Rough terrain engine failure - lake or trees?
- Thread starter rframe
- Start date
I once let a student talk me into doing a night x/c to sedona az. When I realized that I would likely die if I lost the engine (being night in very rough terrain). At that point in my career I decided that if I can't glide to safety, and I'm in a single engine plane, then I will not go there. I will not gamble my life that the engine will keep running. My suggestion: don't go there any more.
Lake, 100% for me. I'll take my chances with getting out of a sinking upside down airplane vs. landing in a heavily wodded ares like what the pic looks like. It seems like a death sentence landing in a forest. Either way though, I am going to try and ride it in under control.
scooter2525
Very well Member
Flaps in the flare.
JustinS
Well-Known Member
How about flying over endless forest at night with no moon out? What do you mean by glide to "safety"? From what I've seen, there is an elevated risk flying at night single engine, and you just need to do the best with what you have.
For example, I will not do a night x/c over any rough terrain including forests, mountains etc. I was not being technical, just saying in general, I will look for simple ways to mitigate risks. I will find a highway to follow rather than go direct. Stuff like that. But then again, I think it is smart to just go in the day if it is possible, or go in a twin if possible, and ensure adequate single engine performance based on current conditions. If none of these are possible, then I reschedule. As before, I choose not to let my life depend on an engine that may quit at any time. If you feel differently, great. I do not.
JustinS
Well-Known Member
Gotcha, in rough terrain. I would agree with you completely there. Some risks that although legal, are not worth taking.
dvtpilot
Well-Known Member
Would it make any difference on the TYPE of single engine? Meaning, if you were flying a PC12, TBM or Caravan....would that make any difference in your choice of landing spot? I mean either way, your odds of losing the engine in one of those is dramatically less than a piston single but they are all much heavier than a 172. That's what I'm getting at I guess.
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
Nyet. First of all, I'm a great swimmer. I'm in shape and haven't lost my competitive edge. I am consigned to the fact I will likely lose one or two passengers. That sucks terribly but a captain must accept the inevitable even though they exhaust themselves in rescue efforts. Second, the lake is a known whereas the tree present several unknowns chiefly which are fallen out of the trees in a spine crushing descent and impact with rocky terrain. Thirdly, (closely aligned with my 2nd point) you don't know how far you'll drop and into what terrain. In the given scenario it is likely you will softly drop from the trees only to arrive to sudden impact in rocky terrain. Still, the g load of dropping will likely cause severe spine injuries. In that case the likelihood you will survive post-crash exposure is low.
Flying over upper MI and WI, us three pilots had a long debate over such scenario (even though rocky outcroppings were not part of the debate). After hours of such discussions all concluded it was better to drop into a flat known lake than into the trees. Yes, even after discussion of shedding energy in the tree branches.
Likewise, after several discussions with 5 other pilots who are highly experienced in back country flying the summation was the same. Notably, you steer for the lowest and flatest terrain and if it is a lake so be it. Rocky terrain 'neath a tree canopy or a lake, the lake is the call.
Of course, we can debate this 'til the cows come home but the final word is from those who survived such a scenario. And they may conclude it was sheer luck, in deference to their vast experience. Caveat aviator.
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
Almost every one of my hours is in mountainous terrain. Having hiked and flown in these areas I will choose the lake in almost every scenario. I have flown at altitudes which the Army dudes call nape of the earth but I call barely pass cresting, ie, God help us if the engine sputters. Plan B? Sure, there is a Plan B but only by the narrowest of margins. Not everyone lives in the flight levels. As the Scouts say, Be Prepared.
In the event your engine sputters exactly at that crucial time it falls to something my good friend said, If it is your time to go, nothing will help you. If it is not your time, just be sure not to be near that person who's time it is to go.
Not being a fatalist but being a realist, we can not perceive every scenario nor plan for it. Politicians make the attempt and we see where that has gotten us.
In the event your engine sputters exactly at that crucial time it falls to something my good friend said, If it is your time to go, nothing will help you. If it is not your time, just be sure not to be near that person who's time it is to go.
Not being a fatalist but being a realist, we can not perceive every scenario nor plan for it. Politicians make the attempt and we see where that has gotten us.
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
Yes, it would matter. How much energy you carry into the crash is key. You can research which of the types you mentioned have the higher stall speed for a given weight, etc. The 'van being high wing may be more survivable but again you should research that.
It is were me, I would take any of those types into the water although I think the 208 more "surviveable". An that's what its all about, if a given pilot in a given plane in a given scenario believes one option is better than the other. What does the scant history of such scenarios tell us?
I think the injuries due to the rapid forward acceleration (reference the human spine) of flipping in the water to be less than the injuries caused by rapid deceleration in the trees.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Yes, two of them have retractable landing gear which makes ditching in the water much more attractive. The main objection most people have to ditching in the water in a fixed gear is the fact that when the gear hits the water it digs in, causing a rapid deceleration, and excessive attitude changes which can result in cartwheeling and flipping over. Putting a retractable gear aircraft in the water and you can sort of skip along like a boat until it domes to rest, but you're much less likely to flip over or have the devastating effects of rapid deceleration from flipping over and/or cartwheeling (though you could still catch a wingtip).
You still face the problem of sinking, so you still need to be concerned with getting to land in cold water, but you have to consider each imminent risk in turn. You're not going to stall a PC12 into the absorption of smaller tree tops or heavy brush, like you might a Cessna 100-200 series or light Piper.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
So I've got a question or maybe a remark for everyone.
When I was an instructor at STS I was riding my bike around the airport and I noticed the vineyards were staked with metal. Much like the farmers fields of Normandy during WW2. Honestly the vineyards looked like such an awfully bad place to land from the ground I sort of decided that flying a single engine aircraft around the field was really dumb.
30 years ago this would not have been the case. The airfield was surrounded by cattle fields and the occasional plum orchard.
It's no Alaskan Wilderness or Arizona wasteland but your chances of a safe off field landing in wine country are basically zero.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
You can glide about 2nm for every 1000 feet altitude loss in the PC-12. Flying it around west Texas and eastern New Mexico I am very rarely out of glide range of an airport. Taking it into Eagle or Telluride might be a little scarier, but I wouldn't mind it either.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Interesting video and interview with a guy who survived a dip in a Cessna 150 and teaches water egress was posted to ASF.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/rps/rps_underwaterescape/
http://www.aopa.org/asf/rps/rps_underwaterescape/
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
I'll be we could get a JetCareers fundraiser together to buy you a life jacket. Doubt we could raise enough for the nice "aviator" inflatable kind, but I'll bet we can raise enough for one of those cheap dorky orange kind at least. You could just put it on before you fly... just in case.
swisspilot
Well-Known Member
what company do you work for? Companies in the US don`t require all their crews to be able to swim 50 meters fully clothed?
swisspilot
Well-Known Member
there are some very nice courses out there, most are helicopter or seaplane oriented, this one looks great http://antipodeanaviation.com/embry...urvival-training-in-emergency-water-landings/
Capt. Chaos
Well-Known Member
Stormy Seas make inflatable float jackets and vests that look like regular outerwear. Keeps the tourists from getting nervous about the pilot wearing survival gear, an the locals don't care as lots of them wear them too.
