Lake or Trees?

[180]

I'm not looking for any sympathy flyinthebug. I'm just recounting a story that might paint a more realistic mental picture. I'm sure someone on here has just as horrifying a story about being on fire in the trees.

Like I said, mine is just one man's opinion, and every situation is unique, like yours for instance...

The stall in a Beaver is totally different from the stall in a 172. In a 172, one wing drops and down you go nose first, whereas in the Beaver, it's more like a flat spin where the wings are still level yet you're dropping out of the sky like a bowling ball.

But if you're looking at the trees with an eye for some "net" effect, wouldn't you have more net with some forward momentum?

I was at a good buddy's funeral 2 summers ago who ended up in a box canyon in a 172, stalled, and plowed nose first into a clear cut, and one of the passengers survived. Miracles do happen.

Glad to hear you're still typing, and if you want it bad enough, you'll find a way to get back in the saddle. You're not the first and you won't be the last.

Cheers.

[flyinthebug]

Thanks 180. Some close friends have given me the same advice. Time will tell.

I know you wernt seeking any sympathy.. I thought i`d offer it though, as it couldnt have been much fun for you. You are correct in the a/c differences between the 172`s stall and a -2 and their subsequent reactions. Thats kinda what I meant by suggesting each situation is unique and requires the PIC to make the best choice possible under his/her current situation. I`ll stick with you and agree that trees are usually the better option.

Glad to hear your back in the saddle!
Cheers,
Fly safe all.

[Ogee]

To my way of thinking, if trees or water is your only choice, your first priority is to minimize the g forces of the stopping process. That's a combination of flying down to impact at the lowest possible still flying speed, and into wind to reduce as much as possible your groundspeed. Personally, I think that wherever possible in a fixed wheel rig, I'd take the water. I've had to do it once in a 172 many years ago in San Franciso Bay with a 20 knot tailwind. Too low to turn into wind. But did get it in with the tail dragging first and it didn't flip onto its back until I'd gone through the windshield and the wind kind of blew it over from a straight nose down in the water position. Picked up a scratch or two and a cut in top of my head, but the three passengers just climbed out and stood on the belly until some kids in a boat came along and took us to shore. I had 53 hours TT at the time.

When the wheels hit, hopefully not the nose wheel because then you will be into aerobatics, its going to stop pretty quick. But if you do it right, they'll skim along the water for a few feet, maybe a few dozen feet, and that will knock a few knots off the speed. Whether you flip, or just go nose down tail up, will depend on your touchdown speed and if you have weight at the back, etc. In some strong wind conditions, you may just roostertail a bit and come to rest still flat. And you have no danger of fire. For the same reason you don't go there in a float plane, it's preferable to avoid glassy water, as well as glassy water indicating no wind and hence no reduced groundspeed.

Some of the lads above have said why they prefer trees. It seems mostly to avoid drowning. And good points were made about tree heights and that the smaller the trees, the better your chances are of having a staged slowdown, rather than a sudden stop. Fair enough. In the mountains, there is also the thing about 10 year old reforestation and landing on an upslope being ideal. Its not the end of the world if you have to set down in trees. But there is more uncertainty. There is the possibility of wingtip contact first with violent swerving and possible broken necks. There is the possibility of snags angling up and penetrating the cabin, especially at higher speeds. In trees, you are flying into things that are going to stop you. In water you are flying onto something and bits of the airplane are going to stop you. You also have the possibility of fire that you don't have in the water.

As for drowning, I guess it depends on the spot you pick, but if your choice is trees or water, you obviously have the choice of water by the shore. Airplanes don't dive to the bottom within a second or two in incidents like this. If you do the doors open thing prior to impact, you'll unbuckle and get out, and the airplane will hang around on the surface for probably quite a significant time while water seeps into the places that have air to provide bouyancy. And you can walk or dog paddle to shore.

In a water forced approach, if everyone is buckled in and the touchdown is at minimum possible groundspeed, you needn't expect any injuries. You'll be lucky not to have injuries in the trees.

In a retractable gear rig, especially those with higher stall speeds, of course its always water, with touchdown attitude being important. I guess degree of flap on a low wing is a consideration, as some rigs with 40 flap might cause you to pitch nose down and tunnel. Mind you, those engines hanging down on the Hudson didn't even do that, probably because of the shear pins or whatever causes them to snap back.

Just my two bits anyway. Worked for me and the three passengers didn't get wet above the ankles. One was even standing there with his luggage when the boat cama along side.

[flyinthebug]

Ogee.. Im glad to hear things turned out well for you and your pax in your situation. Im sure even you will admit its far from "the norm". More often then not, when rubber touches water..this is the result (even with a pretty set of edos under ur a$$)..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pucmWr55cgw

Everyone in this video got out with a cut and scrape.

I still dunno how a person forgets a gumps check?

Fly safe all!

[Cat Driver]

For the same reason you don't go there in a float plane, it's preferable to avoid glassy water, as well as glassy water indicating no wind and hence no reduced groundspeed.

How do you land on glassy water considering you have no power?

[MikeInAB]

As others have said (and I apologize, I haven't read ALL the posts in this thread), but it would depend a lot on the kind of trees. Hardwood trees (poplars, oak, etc) have branches that will go right through an aircraft. Pine trees typically have more flex, shorter branches.

I'd be real leery of ditching. If the plane flips over, I think your chances of getting out (and to the surface) are slim.

Neither option sounds like much fun

[Tango01]

The problem is that pilot training does not address things like this. You are not taught on ditching procedures, making sound choices such as trees or lakes and survival skills. Instead you spend countless hours doing repetitive airwork which is pointless because it just prepares you for a flight test, but not for real life.

If you are going for the trees fine, but a lot of people think that they need to stall or flare excessive. Human beings can's take a lot of vertical force, but in the horizontal we are good to go. So instead, try a smooth stabilized approach right to the tops and let nature do the work.

As for water, we all know what happens to small fixed gear land airplanes in water, but it might be an alternative. It all depends.

If you are faced with this decision, only you can make it. There has been success and failure in both scenerios and every single time, factors have been different, so you cannot enforce a golden rule. Simply asking somebody what would you do, won't help.

I think if you set your mind on survival and not worry on how the plane is gonna look, your odds will be better. Too many people died trying to save the plane.

[180]

Too many people have died trying to save the plane.

True that. Planes are replaceable. People aren't.

[Ogee]

Amen to that.

[Shiny Side Up]

A better idea would be to do as much preparation for any flights which must traverse such terrain to hedge your bets against having the engine failure in the first place.

How do you hedge your bets against having an engine failure?

Sorry to reply late. To answer: Why are people having engine failures and having to make this decision? Engines for the most part don't just blow up, fall apart, catch fire, throw rods pistons and eat valves by some magic completely unforseen means. In most cases the engine stops because of something someone did. Lets see, of the thirty or so forced approach/ engine problems I've seen people encounter in my time as a pilot, only one was an actual mechanical failure (in this case it ate a valve) and that one wasn't totally unforseen. Old engine with a history of troubles, multiple owners who couldn't agree on how to fly the airplane. With that knowledge in mind would you truck out over the middle of nowhere with it?

Of the rest of them though all of them were directly attributed to pilot error. Two incidents were turning engines in to rocks by pilot neglect of the dipstick. Another was a mismanagement of the mixture control, another was carb ice. A famous one was negligence on part of the pilot on use of the fuel tank selector, autopilot and general bad flying. The lion's share of the rest is very simple - too much air in the tanks. This happens for a variety of reasons - most often poor planning, poor engine management and foolish assumptions. So is there a way to stack the odds in your favour against having to make the hard choice? You bet your ass on it - In fact you are betting your ass on it, but you'd be suprised how many pilots don't take the simplest precautions against this sort of stuff. All it takes is some time and a bit of dilligence, a pretty small price to put on your own personal safety.

The swamp and trees out there ain't someplace you want to be spending the night unprepared.

It should be noted too that while some are wondering about statistics on which is less deadly - those stats don't take into considerations which ones were planned attempts to crash into the trees/water, which ones the trees and water simply smashed the oblivious pilots out of the air (that is to say for whichever reason they were unaware/in denial that they were going to impact them until the very last second). But then I'd still adhere to the idea that this discussion is much like a discussion on where is the best place to get shot and how to do it - when in the army they tell you not to worry about such things, concentrate on making good sandbags to hide behind.

It also reminds me of a pilot I knew who was showing me the new flying helmet he had bought, so he'd be safer the next time he crashed his airplane. It was an odd line of thinking - the traumatic event of crashing his airplane led him not to wonder how to avoid crashing his airplane again, but rather how, in the event it happens again (almost like he was trying to make a self fulfilling prophecy) he would not get hurt as bad.

[touch&go]

I'd be aiming for the shore line of a lake. Shallow enough where I wouldn't drown if I sank. You maybe be asking for trouble if you put 'er in the trees....depending on how big and sparse they are ofcourse. I would think you'd have a better outcome landing if you're able to flare it out nicely on water as opposed to crashing through trees. But having said this, like everyone else has mentioned, it's a situational decision. Hard to make a general call.

[iflyforpie]

Engines for the most part don't just blow up, fall apart, catch fire, throw rods pistons and eat valves by some magic completely unforseen means. In most cases the engine stops because of something someone did.

Actually I've heard of quite a few examples of engines simply blowing up or not otherwise producing power that wasn't a fault of the pilot at all.

The first was a Beech Bonanza I saw in Prince George that had a hole the size of a fist in the crank-case on a recently overhauled engine. He landed on a sand bar with no fatalities.

Another one was a 185 on floats where the prop went to fine pitch and the pilot couldn't get any power out of the engine by Caroline Lakes near Hope. He landed in a clearing. Again, no fatalities.

The next one was another 185 that had a catastrophic engine failure coming in here to Invermere. He wound up in a parking lot just short of the runway. No fatalities.

A Piper Malibu had a catastrophic failure of a recently overhauled engine close to Invermere as well. He tried to glide to the airport, but wound up in the trees one valley over. In this case it looks like he stalled in but the high approach speed of the aircraft may have been a factor in the crash as well. All killed.

All these are just the ones I can remember that I had some local connection to.

One of the Seneca incidents seemed to be as a result of catastrophic engine failure as well.

There are tons of accidents involving pilot stupidity and engine failures each year, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be prepared and at least think about where you would put the plane. We should also draw on experiences of others that let them and their passengers live.

[Cat Driver]

Sorry to reply late. To answer: Why are people having engine failures and having to make this decision? Engines for the most part don't just blow up, fall apart, catch fire, throw rods pistons and eat valves by some magic completely unforseen means. In most cases the engine stops because of something someone did.

The above leaves me speechless, which for me is unusual.

I have always been super careful when it comes to engine handling and assumed the engine failures I have experienced were due to mechanical failures that were not preventable ( unless of course you never start it. ) now I am wondering who were the ham handed idiots who ruined those good engines before I flew them.

[Shiny Side Up]

have always been super careful when it comes to engine handling and assumed the engine failures I have experienced were due to mechanical failures that were not preventable ( unless of course you never start it. ) now I am wondering who were the ham handed idiots who ruined those good engines before I flew them.

There is a lot of ham-handed pilots out there, all the more reason to make sure you know your machine is up to the task. There's a lot of people who own airplanes out there I'd be happy to truck over ther praries with, less happy to take a poke through the Rocks or fly north of La Ronge with. In short a lot of people are hard on machines.

I was referring more to the fact that if you check up on all the incidents on where people ended up in their choice of trees or water, the number one cause is fuel exaustion. If you wish I could probably do some surfing or check some of my literature on the subject to back that up. Seeing as though the cause of most of these adventurous landings is when the single propeller in the front stops turning (and it should be noted that the ones that aren't from an engine failure - structural failures, fires and controlled flight into terrain there is generally not much choice going on upon the part of the pilot on where he's going to end up, so water or trees is moot), I'm using that for the base point in avoiding having to make that choice. Next on the list are usually (when we're talking about piston engines) fuel contamination, carb ice, inlet icing, fuel mismanagement (sometimes also lumped in with fuel exaustion) and way down at the bottom of the list is mechanical failure - If I remember correctly its in the bottom ten percent. Of that bottom ten percent, many of those can be directly attributed to a person error, and the very bottom one percent are "unforseen mechanical issues" many of which will, or have result in ADs being issued for that model.

That being said, there is a possiblilty of them failing, they are flying out there for the most part with pre 1950's technology levels, but seeing as though there's a good 90% better odds that one can, as a pilot, actively do something to reduce the engine stopping in an inconvinient place why wouldn't you do it? How many pilots have to make this decision because they didn't?

[Cat Driver]

That being said, there is a possiblilty of them failing, they are flying out there for the most part with pre 1950's technology levels, but seeing as though there's a good 90% better odds that one can, as a pilot, actively do something to reduce the engine stopping in an inconvinient place why wouldn't you do it? How many pilots have to make this decision because they didn't?

I guess we all relate to different things when it comes to engine failures, for me all of the failures or engine shut downs before failure were caused by mechanical issues beyond my control and none of them were from the causes you listed.

Of that bottom ten percent, many of those can be directly attributed to a person error, and the very bottom one percent are "unforseen mechanical issues" many of which will, or have result in ADs being issued for that model.

One percent?

I guess I must have had an unusual number of mechanical failures that makes me really unlucky and someone else will have less than one percent of failures due to causes beyond their control.

Interesting conversation never the less.

[Shiny Side Up]

I guess I must have had an unusual number of mechanical failures that makes me really unlucky and someone else will have less than one percent of failures due to causes beyond their control.

Place yourself probably in the exception then Cat, but also take into account how many flight hours you have. I trust none of the failures you've had were your fault, and with your due dilligence, you've probably prevented 90% of the other possible failures you could have had. Statistically-wise you're probably at that very far end of the bell curve. If we plotted a three dimensional graph charting hours flown, verses failures in flight and add in average age of aircraft hours were flown on, you would be that one guy way down in the corner of the chart, or small cluster of guys. Keep in mind that not all of the people whom have had failures get to repeat their mistake - there would probably be a large cluster of pilots with small hours, and ONE accident in those hours.

[Idriveplane]

The old man with a shi*t load of bush time at our company always said, if you have to go in the trees at least make sure to pick the right ones. He is quite fond of burch, saved his life and others in this neck of the woods.

[Cat Driver]

These discussions can be interesting at times if for no other reason than we get so many differing opinions and ideas on these subjects.

I'm not sure what sector of the industry you work in Shiny Side Up but my guess is you are in the FTU end of the industry from reading your posts.

I think this subject is important and should be examined closer, so I would like to dissect your last post and add my thoughts to it.

Place yourself probably in the exception then Cat, but also take into account how many flight hours you have. I trust none of the failures you've had were your fault,

Actually there are many other pilots besides me who have had several engine failures that were unrelated to how they handle a power plant. Of course the longer one fly's the greater the chance of having an engine failure.

and with your due dilligence, you've probably prevented 90% of the other possible failures you could have had.

My due diligence? Is it your opinion that most pilots are careless ham fisted monkeys, if so then there is a serious problem in the training industry and the monitoring of licensed pilots through recurrent training in Canada.

I would like to think I am the average pilot who has the common sense to use common sense when operating flying machines.

Statistically-wise you're probably at that very far end of the bell curve. If we plotted a three dimensional graph charting hours flown, verses failures in flight and add in average age of aircraft hours were flown on, you would be that one guy way down in the corner of the chart, or small cluster of guys. Keep in mind that not all of the people whom have had failures get to repeat their mistake - there would probably be a large cluster of pilots with small hours, and ONE accident in those hours.

O.K. if I am way down in the corner of the chart based on my safety record how do you suggest that the system work towards having the majority of pilots in my corner of the chart?

I have some ideas on how to accomplish this but unfortunately due to my difficulties with Transport Canada I will never be in a position to put my ideas to work......maybe I should forget my past in aviation and become an ass licking lackey to every TC thug I run into and become part of " Good Old Boys " club?

[Shiny Side Up]

My due diligence? Is it your opinion that most pilots are careless ham fisted monkeys, if so then there is a serious problem in the training industry and the monitoring of licensed pilots through recurrent training in Canada.

I would like to think I am the average pilot who has the common sense to use common sense when operating flying machines.

You hit the nail on the head Cat - There is a problem with the training industry, and there is a problem with monitoring recurrency with licenced pilots in Canada. While I wouldn't say that most pilots are "careless hamfisted monkeys", those monkeys are multipying by the same problem above. I would also say that I can't speak as much for other areas of the industry - as my view comes from the depths of the world of general aviation. I think that you and I could both agree that the system needs change.

And don't be modest Cat, its not your strong suit. You probably haven't been anywhere near what one would consider the "average" pilot since maybe 1978, and probably not even then.

[GoinNowhereFast]

There are lots of variables to take into consideration. Most of Ontario has logging roads scattered all over it. Swamps streams, small trees are all better than open water in my opinion.
Next time you look at a small airplane, look at what you could use as a crumple zone. Gear works great on rough terrain, sure you might flip over, but those are survivable if your belt is done up well, and a little bit of luck. Wings also make great crumple zones, quite a bit better than the engine and propellor. I would avoid deep water if at all possible. Water will flip you over violently and will swallow the plane. Don't believe me? Go check Youtube for videos of people landing gear down on water.

[lost in the north]

I will take the tree's...whatever you do FLY the friggin airplane to touchdown,do not get to busy where you lose control

[Cougar]

...whatever you do FLY the friggin airplane to touchdown...

The most amazing story I know where the airplane flew into the trees, is the perfect example of your point, to keep it under control. A Neptune P2V captain knew he was screwed, and had not the room to make it out of the canyon they were in. He flew the airplane uphill into the thick timber on a north slope, on a damned steep mountainside. It looked to be a perfect full-stall landing, pointed uphill, AND THEY BOTH SURVIVED THE IMPACT. The solid, and relatively uniform, timber helped the survivability.

They both got out of the aircraft, and were running away when it exploded. Tragically, the fire was what killed them. The exact outline of the airplane was burned into the trees -- talk about flying the damned thing until it stops!

Even though I'd had that pounded into my head by many CFIs, and had gone through two emergency landings off-airport in single-engines, nothing made it sink in like seeing that outline in the trees. Use the aircraft the best you can to dissipate the energy of the impact, and you may well survive a crash in country as inhospitable. May we never actually find ourselves in this spot -- but, thinking about it is a wise choice, to me.

[GTODD]

The first question you should get answered is do said instructors actually have the experience to be able to make a well thought out answer to your question or are they from the regular puppy mill pool?

What do you mean by that? So how does an instructor go about getting this experience? Do they have to experience and survive both scenarios, a forced landing on a lake and a forced landing on the trees before they are qualified to give their advice?

I do agree with you that there is no one clear answer that fits all scenarios for lake vs. trees, my choice would depend on the specific situation.

[2R]

To truly have the best chance of surviving you must study how a bird lands on a wire .A most perfect example of landing with minimum energy.When you can spot land like a bird on a wire you can land with the best chance of survival on rocks trees or water.
Size,slope,surface,surrounding area,wind all effect the outcome of a good spot landing
The skills taught in the PPL should be enough to survive most off airport excursions.

[pilotincommand]

Ive hit swamp in a tail wheel citabria. was not pretty. keep in mind that if you hit water, you will most likely go ass over tea kettle. I no a guy who went into trees with a cessna 140. the airplane hit the trees and fell backwards to the ground thus leaving his aircraft and himself covered by tree tops. which made it very hard for search and rescue to find him. Just keep those in mind


PIC