the water to the west. Departing IFR, as in many airports, requires a significant turn for required separation, (south westbound in this case) that puts one uncomfortably far away from shore before a vector on course is allowed.

VFR, this restriction doesn’t exist, which makes it wise to consider departing that way, if possible, for more options.

Transiting near the Detroit class B is another example — approach forces one either low, or far from shore, (and the airport itself).

Many factors around water and rough terrain to consider.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The theory of go “straight ahead whatever”, doesn’t survive its first brush with reality, in many places.

Reality was a Nall report study. They looked at every GA crash including aircraft that hit mountains bridges, houses water etc etc and correlated aircraft attitude with survivability. The conclusion in control, wings level, level or nose up pitch attitude = 92 % no fatalities. Any room to decelerate and the chance of fatalities drops dramatically. FYI 60 kts to stopped with a 9 Gee deacceleration needs 25 feet or one airplane length.

Not trying to be a smart ass but I know you fly out of Toronto Island. How many aircraft that crashed into the water in a controlled ditching with a successful cabin evacuation had people freeze to death before rescue ? By the way I fly out of a coastal airport with water off both ends. That was one of the reasons I took a dunker course. This IMO should be mandatory for anyone operating off an airport where you could wind up in the water after takeoff

The only local GA ditching I’m aware of was some years ago where a twin ran out of fuel on approach; the aircraft landed on the water in the harbour successfully, but the pilot drowned. I don’t know what season that was.

By the way, here’s a video of some people finding it harder to get rescued from cold water than they thought it was going to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2tzvmYFMJU

You can take your chances ditching into the Humber bay in February, when the surface temperature is -20 and the ice breaker is out clearing the way for the vehicle ferry. I prefer to look at other options. Which is only an option if you train for those other options.

Ultimately I think we are discussing which outcome in very low probability but high consequence events are worse. EFATO below 1000 ft AGL but above 300 ft ( ie the aircraft altitude where no turn back is possible even by the most skilled pilot) equals 1 or 2 % of the flight time of an average flight. Situations where a straight ahead or moderate turn away from danger is unlikely survivable are small minority of every takeoff but there are definably going to be situations albeit relatively rare, where a turnback would be greatly reduce the risk of a fatal accident.

On the other hand if a turn back is attempted the reality is that you going to lose control and crash in an un-survivable attitude is significantly higher than just gliding straight ahead. Complicating the issue is the fact that you will have to get through the reaction time delay and make a virtually instantaneous decision as to whether to continue straight or rather than turn back.

Human factors Research has shown that humans tend not to be great at these clutch decisions. This is why the transport category aircraft went to a V1 decision speed. If the engine fails above V1 you continue. This was a result of too many bad decisions made by pilots. Making a binary go no go point was done with the understanding that there may be situations where it will be the wrong choice but overwhelmingly the automatic reaction to keep going which requires no decision making process will be the better option.

I see the EFATO in the same way. Having the engine failing will be a shock and induce a state of instant high stress. Defaulting to just lowering the nose and adopting the gliding attitude is the most likely action to ensure control of the aircraft is firmly maintained and therefore I think should be the default option for most pilots that are not flying everyday.

There may be situations that warrant a deliberate decisions that if the engine fails the pilot will immediately turn back but if you are not seriously and deliberately thinking through your actions for each part of the turn back before the throttle goes in then I think you are fooling yourself if you think you will be able to analyze the options in the 3 to 5 seconds you will have and then safely fly the aircraft in a steep descending turn close to the ground.

The bottom line from my POV is that the chances you will die because you were in a situation where you flew straight ahead after an engine failure in the short period of vulnerability below 1000 ft in a situation where a turn back would have saved you is IMO vanishingly small. Sure practice it I guess if you feel that strongly about it but there are many other things that are worth practicing first that will have a larger effect on your flight safety than perfecting the turn back.

The last EFATO I am aware about the pilot glided straight ahead. Airplane was wrecked bit no injuries. The salvage crew drained 2 quarts of water out of the fuel tanks. He might have been able to save the airplane with a turn back but I would suggest not being directly responsible for causing engine to fail would have been a better strategy

I think the turn back is such an emotive issue because it feeds the hero pilot narrative we all secretly want to believe in. There I was barely 500 ft in the air and the engine exploded! I instantly bent the airplane into a steep bank back to the runway and then leveled out just as the runway edge flashed by followed by the squeek squeek of the tires.

Real flight safety starts with sweating the boring unsexy things like good preflight planning and weather awareness, a good walk around, checklist discipline, making the point of always flying accurately correcting heading and altitude excursion immediately instead of just letting them go, having the ball always centered, being on speed and trimmed for every landing and making every touchdown at a preselected point. If you can honestly say you have all of that nailed than yes ( maybe 5 % of the GA pilots in my experience) go ahead and practice the turn back, if you can't then work on the basics, they are what are going to keep you safe.

Rant over sorry for the massive thread drift

[pelmet]

The theory of go “straight ahead whatever”, doesn’t survive its first brush with reality, in many places.

Reality was a Nall report study. They looked at every GA crash including aircraft that hit mountains bridges, houses water etc etc and correlated aircraft attitude with survivability. The conclusion in control, wings level, level or nose up pitch attitude = 92 % no fatalities. Any room to decelerate and the chance of fatalities drops dramatically. FYI 60 kts to stopped with a 9 Gee deacceleration needs 25 feet or one airplane length.

Not trying to be a smart ass but I know you fly out of Toronto Island. How many aircraft that crashed into the water in a controlled ditching with a successful cabin evacuation had people freeze to death before rescue ? By the way I fly out of a coastal airport with water off both ends. That was one of the reasons I took a dunker course. This IMO should be mandatory for anyone operating off an airport where you could wind up in the water after takeoff

I fly out of a local airport with an over water departure. It is angling out from the shoreline. The plan for me in fixed gear aircraft is to always turn toward land, if there is an engine failure. I have no intention of probably flipping over in the water.

And I have taken the dunk course. Aside from drowning, it will be a long time before a boat reaches me between October to frozen over and ice break-up to May when the water is freezing cold.

[cncpc]

That’s great, until you realize that in a lot of places what you will hit, wings level, and under majestic control, is deep, cold, cold water, and for at least six months of the year you’re going to drown with hypothermic shock, long before anyone gets to you.

In that sort of scenario an urgent return to the field at least gives you somewhere flat to “[hit]the ground in a wings level, slight nose up attitude under control and at a moderate speed”.

The theory of go “straight ahead whatever”, doesn’t survive its first brush with reality, in many places.

Have you ever had a real engine failure? Have you ever ditched an airplane?

You seem to want to make your case by deliberately mis-stating the case others are making. That case said nothing at all about wings level after an engine failure. You can in most cases turn to reach the most survivable touchdown zone. What is important is that you are in the wings level and other conditions at 10 feet above where your touchdown will be. What happens in between is neither here nor there.

[photofly]

That’s great, until you realize that in a lot of places what you will hit, wings level, and under majestic control, is deep, cold, cold water, and for at least six months of the year you’re going to drown with hypothermic shock, long before anyone gets to you.

In that sort of scenario an urgent return to the field at least gives you somewhere flat to “[hit]the ground in a wings level, slight nose up attitude under control and at a moderate speed”.

The theory of go “straight ahead whatever”, doesn’t survive its first brush with reality, in many places.

Have you ever had a real engine failure? Have you ever ditched an airplane?

You seem to want to make your case by deliberately mis-stating the case others are making. That case said nothing at all about wings level after an engine failure. You can in most cases turn to reach the most survivable touchdown zone. What is important is that you are in the wings level and other conditions at 10 feet above where your touchdown will be. What happens in between is neither here nor there.

I don't think I am mis-stating the case others are making. Others are making the case that as long as you touch down wings level, nose slightly high, under control, any touchdown zone in front of you will do and you are likely to be ok, and therefore, for that reason, and given that simple fact there's no point in considering manoeuvering, and definitely no point in trying to manoeuvre to return to the airfield, which is a terribly difficult thing to accomplish and therefore not worth training for.

I agree that hitting the ground wings level, under control, nose slightly high, is a very good idea, especially if you can avoid obstacles and (as stated) bring the aircraft to a standstill in at least one airplane length - not significantly less. No arguments about that, it's 100% true.

However, there are scenarios where your probability of achieving that modest goal is going to be much improved if you're prepared and able to manoeuvre the aircraft, even to the extent of a 180 degree turn back to the airfield from which you just departed. That's why I think it's a sensible thing to practice, so that if under which ever circumstances you find yourself you decide that you do want to manoeuvre, you make that choice based on experience and have had prior practice at doing so.

You may even be able to make it back to a runway, and thereupon make a decent landing. But that doesn't have to be either the goal or the eventual outcome to have made a 180 turn a wise decision.

Even if you get half way through the turn and it becomes clear that you're not going to arrive back over the airfield boundary, you can still roll wings level and land ahead, under control. You're no worse off.

Would I sacrifice a nice flat area guaranteed-reachable ahead, for a chance to return to a runway? No way. But often the only vaguely flat area is behind you.

I don't think it's a very contentious point that I'm arguing for. But perhaps it is.

[cncpc]

Okay, fair enough.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I don't think I was clear enough about what I teach. I do not tell my students to never ever turn one degree after the EFATO I tell them not to start the turn back maneuver, i.e. an immediate descending 45 deg banked turn. I tell them to turn enough using a moderate bank angle where that turn will result in avoiding a major obstacle AFTER establishing a straight ahead gliding attitude. So basically go with what what looks the best on what you can see out of the front or side windows ahead of the wing.

If you intend to do a 180 from any of the low altitudes mentioned you must immediately initiate a descending steep turn. I believe that is where the accident started when the turnback results in a smoking hole.

I also wonder after the student finishes turn back training how long will the competency last ? If the pilot has an EFATO the next day they are going to ace it, but what about in 6 months or a year. The penalty for skill fade in this maneuver is particularly harsh. Given the realities of how many hours a GA recreational pilot can realistically fly I standby my contention that there is a lot of other things they could practice that will have more bang for the buck

[rigpiggy]

The theory of go “straight ahead whatever”, doesn’t survive its first brush with reality, in many places.

Reality was a Nall report study. They looked at every GA crash including aircraft that hit mountains bridges, houses water etc etc and correlated aircraft attitude with survivability. The conclusion in control, wings level, level or nose up pitch attitude = 92 % no fatalities. Any room to decelerate and the chance of fatalities drops dramatically. FYI 60 kts to stopped with a 9 Gee deacceleration needs 25 feet or one airplane length.

The only local GA ditching I’m aware of was some years ago where a twin ran out of fuel on approach; the aircraft landed on the water in the harbour successfully, but the pilot drowned. I don’t know what season that was.

By the way, here’s a video of some people finding it harder to get rescued from cold water than they thought it was going to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2tzvmYFMJU

You can take your chances ditching into the Humber bay in February, when the surface temperature is -20 and the ice breaker is out clearing the way for the vehicle ferry. I prefer to look at other options. Which is only an option if you train for those other options.

If your talking about the trillium islander the pilot was a jet jockey who didn't put carb heat on and had a dual engine failure. Pilot died of hypothermia lone passenger rescued by news helicopter