Forced landing

[JOhnH]

My recent experience has me asking a few basic questions:

Our engine overheated, lost power, started shaking and banging, then quit. We landed on a highway.

1. Is this an "Incident" or an "accident". After the blown engine the only damage incurred was a little sheet metal on a leading edge from a road sign that jumped out at us.

2. Which side of a divided 4 lane highway is a preferable landing site? We landed on the side of the divided 4 lane highway going WITH traffic. But we found out that when you do this, cars in front of you may not see you. We had to take evasive action during this tricky maneuver to keep from landing on the back of a pickup truck. We were forced into the oncoming lanes where everyone in front of us saw us and pulled out of the way.

This is not a question, but a reminder to all. PRACTICE your emergency procedures. When our emergency occurred, we did what we practiced. I think that is what saved us. If we had not both practiced, we would have not automatically known what to do and probably would have panicked. As it was, we didn't have time to panic because we were busy doing what we practiced.

 

[Steve]

Definitions used by http://www.airsafe.com/events/define.htm

Similar criteria for non-121 aircraft.

The NTSB definition, which is also used by the FAA, divides accidents into four categories:

1. Major - an accident in which a 14 CFR 121 aircraft was destroyed, there were multiple fatalities, or there was one fatality and a 14 CFR 121 aircraft was substantially damaged.
2. Serious - an accident in which there was either one fatality without substantial damage to a 14 CFR 121 aircraft, or there was at least one serious injury and a 14 CFR121 aircraft was substantially damaged.
3. Injury - a nonfatal accident with at least one serious injury and without substantial damage to a 14 CFR 121 aircraft.
4. Damage - an accident in which no person was killed or seriously injured, but in which any aircraft was substantially damaged.

Incident
An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operations.

Substantial Damage
Damage or structural failure that negatively affects an aircraft's structural strength, performance, or flying characteristics, and which would require significant repair or replacement of the affected component or system. Substantial damage excludes damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, and flaps. It also excludes bent aerodynamic fairings, dents in the aircraft skin, small punctures in the aircraft skin, ground damage to propeller blades, or damage to only a single engine

 

[dmccormack]

Wow -- tough questions with no "right" answer except that fact that you came out of it unharmed.

I'll say that in my tiny Chief a field will be preferred to a divided highway. In a larger single, I'd probably look at fields and secondary roads before landing on I-79 here in WV or I-70 in PA -- both roads are simply far too busy, and twisty, and peppered with overpasses.

PA 43 (Turnpike extension) has a few lonesome stretches that would suit nicely -- straight, flat, lightly travelled. On that road I'd land into the traffic, since the best advice I've heard about highway landings is dive and drive -- get low -- really low -- and fly along until you're ready to force it down (doesn't have to be a full-stall greaser). This keeps you beneath wires and provides oncoming traffic time to spot you (as opposed to a slow, steep descent).

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

cool story, thanks
ref landing against the traffic:
The issue I see here is that if they do not see you, or do not avoid you adequately, the combined speed of impact could be 140mph or some wild number. With traffic, you could get that down to 20mph.
The force being prop. to the square of the speed or some such physics equation.

 

[Papakeith]

. . .provides oncoming traffic time to spot you . . .

If I had to land on a Highway I think I'd want to be landing with the traffic.

 

[dmccormack]

If I had to land on a Highway I think I'd want to be landing with the traffic.

Yeah, Dave makes a good point. If it's a lonesome long, straight highway they'll likely see you. If it's busy or curved, going with traffic flow probably makes sense.

Either way, you could be Very Wrong.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

cool story, thanks
ref landing against the traffic:
The issue I see here is that if they do not see you, or do not avoid you adequately, the combined speed of impact could be 140mph or some wild number. With traffic, you could get that down to 20mph.
The force being prop. to the square of the speed or some such physics equation.

Links are dead now, but a year or so ago there was a Cherokee (or similar) that landed on a road somewhere in Africa and hit a Ford Ranger (or similar) head on. The people in the Ranger were able to rescue the people in the Cherokee. The Cherokee burned to the ground, the Ranger drove away.

In general, having moved an aircraft (Navion) down a country road for a distance, I would take a field if one was available. But that doesn't appear to have been a good option in the OPs case.

Failing that, I would have attempted to merge with the traffic as was attempted by John's wife.

 

[wabower]

Eisenhower specified that Interstate highway designs include straight road for one mile of every five, for possible use as emer. aircraft facilities. So whatever you do, be sure you can glide for 4 miles.

Wow -- tough questions with no "right" answer except that fact that you came out of it unharmed.

I'll say that in my tiny Chief a field will be preferred to a divided highway. In a larger single, I'd probably look at fields and secondary roads before landing on I-79 here in WV or I-70 in PA -- both roads are simply far too busy, and twisty, and peppered with overpasses.

PA 43 (Turnpike extension) has a few lonesome stretches that would suit nicely -- straight, flat, lightly travelled. On that road I'd land into the traffic, since the best advice I've heard about highway landings is dive and drive -- get low -- really low -- and fly along until you're ready to force it down (doesn't have to be a full-stall greaser). This keeps you beneath wires and provides oncoming traffic time to spot you (as opposed to a slow, steep descent).

 

[tonycondon]

OWT: http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp

 

[AdamZ]

If I had to land on a Highway I think I'd want to be landing with the traffic.

If it were to be a road I'd go with Keiths suggestion. I guess though you have to take each situation independently and evaluate it on its own merits.

 

[Papakeith]

pretty much.

I was speaking to divided highways. two lane (two direction) leave you with the worst of both worlds; merging and converging traffic to avoid.

 

[BillTIZ]

Title 49: Transportation
PART 830—NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS AND OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND RECORDS
§ 830.2 Definitions.

As used in this part the following words or phrases are defined as follows:

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.

Incident means an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations.
Serious injury means any injury which: (1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury was received; (2) results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose); (3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; (4) involves any internal organ; or (5) involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.
[53 FR 36982, Sept. 23, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 40112, Aug. 7, 1995]

It was an incident.. no personal injury or death.. but still needs to be reported because of the engine failuer.

 

[wabower]

If it was a secret, how does this source know it's not true?

OWT: http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp

 

[dmccormack]

Eisenhower specified that Interstate highway designs include straight road for one mile of every five, for possible use as emer. aircraft facilities. So whatever you do, be sure you can glide for 4 miles.

Simply not true in WV -- I can assure you that!!

 

[mikea]

...
This is not a question, but a reminder to all. PRACTICE your emergency procedures. When our emergency occurred, we did what we practiced. I think that is what saved us. If we had not both practiced, we would have not automatically known what to do and probably would have panicked. As it was, we didn't have time to panic because we were busy doing what we practiced.

Absolutely. In my case I ran a tank dry the day after I passed my PPL checkride. I had drilled the emergency procedures for the checkride so much that the engine barely lost power.

What they don't teach you is that step zero is to reach the panel to grab your heart that's flopping around and put it back in your chest.

 

[mikea]

Eisenhower specified that Interstate highway designs include straight road for one mile of every five, for possible use as emer. aircraft facilities. So whatever you do, be sure you can glide for 4 miles.

OWT: http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp

Not an OWT in Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Air_Force#Expansion_during_the_Cold_War
http://www.bunkertours.se/e107_plugins/cpg14x/thumbnails.php?album=41

 

[mikea]

It landed WITH the flow of traffic?...

http://jalopnik.com/5549560/honey-i-think-the-space-shuttle-wants-to-pass

 

[gprellwitz]

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

It was an incident.. no personal injury or death.. but still needs to be reported because of the engine failuer.

Why? It is an incident, not an accident, because there was no substantial damage. Single engine failure, even in a single engine plane, is not considered substantial damage.

 

[JOhnH]

Why? It is an incident, not an accident, because there was no substantial damage. Single engine failure, even in a single engine plane, is not considered substantial damage.

I am still trying to interpret the statute, and now I am trying to interpret your post. I know you didn't have question marks, but I am not sure if you were asking a question or making a statement because your statement sounds like my question.

 

[murphey]

Eisenhower specified that Interstate highway designs include straight road for one mile of every five, for possible use as emer. aircraft facilities. So whatever you do, be sure you can glide for 4 miles.

Wrong. Urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/airstrip.asp

 

[gprellwitz]

There are two pieces of damage reported. If either qualifies as substantial damage, then this is an accident and thus must be reported.
1) "engine failure" of a single engine. This is explicitly excluded from the definition of substantial damage, which was previously posted. So this does not make it an accident.
2) "a little sheet metal on a leading edge." Unless it requires "major repair or replacement of the affected component", this does not qualify as substantial damage either, thus this would not qualify as an accident.

830.15 (a) Reports. The operator of a civil, public (as specified in §830.5), or foreign aircraft shall file a report on Board Form 6120.1/2(OMB No. 3147–0001)2 within 10 days after an accident, or after 7 days if an overdue aircraft is still missing. A report on an incident for which immediate notification is required by §830.5(a) shall be filed only as requested by an authorized representative of the Board.

If it is an incident, it has to be listed specifically in 830.5(a) to require a report, and then only if requested. Below is an edited 830.5(a)

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious incidents occur:
(1) Flight control system malfunction or failure;(n/a)
(2) Inability of any required flight crewmember to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness;(n/a)
(3) Failure of any internal turbine engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out the exhaust path;(n/a)
(4) In-flight fire;(n/a)
(5) Aircraft collision in flight;(n/a)
(6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed $25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.(n/a)
(7) For large multiengine aircraft (n/a)
(8) Release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from an aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact;(n/a)
(9) A complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50 percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays known asn/a);
(10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued eithern/a)

(11) Damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the blade(s);(n/a)
(12) Any event in which an aircraft operated by an air carrier: (n/a)

So the described event is a non-reportable incident.

 

[silver-eagle]

A perfect example.

 

[JOhnH]

There are two pieces of damage reported. If either qualifies as substantial damage, then this is an accident and thus must be reported.
1) "engine failure" of a single engine. This is explicitly excluded from the definition of substantial damage, which was previously posted. So this does not make it an accident.
2) "a little sheet metal on a leading edge." Unless it requires "major repair or replacement of the affected component", this does not qualify as substantial damage either, thus this would not qualify as an accident.

If it is an incident, it has to be listed specifically in 830.5(a) to require a report, and then only if requested. Below is an edited 830.5(a)
So the described event is a non-reportable incident.

Thank you very much for that explanation. Even though it was a non-reportable incident, apparently the ATC with whom we were in contact with did report it, and the FSDO inspector was on site within a few hours so I guess I am covered any way,

The discussion about landing on the highway pointed out that every emergency landing is different and you have to stay cool and observant to make the best decision at the time. In our case, finding a field was out of the question. It was the trees or the highway, or maybe water. I will certainly be more conservative about flying VFR in marginal conditions any more. Without good visibility this may have turned out far differently.

 

[gprellwitz]

Thank you very much for that explanation. Even though it was a non-reportable incident, apparently the ATC with whom we were in contact with did report it, and the FSDO inspector was on site within a few hours so I guess I am covered any way,

The discussion about landing on the highway pointed out that every emergency landing is different and you have to stay cool and observant to make the best decision at the time. In our case, finding a field was out of the question. It was the trees or the highway, or maybe water. I will certainly be more conservative about flying VFR in marginal conditions any more. Without good visibility this may have turned out far differently.

Note that I was addressing reporting to the NTSB. The FSDO represents the FAA, a different beast altogether.