Best way to execute a forced landing?

W

Wagondriver

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
661
Display Name
Display name:
375Taylor
In reference to the Bonanza that couldn't out climb terrain near Aspen, if for some reason you got into that position where you couldn't outclimb the terrain and could not turn around, whats the best procedure in that plane to put it down where you likely survive?
Just short of where they impacted, there are some open areas in the timber, not huge, and not awesome, but swampy relatively flat ground. It appears that they flew over these areas at a few hundred feet. Would it make sense to pick one of those areas, line up on it, gear up, 10 degrees flaps, airspeed to no more than needed, get within 15 to 20 feet of the surface and cut power and add flaps and set it down? Or, if there is no open area, only big timber, same procedure at the tree top level?
Or???

I have never flown a Bonanza.
 
I’d have the flaps set before I took the power to idle…fewer changes at once.
 
If I have to go into the trees, gear down to provide the largest form for the tree to absorb energy, flaps down, and airspeed that provides the slowest horizontal speed without putting the plane into an excessively high sink rate.

If I have a small clearing, same procedure except gear up to provide the greatest deceleration upon contacting the ground so the airframe has the slowest forward motion before hitting something hard.
 
Aim for the softest, flattest place with the slowest controllable speed. Even tree canopy is better than something hard. I know of a couple of walk-aways where someone put it in the trees at low speed with no other options.
 
I read these guys filed or planned for 11,000 where they should've been at 14,000. If that's true, don't make mistakes like that.
 
Full flaps, straps tight, master off, power as needed to maintain minimum airspeed and sink, fuel off (if possible) 5ish seconds before impact. Gear down in most cases - I'd use the gear as the first disposable item on the airplane and set down pretty hard, hoping to scrub off as much speed as possible by sacrificing the gear. Even if landing in the trees, the gear would be down. If you hit the ground sorta right side up, the gear will absorb some impact. If I was landing in a 500' field, the gear would be down. I could use it to absorb energy, I could steer, I could brake, etc. About the only time I'd leave it up would be on deep snow or in a ditching.

But the biggest key is to get it on the ground under control. Spinning it at 25' and going in upside down isn't a winning effort.
 
The problem with these theories is accepting the eventuality that you are going to crash, and making the decision to pick where. I suspect 99% of pilots, and 100% of those without mountain experience, would do the opposite and keep flying over suitable emergency landing sites, hoping until the last moment to pull a rabbit from the hat and escape the terrain.
 
kyleb said:
Full flaps, straps tight, master off, power as needed to maintain minimum airspeed and sink, fuel off (if possible) 5ish seconds before impact. Gear down in most cases - I'd use the gear as the first disposable item on the airplane and set down pretty hard, hoping to scrub off as much speed as possible by sacrificing the gear. Even if landing in the trees, the gear would be down. If you hit the ground sorta right side up, the gear will absorb some impact. If I was landing in a 500' field, the gear would be down. I could use it to absorb energy, I could steer, I could brake, etc. About the only time I'd leave it up would be on deep snow or in a ditching.

But the biggest key is to get it on the ground under control. Spinning it at 25' and going in upside down isn't a winning effort.
Click to expand...
The problem with the gear down approach is the plane flips.
From above very difficult to see what is actually smooth versus filled with ditches.
Gear absorbs vertical energy well, not so much the lateral. Look at the stopping distance of planes who forgot to put the gear down.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
For the most part, the tops of trees are very soft and pliable. They can absorb a lot of energy rather gently. Yes, you will fall and perhaps hit a trunk, but at a very reduced speed. I would also say, and this is personal speculation, that broadleaf trees (deciduous) because of more extensive branching patterns, may be softer than evergreens.
 
They were well beyond their limits already so I’m not sure what would have helped them. But I’ve also wondered the same as when I fly granite is often a part of flight planning. But if things go south then my suggestion is to prepare for a soft field touchdown. Regardless of terrain.
 
Making the decision and commitment is probably the hardest part. Remember, the airframe is expendable, you are not (well some of us probably are, but.......) By the time you commit to crashing as softly as you can, your options are probably all used up. It's very sad. It certainly wasn't the first and unfortunately won't be the last.
 
Wagondriver said:
In reference to the Bonanza that couldn't out climb terrain near Aspen, if for some reason you got into that position where you couldn't outclimb the terrain and could not turn around, whats the best procedure in that plane to put it down where you likely survive?
Just short of where they impacted, there are some open areas in the timber, not huge, and not awesome, but swampy relatively flat ground. It appears that they flew over these areas at a few hundred feet. Would it make sense to pick one of those areas, line up on it, gear up, 10 degrees flaps, airspeed to no more than needed, get within 15 to 20 feet of the surface and cut power and add flaps and set it down? Or, if there is no open area, only big timber, same procedure at the tree top level?
Or???

I have never flown a Bonanza.
Click to expand...

There is nothing specific about this incident and the Bonanza. This is similar to an engine failure shortly after takeoff. It happens quickly, you have insufficient altitude and insufficient power to make a 180 turn. But unlike an engine failure after takeoff, in this case there is nothing wrong with the airplane. That makes the situation a lot more difficult from a pilot mindset. It is very very difficult to put down a perfectly running airplane in perfect VFR conditions into a rocky patch of land where the best possible outcome is a destroyed airplane. I would argue that this is asking for too much from the pilot, even with ATP ratings and qualifications. I have plenty of mountain flying experience, and I am not 100% sure if I would have made the choice to plough the airplane into pine trees. Instead, I spend a great deal of time planning the route and altitudes, and making sure there is always an out. The mountains around Aspen are littered with airplanes who took the wrong turn into a blind canyon.
 
Last edited:
Try to hit the cheapest thing in the area. They will probably make you pay for it after the dust settles.
 
Acceleration in low ground effect as far down the runway as possible generates maneuvering airspeed, which gives more options than altitude where altitude is insufficient anyway. Down drainage egress is a major, but often ignored, mountain consideration. Going up drainage, however, need not be fatal. Started early enough a turn of any bank angle can be made without load factor if we simply allow the nose to go down as designed for safety. That means start the turn with some vertical space available. If we ride a downwind of the valley ridge closely and start the turn back into headwind and much more vertical space available, turn back is not a problem. This is a turn to target, the bottom of the valley, not a turn to heading. We need to turn at whatever bank angle that will make that happen while allowing the nose to go down into the valley. We are now going down drainage. We didn't need to maintain altitude, to stay level in the turn.

Regardless fly all the way to the landing should you wait too long to energy management turn back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top