Forced Landing Choices -- Engine failure.

[Rookie50]

Like to throw a few of my actual scenarios out there for discussion.

Plane: single engine retract, Day VFR. Say gear up or down. Assume gear up for water. Low stalling speed. Loss of oil pressure. Little to no warning. Have 406, spot, survival kit.

Scenario 1.

Downtown TO, west side Humber bay (or westward), over the shoreline, 1500 agl.

A). Water, close to shoreline
B) side street?
C) industrial lands

(Uglier would be in the buttonville area -- not many friendly options to the south if 407 not in reach -- am rarely there though)



#2. Northern Ontario, before freeze up. No farmland. 6000 AGL. lots of time.
A) lake,
B) logging road, possibly winding and uneven, (if one there -- assume no highway )
C) clearing in trees / rocky terrain. (Ugh) / Marsh?


#3. Easier, hopefully. Southern Ontario, 3000 AGL
A) green field
B) brown field.
C) unoccupied straight country road. No power lines visable (hopefully)

#4. Night VFR / or IMC, at least 4000 AGL. Most likely southern Ontario. (I don't do night in the north, in any event)

best thoughts for this difficult situation?


Have at er..............personally interested for those who've flown in these areas.

I'm interested in different factors, like risk assessment of options, also post landing exiting the aircaft and survival (like landing on that cold lake up north)

[Rudderless]

Scenario #1- shoreline, but not necessarily in the water. Too much traffic everywhere else. Hard objects to hit.

Scenario # 2 - well, if it's before freeze-up, not a lake, unless a nice beach - perhaps a logging road where you might get help, as opposed to a clearing where you may not encounter another human for 100 years.......

Scenario # 3 - green field depending on time of year, i.e. short crops versus tall corn. You may not see hydro lines until it is too late. They can kill you. Flipping over in a field gives you a better chance. Pick a field with a farmhouse nearby.....

Night VFR/IMC - if you don't see anywhere with potential, slow down, low rate of descent, full flap, close your eyes and hope for the best lol. A bit tongue in cheek there, but seriously, if you end up in that situation due to poor planning, what else can you do?

[Broken Slinky]

#1 head for the water. Too much of a chance of power lines on any city street. Industrial land may be an option just like a big parking lot but I'd still head for the water.
#2 any place without trees would be my option. A marsh maybe but avoid beaver ponds. Way too may stumps and dead falls to mess up your "landing".
#3 brown fields will be harvested or not planted yet. Green means a planted crop and will stop you fast. If you aim for a road, put it down as far from the houses or barns as possible. That's where you have the least chance of power lines crossing.
#4 Rudderless has the right idea. Shut off the lights if you don't want to see what you're hitting. Good time to grab a rag and wipe down the instrument panel.

[LousyFisherman]

Why not choose the lake for #2?
I understand you may get stuck a ways from shore but you should have a paddle?
I understand you may be stuck in the middle of nowhere but you should be ready for that?

Just wondering.
LF

[iflyforpie]

Why not choose the lake for #2?
I understand you may get stuck a ways from shore but you should have a paddle?
I understand you may be stuck in the middle of nowhere but you should be ready for that?

Just wondering.
LF

First problem is you'll probably survive the crash but drown trying to egress.

Second problem is dying from hypothermia within an hour of crashing depending on how close to freeze up/break up we are talking.

Third problem--related to the second one--is losing all of your survival gear.

[I_Drive_Planes]

I've never flown anywhere near there, but I'll take a crack at it because it's an interesting and worthwhile exercise.

Scenario 1: Head for water. Side streets and industrial lands are full of hard objects that will kill you in fairly short order. Water ditchings in lakes are 87% survivable. The egress rate for ditchings (in general, not just lakes) is 92%. A large proportion of people who die in ditchings either die from exposure or fail to swim adequately. In this particular scenario you can ditch quite close to shore so as long as you and your passengers are somewhat competent swimmers you should be ok. Also, the proximity to civilization in this scenario means that rescue should be very quick as well. I looked at the area on Google Earth and one thing that jumped out at me is the size of the rocks on large portions of the shore (and underwater). Of course landing right next to shore is ideal, but I'd probably aim to be far enough out that I wouldn't strike a large rock. Contrary to popular belief, gear up or down doesn't matter. Whatever allows you to land slowest is best. I think that gear up may allow you to stretch the glide a bit more to a better ditching area though.

Scenario 2: This one is not quite as clear cut, but I think the logging road is the best choice. If you can make a good approach to a logging road I would probably take that option even if I didn't have enough straight road to make a successful landing. If you can touch down precisely (how are your power off spot landings?) at the beginning of a straight stretch and brake hard you will likely be able to dissipate the majority of your forward energy before you hit the trees. Most light airplanes really don't need much to land on anyway, as long as you can make a decent approach. Avoid clearings like the plague. Clearings are tricky depending why it is that they have no trees. Cut blocks look inviting but should be avoided like the plague. They are full of stumps and downed trees that will either tear your airplane apart or stop you far faster than is conducive to continued good health. Swamps are far from ideal, they can contain dead standing and hidden trees under the vegatation. Unkown water/muskeg depth may impede egress, but they can sometimes be a better option than going into a stand of mature conifers. Lakes in the wilderness can be dicey. I'd take one over mature trees, but you may be sitting for a while and you will not be able to access your survival gear if it's kept in the baggage compartment like mine is. Willows or young conifers a few years old can present a workable forced landing site in this type of terrain. They will bend and absorb the impact of the crash without causing as much damage to the occupants of the airplane. The key with any of these less than ideal scenarios is Bob Hoover's oft quoted advice "Fly it as far into the crash as possible.".

Scenario 3: Green field or brown field, I don't care as long as it's light green or brown. Dark green is typically thick foliage and dark brown is probably freshly ploughed, both of those will flip you and reduce your suvivability. Fortunately in this scenario you have a lot of altitude so you can take your pick. The road is a tempting option. The idea of having your mechanic drive out to where you put it down and fix the issue so you can fly out like nothing happened is definitely attractive, but the risk of powerlines is great anywhere there is civilization (and farms are civilization). A nice dry field is the best option, and if you don't bend anything you'll likely be able to fly right out of it when the problem is fixed.

Scenario 4: This one is the ugliest in my opinion. A good knowledge of the terrain you are flying over is definitely helpful here. If you can use the lights to navigate to somewhere that you know to be relatively flat and open, then try to land there. If that's not an option then Rudderless hit the nail on the head. The key in any crash is minimum forward speed (without stalling) to reduce the energy transferred to the occupants on impact.

A couple other notes: You have a Spot. That's excellent. Speaking as a SAR guy, I think that a Spot (or other satellite based tracking system) is the best way to get found in an airplane. The fact that it tracks is important and can narrow the search area greatly. I consider my Spot to be my primary SAR notification and don't fly without it. ELTs have a very poor survival rate post crash, and though the transponder is good, radar coverage can be poor at low altitude and it can take a signifcant amount of time to analyze the radar plot to determine which blip is you. When you have your engine failure send the Spot SOS message and activate your 406 ELT as part of the "communicate" portion of the engine failure procedure. When you egress the airplane take the Spot with you, it will continue transmitting until it is shut off or the batteries die. Ensure that the URL for your Spot shared tracking page is on your airplane's master with flight services, in the event you aren't able to send the SOS message they will know exactly where to look.

Have some survival gear on you. Not locked in the baggage compartment. A few basics in your pockets can make a world of difference if you are unable to access your survival kit in any instance.

[I_Drive_Planes]

I understand you may get stuck a ways from shore but you should have a paddle?

I might be missing something here, but what's he supposed to paddle? An airplane might float for a little while before it sinks, but I can't see going anywhere with it.

[Rookie50]

Thanks for the comments --- there are a few improvements I could make including carrying some survival gear on my Person. In the back is an excellent kit, along with a sleeping bag and extra coat, but it's in the back.

Just for colour a few more details. I fly these routes often for Hope Air. Common routes have included Kapuskasing and that area and SSM to Toronto. Up north always day but sometimes IMC now as I do know the landscape after a number of trips. There is HWY 144 to timmins that is reachable a lot of the way but not always.

I carry a spot always on up north, file flight plans, #2 com is always 121.50, and I have a text up and down routine with my wife with destination and eta. An hour late she will make calls. I recommend that as a backup.

Best investment I think I made too in my plane was a JPI which has alarms. If for no other reason maybe I get 5 minutes warning of a major issue and I could reach an airport.

[photofly]

if you're going to carry survival gear in your pockets, make sure you've practised using it. The weight of gear needed in a survival situation is inversely proportional to the expertise of the user. Les Stroud can get by with a bare blade and a bootlace. By contrast, I carry an emergency jacuzzi in my airplane, just in case.

[PropToFeather]

#4. Night VFR / or IMC, at least 4000 AGL. Most likely southern Ontario. (I don't do night in the north, in any event)

If you're flying to any airports near the major highways, I'd personally probably stick to flight route that will be within glide to those. They're relatively straight, have few overhead obstructions once you're out of the cities, and are within minutes - maybe even seconds! - of some sort of help or confused passer-by. Also, maybe don't fly night IMC in an SE piston?

[Big Pistons Forever]

My 02 cents

1) When the engine fails the insurance company just bought the airplane so any thought of minimizing damage to the aircraft should be avoided. The only decisions taken should be those that will reduce the chance of injuries or fatalities

2) Approximately 80 % of engine failures are directly caused by the actions or in-actions of the pilot. The best way to deal with the possibility of an engine failure in a SEP is be disciplined and diligent about all the engine related factors that are in your control so that the engine doesn't fail in the first place. Checklist discipline is one big way to avoid a pilot induced engine failure

3) There was an interesting study done in the US. It correlated the aircraft's attitude with suitability for all accidents. The conclusion if the airplane hits wings level and in a level or nose up pitch attitude only 8 % of the accidents had fatalities. This is for every kind of accident including guys flying into the side of houses, hitting embankments, wires, bridges; everything. The conclusion of the study was that it was the steep nose down and/or steeply banked hits that were the big killers. This combination almost invariably occurs when control of the aircraft is lost. Keeping control of the aircraft is the biggest determinate in the outcome and is why the fatality rate for turnbacks after an EFATO is 8 times greater than for those pilots who elected to land ahead.

So with respect to the OP's question I would suggest that exactly where you go after the engine fails is much less important than hitting the ground at a low but safe airspeed with the wings level and with a slight nose up attitude.

[5x5]

+1 to BPF.

Also, a couple of survival experts that I've been to courses from very strongly stress one thing - body heat! It's paramount that you keep your core from cooling down. And that makes me very leery of ditching. It is really, really hard to get dry while in the bush with no extra clothing and quite possibly no way to start a fire. And never underestimate the time it takes to cool a critical amount. If you're wet you can get into serious distress in less than an hour at cool night-time temps in many parts of Canada in the fall and spring.

[photofly]

I always figured a choice between ditching and landing in the trees came down to a choice between being wet, and the chance of having broken limbs. Neither is great in a survival scenario.

[Shiny Side Up]

If you're wet you can get into serious distress in less than an hour at cool night-time temps in many parts of Canada in the fall and spring.

If I recall, statistically most hypothermia related deaths in Canada actually occur in the "summer" months when you have the most amount of people out having fun in boats. The water in most of this country rarely gets to swimming temperatures, so immersion in it substantially reduces your survival chances. In my mind ditching only becomes preferable where you know you have warm water and the prospects of immediate rescue are at hand.

[Rookie50]

If you're wet you can get into serious distress in less than an hour at cool night-time temps in many parts of Canada in the fall and spring.

If I recall, statistically most hypothermia related deaths in Canada actually occur in the "summer" months when you have the most amount of people out having fun in boats. The water in most of this country rarely gets to swimming temperatures, so immersion in it substantially reduces your survival chances. In my mind ditching only becomes preferable where you know you have warm water and the prospects of immediate rescue are at hand.

Good points ---

[photofly]

If you do a lot of flying over remote areas and might have to ditch, buy yourself a proper dry suit, to fly in. $1200, and they're very comfortable. (*NOT* the $500 rubber gimp suit.) The same ones that rescue personnel wear, from Mustang.

Buy one, and then wear it. I have one; I have thrown myself in a lake to test it out, and while wearing it I would choose a ditching over a crash-landing on dry land every time.

[Shiny Side Up]

I would choose a ditching over a crash-landing on dry land every time.

I would choose the opposite.

1) Everyone better have a dry suit, otherwise it looks really bad when you survive the crash and your passengers/crew don't.

2) Even if the hypothermia doesn't get you, lots of people grossly overestimate their swimming ability and especially how far they can swim. So unless your dry suit also has a life preserver, I wouldn't count on making it to shore. Again as above, you also probably don't know the abilities of the above.

3) Ditching is probably going to have the same chances of injury on landing as the trees, all things considered. Being injured in any fashion also hurts your survival chances - except that the penalty for being injured on land doesn't mean you also might drown.

4) Ditching also loses you any of the resources the airplane might provide to help you survive. If you ditch, its what's on you, so hope your survival suit has lots of pockets. ELTs also might not have much range (or even work) under the water. Your SPOT, Spidertracks, or portable radio may not take well to immersion, and you lose the prospect of the use of the airplane's radio. Not to mention the other resources the airplane carcass provides if you're Les Stroud enough.

5) If the airplane sinks, its also going to be more difficult to find your location. Again, a ditching may be preferable if help is nearby considering that the airplane may float, but I wouldn't count on that.

Now I know the main fear of the trees is getting yourself skewered by an unfortunately oriented chunk of timber, and that's always a risk, but I feel its equal to hitting a rock or a log which might ruin one's chance at a reasonably smooth ditching. After all, when you ditch you probably want to do it as close to shore as you can, which of course increases the likelihood of finding those obstacles. I'd also say that rarely does one fly over bush that's homogeneously heavy, there are plenty of less treed areas, and increasingly, cut blocks. In lake country there's plenty of open shore ares and beaches. I'll admit that the places I hate the most flying over are large tracts of swamp. You're going to get wet, and likely it will be exhausting trying to get out of the loonshit deep enough to swallow a plane. Never mind the bugs.

Also not ever having done both of the activities we're talking about (crashing a plane into the trees, or ditching one) Much of the above has merely been the thoughts that one has when flying over such stuff. I hope I never have to put it to the test. I doubt there's a lot of data on the subject either. The big thing I think people have to keep in mind is just fly the plane until it stops. For shit's sake, don't stall the damn thing, which is probably the biggest cause of fatalities. One must remember that the seat belt is designed to protect you from a sudden forward deceleration, and any tumbling the aircraft does is going to probably be fatal, ditching or crashing.

Again, that's my opinion, take it for what its worth.

[Rookie50]

SSU,

That's good stuff. I have an older plane but it was retrofitted with the Bas 4 point system. Every bit helps. I have flown over that kind of muskeg too to one place. Nasty looking stuff.

I would choose a more indirect route next time to follow the rail line partway to that destination, as there is nothing out there.

[photofly]

I would choose a ditching over a crash-landing on dry land every time.

I would choose the opposite.

1) Everyone better have a dry suit, otherwise it looks really bad when you survive the crash and your passengers/crew don't.

2) Even if the hypothermia doesn't get you, lots of people grossly overestimate their swimming ability and especially how far they can swim. So unless your dry suit also has a life preserver, I wouldn't count on making it to shore. Again as above, you also probably don't know the abilities of the above.

Do you really really think I'm the kind of person who'd ditch a plane because I'm wearing a dry suit if I have passengers who aren't?
Do you think killing our passengers is something we should avoid just because it looks bad?
And do you really think I'm going to buy and wear a dry suit without springing $70 for a fucking life preserver too?

@#$! you, asshole.

[photofly]

Let's hear the marvellous arguments against going for the water in this particular bit of northern Ontario. Or was it Nunavut, I don't recall.

image.jpeg (329.97 KiB) Viewed 3247 times

[Shiny Side Up]

No, I assumed that that would only apply if you're flying alone. So if that's the majority of the flying you do, then your choice. But most of the time, like me, you probably don't fly alone, so can we say that you were incorrect in stating you'd go for the water "everytime"?

Do you think killing our passengers is something we should avoid just because it looks bad?

Among other things. Did I need to list all of the moral, financial, and emotional reasons?

And do you really think I'm going to buy and wear a dry suit without springing $70 for a fucking life preserver too?

Forgive me, I'm not familiar with your particular equipment. I'm assuming they're separate items. Can we consider the possibility that unless its attached, you might end up exiting the aircraft without the preserver?

Sorry you feel you were insulted, it wasn't my intent.

[Shiny Side Up]

Let's hear the marvellous arguments against going for the water in this particular bit of northern Ontario. Or was it Nunavut, I don't recall.

image.jpeg

The water looks really friggin' cold. There's going to be no smooth landing areas on that rock, but I'd rather take my chances landing on it, there are more than a few relatively flat areas in that pic. One might note that the shorelines are rather steep, you might have more trouble than you think scaling them to get out of the water. Lastly, since one would have trouble being found, or keeping warm in that terrain, being able to salvage the airplane (and having it as a marker to find you) is going to vastly improve your chances of survival.

Need more reasons?

But that again, is my opinion, we can talk about it some day if both of us survive our choices. I hope, for you and I, that we never have that discussion.

edit: Its probably Nunavut. There'd be some scrub bush showing in Onterrible, even as little as it is in places.

[photofly]

No, I assumed that that would only apply if you're flying alone. So if that's the majority of the flying you do, then your choice. But most of the time, like me, you probably don't fly alone, so can we say that you were incorrect in stating you'd go for the water "everytime"?

No we absolutely can't say that.

I think it's dumb as @#$! to fly uninformed members of the public over remote landscapes where ditching is likely the best option in order to satisfy some secret airline pilot fantasy. I've considered the risks, undertaken training and equipped myself as best as I can (and so equipped and trained I'll likely take the water, please), but unless I can say the same for the other guy he should fly something else, preferably with two turbine engines, with someone else, or stay home. I don't want to be responsible for what happens to him. If I want to donate my time to a worthwhile cause I'll volunteer at the local food bank.

[Shiny Side Up]

I think it's dumb as @#$! to fly uninformed members of the public over remote landscapes where ditching is likely the best option in order to satisfy some secret airline pilot fantasy.

First, I still would contend that ditching is rarely the best option, and second no matter who you're with you really have no idea about their capability to survive, unless you've actually had to survive with them. One might add as well that the uninformed members of the public are regularly flown over such terrain, in real air services. I've also had crew with me before that while, informed, I'd still have doubts that they're really prepared should the worst happen. I think the odds of survival are in most cases better on the land. I know what my game plan is there, and am confident in my flying ability to maximize my chances. Even knowing what I know about float flying, I have doubts about the aircraft staying upright in the water upon ditching, especially with fixed gear. Even with having taken an immersion course, I'd really not want to put that to the test in a real situation. Especially if the water isn't swimming pool temperature.

One should note that any off airport unfamiliar landing is a gamble. I know a guy who landed on a road and was hit by a car. Even seemingly perfect farm fields can have hidden holes, rocks strands of barbed wire, you name it.

I think one needs to keep in mind that while you may feel that ditching offers an improved chance of a soft landing, from my side of the argument I have to wonder what your game plan is after the landing if all goes well.

[LousyFisherman]

I think it's dumb as @#$! to fly uninformed members of the public over remote landscapes where ditching is likely the best option in order to satisfy some secret airline pilot fantasy.

How about to satisfy a public fishing fantasy?

LF