Engine Failure! ...pick a landing spot

Cajun_Flyer

Cajun_Flyer

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Messages
1,713
Location
New England
Display Name
Display name:
Cajun Flyer
It’s 60 degrees, sunny and the winds are calm. Just as you are thinking about what a perfect day it is to fly, your engine fails. After the 5 second "OMG, THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING!" moment of panic, you get yourself together and pitch for best glide speed. Prior to jumping into the process of trying to restoring power, you try to quickly assess the best landing spot to aim for. The area is densely populated and you see no long, smooth farm fields. No golf courses. No nearby airfields. Here are your options:

1. Dense tree stand.
2. Major interstate with heavy traffic.
3. Minor highway with moderate traffic.
4. Short, tree-lined field on uneven terrain.
5. A small pond.
6. Curvy, shallow beach along the ocean.

What would you consider your top three choices (in order) and why? Yes, I realize there are a lot of factors that would come into play (overpasses on the highway? Cows in the field? Tourists on the beach? Etc). Unfortunately, many of those factors aren’t easily visible from a few thousand feet up.

I’m curious about people’s differing perspectives on this, and the reasons why they would choose what they would choose.
 
yoda_nopic_on_thread.jpg
 
I'd try #2 and land on one of those empty flatbed semis. They do it at airshows on pickups all the time ya know. :rolleyes::D
 
Last edited:
I think private pilots need to get the idea out of their minds that public roads are acceptable off airport landing sites. Someone did it successfully many years ago, and that spawned the PPL boner. It has since been refuted many times with ground fatalities. Find a f**king field or really anywhere else unless it is like 2 am.
 
35 AoA said:
I think private pilots need to get the idea out of their minds that public roads are acceptable off airport landing sites.
Click to expand...

So, then, what would you choose?

I agree with you about public roads. For the same reason, I'd be hesitant to aim for a beach.
 
6. Curvy, shallow beach along the ocean.

just curious why 'the ocean' wouldn't be choice #7.

but I'd go for the trees.
 
Pond depending on obstacles.

I would say interstate, but my best glide is waaaaay faster than traffic.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
So, then, what would you choose?

I agree with you about public roads. For the same reason, I'd be hesitant to aim for a beach.
Click to expand...

given the choices, and without pictures to accurately describe what the OP means, I'd say options 4-6. That said, there aren't a whole lot of places that offer congested roads and don't also offer some form of a field…….whether that be in an urban environment or not. The last time I was in a surprise glider, we were over Fresno, and there were actually numerous such places to land. I'm talking a couple blocks of undeveloped land that while potentially uneven, would have been far better for the rest of the world than the major highway and busy streets that surrounded our selected landing area. I'd rather put down if forced to in a short abandoned lot or park than a road……….and that also assumes a light piston aircraft that would very quickly decelerate. If we are talking biz jet or greater, obviously there is no good answer other than avoiding populated areas and hoping for the best.
 
eman1200 said:
but I'd go for the trees.
Click to expand...

I've heard that trees are a good spot to ditch... what's the reason on that?

Somedudeintn said:
How short is the field?

I may end up ditching in the ocean.
Click to expand...

Maybe 1,000 feet :/
I swear that's all I see around here are these small fields... a bit unnerving. I really don't think, where I am in my training, that I have the skills to land in something that short.
 
35 AoA said:
given the choices, and without pictures to accurately describe what the OP means, I'd say options 4-6.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know there are a lot of factors that would play into people's decisions. I purposefully didn't put pictures or give more details... I really just wanted to gauge opinions on emergency landing spots and why people consider some better than others (when the options aren't pretty).
 
35 AoA said:
I think private pilots need to get the idea out of their minds that public roads are acceptable off airport landing sites. Someone did it successfully many years ago, and that spawned the PPL boner. It has since been refuted many times with ground fatalities. Find a f**king field or really anywhere else unless it is like 2 am.
Click to expand...

Beach or field. Then again I have done that **** a bunch of times since my engine in the Libelle has a habit of not being there :D

Find the flattest softest thing out there. Roads are pretty low on the list for me in the glider or DA-40 because of the long wing span. A decent low energy soft field landing in a field should be not that much of an issue. in a nosedragger just hold off the nosewheel, and you'll probably be ok.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
I've heard that trees are a good spot to ditch... what's the reason on that?....
Click to expand...

because trees are soft and fluffy and bendy and it would be like landing on a big soft fluffy bendy green tree pillow. and after my soft cushy fluffy tree pillow landing I can climb down the trees and be one with nature as I ponder how I greased that soft fluffy cushy tree top landing. or, at least that's how I envision it going down.
 
Field, beach, pond. Have you landed on any <2000' strips or grass fields with your instructor yet?
 
eman1200 said:
because trees are soft and fluffy and bendy and it would be like landing on a big soft fluffy bendy green tree pillow. and after my soft cushy fluffy tree pillow landing I can climb down the trees and be one with nature as I ponder how I greased that soft fluffy cushy tree top landing. or, at least that's how I envision it going down.
Click to expand...

And pray to magically stumble upon a cold beer in the forest...

GeorgeC said:
Field, beach, pond. Have you landed on any <2000' strips or grass fields with your instructor yet?
Click to expand...

No. We just landed on the Block Island strip a couple days ago... that's the shortest I've done so far, and it was 2,500 ft and paved. We did it as a short field landing and I ended up with a surprising amount of space in front of me after touching down. So, I guess maybe I could do a really short field if I had to.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
And pray to magically stumble upon a cold beer in the forest...



No. We just landed on the Block Island strip a couple days ago... that's the shortest I've done so far, and it was 2,500 ft and paved. We did it as a short field landing and I ended up with a surprising amount of space in front of me after touching down. So, I guess maybe I could do a really short field if I had to.
Click to expand...

100' past the touchdown point is 100' past the touchdown point whether it's a 1500' strip or a 15000' strip. :)
 
Lets see, a few hundred AGL, Trees to the right, trees to the left, railroad track under, sudden quiet.

Step 1 was carb heat, switch tanks, get the effing thing running again so there is no need to worry about "best glide" or picking a spot.

Yes, I am a bad person. I don't follow the "correct" procedure and let the exhaust cool down so carb heat doesn't work.

Original question, probably beach, field, minor highway. But it would depend.
 
Hard to say what you would do in the situation. When the heat is on you hope you make the right choice but reality is at the time the first thing that looks most doable is probably what your going for.
 
Pull the red handle and let fate decide where you land.

What! You aren't flying a Cirrus?? :eek:
There's some POA threads that need your immediate attention regarding your poor choice of airplane. :D

More seriously:
- As you note none of your available options is a "perfect" landing spot;
- The objective is not to save the airplane but to take the most survivable alternative;
- Hitting something solid, or overturning the airplane significantly reduces your probability of walking away;
- If you cannot avoid hitting something solid, you want to do it with the lowest possible forward velocity because your kinetic energy is proportional to the square of your velocity (thus if you hit something at half the speed at which you touch down the impact needs to dissipate only one-quarter the kinetic energy you had at touchdown).

Choice 1 means you are deliberately using solid objects to slow yourself down from best glide speed (highest forward velocity)
Choice 2 is luck of the draw. It might work, or you could get hit by a semi at his point of maximum velocity.
Choice 3 might be worth considering depending on traffic (which probably varies depending on time of day, day of week, etc). Judging that may be difficult, and traffic density is a factor related to the outcome you don't control.
Choice 5, the pond, is out. Your chances of inverting the airplane are high (I am assuming a fixed gear trainer here) and your chances of egressing in that instance are statistically poor (check the floatplane stats for people without professional egress training...it's not pretty).

Your best choices would seem to be the beach or the field, whichever offers the least probability of hitting obstacles. If the field is too short, it may still be the best option as you have most factors under your control and even if you run through a fence or hit a ditch or trees at the far end and wrinkle/bend the plane, the velocity will be much lower than at touchdown.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Choice 5, the pond, is out. Your chances of inverting the airplane are high (I am assuming a fixed gear trainer here) and your chances of egressing in that instance are statistically poor (check the floatplane stats for people without professional egress training...it's not pretty).
Click to expand...

Studies say pretty much the opposite of that. Ken Ibold has the numbers and posted it here numerous times, but impact and egress from planes going down in water has a higher survival rate than going into the trees/rough terrain.
 
EdFred said:
Studies say pretty much the opposite of that. Ken Ibold has the numbers and posted it here numerous times, but impact and egress from planes going down in water has a higher survival rate than going into the trees/rough terrain.
Click to expand...

A link to the stats you cite would be appreciated.

There is a big difference in the chances of inverting the airplane if it has fixed gear vs a retractable with the gear up - do these stats identify in how many of those water landings the plane remained upright? Once you are on your back in murky water your chances of getting out dimish rather quickly - most seat belt systems won't keep you from impacting something in the airplane, chances of disorientation are high (when was the last time you were in a stationary airplane upside down with minimal to zero visibility out the windows?).
 
GRG55 said:
A link to the stats you cite would be appreciated.

There is a big difference in the chances of inverting the airplane if it has fixed gear vs a retractable with the gear up - do these stats identify in how many of those water landings the plane remained upright? Once you are on your back in murky water your chances of getting out dimish rather quickly - most seat belt systems won't keep you from impacting something in the airplane, chances of disorientation are high (when was the last time you were in a stationary airplane upside down with minimal to zero visibility out the windows?).
Click to expand...

I'm not going to dig through 11 years of posts to find it.
 
My particular order would be:

1. Short, tree-lined field on uneven terrain. (Aside from the uneven terrain thing, this is pretty much what I have in FL. I'm used to doing approaches to these types of fields and I know I could make it down).
2. Minor highway with moderate traffic. (Concrete is concrete, and if this is my only other choice that's where I'm putting it down. Yes I know I'd have to deal with cars on the road, but minor highways have small openings in traffic and that's usually a hole every couple miles, which is more than enough).
3. Dense tree stand. (Last choice only because of the "dense" part. Sparse forest, no thanks. I want to be able to slow it down and have the weight of the plane supported by any plant life I can. Putting it down safely and then falling 50 feet straight down is no good).

4. A small pond. (For reasons that were already stated. I have met someone who did a water landing, barely lived due to egress issues, I also fly fixed gear and even though it's a small pond, you don't need much water to drown)
5. Major interstate with heavy traffic. (Not even a choice for me, too many risks)
6. Curvy, shallow beach along the ocean. (This is last, because of the potential in my state for people to be on said beach (FL). Also, sand ain't exactly solid where I live. There's a great chance of flipping over due to the nose gear getting stuck in the sand)
 
GRG55 - great post. Thank you. I have heard mixed things on pond landings - think I've seen the stats Ed is referring to.

Thoughts on wetland landings? Guessing it would be similar to ponds... probably worse, honestly, as any branches or other obstructions would be obscured by the vegetation.
ex...
wetlands.jpg
 
Wetlands seem to be the worst of both worlds. Sure, there's water and unknown terrain features may be lurking, but at least there are no boats around to see or rescue you.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
Thoughts on wetland landings? Guessing it would be similar to ponds... probably worse, honestly, as any branches or other obstructions
Click to expand...

Here in FL, if you go anywhere in the SE part of the state or middle of the state, wetlands are what you have to work with. We even have cities such as Lakeland, Land O' Lakes, etc...lakes are EVERYWHERE.

I think that landing on those would be challenging, but surviving afterwards would be even more so. There was a crash here in FL a while back, a guy put a twin down in the everglades and walked away, but he was lucky. Between the gators, snakes and man-eating manatees you are gonna have bigger problems to deal with. Not to mention, emergency services could be pretty far away.
 
Man eating manatees? Hahahahahaha.
 
EdFred said:
I'm not going to dig through 11 years of posts to find it.
Click to expand...

Given there are few topics on POA that haven't been covered before I had a look for "engine out". Didn't come across any stats specific to water landings, frequency of the plane ending up inverted, or the survival rate once in that situation, but did come across this useful comment (emphasis is Mr. Ibold's):

Ken Ibold said:
Traveler, let me help with some perspective here. Understand that there are many loss-of-power incidents that are resolved with a glide to an airport, field, or other spot that result in no damage or injury and therefore go unreported. If you look at the subset of engine failures that result in an accident, then you can do some looking in the NTSB database and draw some conclusions. A few years ago, when I was editing Aviation Safety, we did just that.

Take two scenarios that seem to cause the most heartburn -- engine out over trees and engine out over water (with a resultant ditching). In both cases, more than 95 percent of the accidents resulted in no serious injury to the occupants AS LONG AS THE AIRPLANE REMAINED UNDER CONTROL. So, through training you have to learn to avoid the stall or spin, which generally come from trying to stretch the glide and getting the airplane too slow.

An engine out generally is NOT an automatic recipe for disaster, but it can bite you on the butt (or elsewhere) if you do not handle the engine out situation correctly.
Click to expand...
 
I'd start by looking at the minor highway...I've landed on enough of 'em that I'd be comfortable. Just look for a hole in traffic and watch for obstacles.

I'd do a short field before I'd land in treetops...hit the bottom of the trees at something below flying speed.
 
noobJohn said:
Ditching info :

http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm
Click to expand...

From another page on that site,
"The chances of sustaining an injury of any kind are somewhat higher when you go into the trees than when you ditch in the water and the chances of a serious injury are quite a bit higher in the trees.
The overall survival rate between the two appears to be about the same, but the injury rate is higher if you go for the trees."

That seems to answer the tree vs pond question.
 
1. Just offshore the beach
2. Small field
3. Dense trees
4. Smaller road (maybe)
I might move the pond up the list if its really big. I wouldn't even consider the interstate, the people driving there didn't assume any risk of my engine going out. Also, if people are in the water at the beach, I am ditching far enough out to not hit them, but close enough to potentially get some help.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
From another page on that site,
"The chances of sustaining an injury of any kind are somewhat higher when you go into the trees than when you ditch in the water and the chances of a serious injury are quite a bit higher in the trees.
The overall survival rate between the two appears to be about the same, but the injury rate is higher if you go for the trees."

That seems to answer the tree vs pond question.
Click to expand...

Well also keep in mind, that the report linked was from the 80's and 90's. I think it probably also makes a difference if you have fixed vs retractable gear. If you haven't already done so, watch this video from AOPA about a water landing in a high wing, just highlights what you might expect. The accident was not an engine out, but still shows what you might have to go through in the water.

There's also another one on that site that shows a float plane that forgot to raise the gear, the pilot lost his young son in the crash, couldn't get him out.

It's not the landing that will kill you, it's getting out of the plane quickly.
 
Last edited:
The report might be from data from the 80s and 90s but we're still flying the same aircraft from the 60s and 70s that we were flying in the 80s and 90s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top