Landing on Highways

[Himayeti]

What do others here think about landing on highways when one has an engine out?

More often than not, people are hurt on the ground.

My take is that if there is the slightest chance I can hurt somebody on the ground, my life is no more valuable than that person's - and I'll look for another spot.

Opinions?

 

[Half Fast]

Depends on the road and traffic. Landing on a road can be an opportunity to participate in an airplane crash and an automobile crash simultaneously.

When @Salty had his engine failure, there was a road nearby but with substantial traffic, so he elected to set the plane down in an orange grove. Totaled the plane, but there were no injuries.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

More often than not, people are hurt on the ground.

Is that some kind of data to back it up?
The few highway landings that I can think of (not that I've made one) were pretty much uneventful. A few years ago someone merged with rush hour traffic on I-75 south not far from where I live. Unfortunately, I saw the freeway was backed up and took an alternate route home from work and didn't see the 150 on the side of the freeway.

In general, I would pick a field before a road (having some experience moving an airplane (Navion) down a two lane country road) if there is one available. In the video, it looks like there may not have been many options. But all in all, it depends.

FWIW - landing on railroad tracks can total an aircraft.

 

[MFE]

What do others here think about landing on highways when one has an engine out?
... I'll look for another spot.

Opinions?

I mean, just *look* at all those more other, more favorable spots!

 

[donjohnston]

Yeah, I'd like to see some data on that too.

 

[wanttaja]

What do others here think about landing on highways when one has an engine out?

More often than not, people are hurt on the ground.

Ummm, no.

Recently I looked at the aftermath of engine failures in homebuilt aircraft, including the pilot's choices for places to land. There were 50 instances of pilots choosing roads for their emergency landings. This is from 2011 through 2020.

Only one case (WPR16FA091) resulted in fatal injuries to anyone on the ground. Otherwise, didn't see any entries about injuries to people not in the aircraft. Six of the cases involved aircraft striking vehicles on the roads (plus one hitting a tombstone!). There was a seventh case of hitting a vehicle, but this was essentially an overrun from the runway.

This is a slide from a presentation I gave to for the EAA Homebuilt Week last January. As you can see, roads are a pretty good option.


Ron Wanttaja

 

[Morgan3820]

I would go for a rural interstate, as it is often wide without power poles. Two lanes + shoulder with traffic going the same way. Not so good for a secondary road.
Does anybody else evaluate fields for suitability for future reference, while driving by?

 

[Himayeti]

Ummm, no.

Recently I looked at the aftermath of engine failures in homebuilt aircraft, including the pilot's choices for places to land. There were 50 instances of pilots choosing roads for their emergency landings. This is from 2011 through 2020.

Only one case (WPR16FA091) resulted in fatal injuries to anyone on the ground. Otherwise, didn't see any entries about injuries to people not in the aircraft. Six of the cases involved aircraft striking vehicles on the roads (plus one hitting a tombstone!). There was a seventh case of hitting a vehicle, but this was essentially an overrun from the runway.

This is a slide from a presentation I gave to for the EAA Homebuilt Week last January. As you can see, roads are a pretty good option.

View attachment 108644
Ron Wanttaja

No question that the survival rate is better for pilots.

My question is at what cost to those in the ground.?

https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/02/us/plane-hits-car-on-interstate/index.html

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Recently I looked at the aftermath of engine failures in homebuilt aircraft, including the pilot's choices for places to land.

I assume that this is based on accidents / incidents that actually made it into the NTSB data base - so ones where nothing got bent and no one got hurt wouldn't be included. Correct?


FWIW - I applaud (and thank you for) your efforts to get something close to reasonable numbers from the NTSB data - calling it a stinking mess would be an understatement.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

My question is at what cost to those in the ground.?

There were 50 instances of pilots choosing roads for their emergency landings. This is from 2011 through 2020.
Only one case (WPR16FA091) resulted in fatal injuries to anyone on the ground. Otherwise, didn't see any entries about injuries to people not in the aircraft

Does that answer your question?

 

[Morgan3820]

Ummm, no.

Recently I looked at the aftermath of engine failures in homebuilt aircraft, including the pilot's choices for places to land. There were 50 instances of pilots choosing roads for their emergency landings. This is from 2011 through 2020.

Only one case (WPR16FA091) resulted in fatal injuries to anyone on the ground. Otherwise, didn't see any entries about injuries to people not in the aircraft. Six of the cases involved aircraft striking vehicles on the roads (plus one hitting a tombstone!). There was a seventh case of hitting a vehicle, but this was essentially an overrun from the runway.

This is a slide from a presentation I gave to for the EAA Homebuilt Week last January. As you can see, roads are a pretty good option.

View attachment 108644
Ron Wanttaja

I wonder why putting down in a marsh has a relatively poor outcome? I would have guessed otherwise.

 

[Himayeti]

Does that answer your question?

Statistically yes.

Morally, no.

 

[Justin Brady]

I wonder why putting down in a marsh has a relatively poor outcome? I would have guessed otherwise.

I had the same question. Probably fixed gear aircraft with gear sinking into the mud and cartwheeling the aircraft.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I wonder why putting down in a marsh has a relatively poor outcome? I would have guessed otherwise.

Upside down. There was a recent death in Florida due to this.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I had the same question. Probably fixed gear aircraft with gear sinking into the mud and cartwheeling the aircraft.

In 100% of the forced landings in a marsh that I have personally witnessed, yea, rolled about 1 airplane length and over she went. (Tripacer, no one injured)

But from Ron't numbers, a runway is barely better than average - better to go into the water.
Fortunately for me, I fly off an island, so lots of water around.

 

[Himayeti]

In 100% of the forced landings in a marsh that I have personally witnessed, yea, rolled about 1 airplane length and over she went. (Tripacer, no one injured)

But from Ron't numbers, a runway is barely better than average - better to go into the water.
Fortunately for me, I fly off an island, so lots of water around.

So with these numbers, if a runway is barely better than water, and a highway is a runway full of obstacles, water, however dense, seems the way to go.

In the case of a marsh, one may take out a few alligators though, which is probably better than a fellow human.

 

[Cloudhound]

More often than not, people are hurt on the ground.

vs. what, hurt in the air??

 

[Zeldman]

I wonder why putting down in a marsh has a relatively poor outcome?

Alligators and bigfoot.??

 

[Himayeti]

vs. what, hurt in the air??

Ugh. That's the point of this discussion. "It's not all about me - the pilot or those on the plane."

When making such decisions, empathy is important and those that you put at risk on the ground are also important.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ugh. That's the point of this discussion. "It's not all about me - the pilot or those on the plane."

When making such decisions, empathy is important and those that you put at risk on the ground are also important.

The point is, unless you have proof to the contrary, your “more often than not” statement is blatantly false.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Ugh. That's the point of this discussion. "It's not all about me - the pilot or those on the plane."

When making such decisions, empathy is important and those that you put at risk on the ground are also important.

It depends on your level of empathy. If you don’t want to expose others to risk because of your decisions as a pilot the only way to eliminate it completely is to not fly. Every time you saddle up you expose others to risk.

The statistical answer you were provided is good data for you to base your empathy based decision.

Don’t forget that if you die landing in a less survivable spot to have zero chance of hurting others physically you just caused immense psychological injury to others by not coming home.

It’s a balance. Only you can decide what’s right for you.

I will say that if you die in a tree beside a nice road I’ll just figure one less idiot in the gene pool

 

[MooneyDriver78]

Assuming a 4 lane highway and you land with traffic, you should be able to “merge” in with light traffic but be prepared to go the shoulder and sacrifice the plane.
Most of the planes we fly have stall speeds below 65mph, so we should be able to match highway speed.

 

[Morgan3820]

Alligators and bigfoot.??

There ain’t no bigfoot in marshes. Everyone knows that’s where the Mothman be.

 

[Morgan3820]

Upside down. There was a recent death in Florida due to this.

Then, leave the gear up?

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Then, leave the gear up?

Do they retract? In the recent case, they were down and welded, as they say.

 

[wanttaja]

No question that the survival rate is better for pilots.

My question is at what cost to those in the ground.?

Re-read my original post. "Only one case (WPR16FA091) resulted in fatal injuries to anyone on the ground." That's out of fifty accidents.

Objects-wise, six of the fifty involved hitting vehicles, mostly with no injuries to the occupants. As I said in the original post.

Note that there were fifty accidents, and one ground fatality, out of about 1,800 homebuilt accidents.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Morgan3820]

Do they retract? In the recent case, they were down and welded, as they say.

Mine retract. In the recent case, yes down and welded.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Re-read my original post. "Only one case (WPR16FA091) resulted in fatal injuries to anyone on the ground." That's out of fifty accidents.

Objects-wise, six of the fifty involved hitting vehicles, mostly with no injuries to the occupants. As I said in the original post.

Note that there were fifty accidents, and one ground fatality, out of about 1,800 homebuilt accidents.

Ron Wanttaja

Re-read his post. His super power is empathy and 1/50 rate is way to high.

let the horse remain dehydrated.

 

[Zeldman]

There ain’t no bigfoot in marshes. Everyone knows that’s where the Mothman be.

Oh that's right... marshes are where the Florida skunk ape hangs out...

 

[wanttaja]

I wonder why putting down in a marsh has a relatively poor outcome? I would have guessed otherwise.

Relatively low number of incidents, too. Does tend to skew the statistics.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Statistically yes.

So, you admit making up your "More often than not, people are hurt on the ground" statistic.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Ugh. That's the point of this discussion. "It's not all about me - the pilot or those on the plane."

When making such decisions, empathy is important and those that you put at risk on the ground are also important.

Are you a pilot? You DO realize that if the airplane loses its engine, it's coming down, right? The pilot may not have many options.

One thing I noted when reviewing my data for this discussion is how many of the pilots opted for dirt roads/feeder roads/private driveways rather than big 'ol highways. One of the advantages to flying is that you DON'T have to follow the main roads...and you can often shorten the trip distance by "cutting the corners" that the highways have to take.

 

[Capngrog]

Oh that's right... marshes are where the Florida skunk ape hangs out...

Don't forget the chupacabras and the huge boas/pythons of the Everglades.

 

[Clip4]

Ummm, no.

Recently I looked at the aftermath of engine failures in homebuilt aircraft, including the pilot's choices for places to land. There were 50 instances of pilots choosing roads for their emergency landings. This is from 2011 through 2020.

Only one case (WPR16FA091) resulted in fatal injuries to anyone on the ground. Otherwise, didn't see any entries about injuries to people not in the aircraft. Six of the cases involved aircraft striking vehicles on the roads (plus one hitting a tombstone!). There was a seventh case of hitting a vehicle, but this was essentially an overrun from the runway.

This is a slide from a presentation I gave to for the EAA Homebuilt Week last January. As you can see, roads are a pretty good option.

View attachment 108644
Ron Wanttaja

Are those values experimental aircraft?

 

[Velocity173]

Look at the terrain in the video you posted. Swain county isn’t a place with flat open fields. A road was the best option for that pilot under those particular circumstances. If I’m in Kansas, then yeah I’m going for a field.

 

[Himayeti]

Are you a pilot? You DO realize that if the airplane loses its engine, it's coming down, right? The pilot may not have many options.

One thing I noted when reviewing my data for this discussion is how many of the pilots opted for dirt roads/feeder roads/private driveways rather than big 'ol highways. One of the advantages to flying is that you DON'T have to follow the main roads...and you can often shorten the trip distance by "cutting the corners" that the highways have to take.

Hehe. I fly power planes, helicopters and sailplanes. I have thousands of landings without an engine. And that's why I know there are other options than simply heading for the nearest highway. Thx.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I have thousands of landings without an engine. And that's why I know there are other options than simply heading for the nearest highway. Thx.

Im glad you finally learned that. Most of us don’t require thousands of landings without an engine to figure it out.

 

[Himayeti]

Im glad you finally learned that. Most of us don’t require thousands of landings without an engine to figure it out.

Hehe. You sound like my 17 year old son.

 

[wanttaja]

Are those values experimental aircraft?

As I stated in the post, "Recently I looked at the aftermath of engine failures in homebuilt aircraft, including the pilot's choices for places to land." Homebuilt aircraft have a higher rate of loss of engine power accidents and thus provide more information. About 32% of all homebuilt accidents begin with a loss of engine power (due to mechanical or pilot reasons), vs. about 15% of non-instruction Cessna 172 accidents.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Hehe. I fly power planes, helicopters and sailplanes. I have thousands of landings without an engine. And that's why I know there are other options than simply heading for the nearest highway. Thx.

"On the Internet, know one knows if you're a dog." Easy enough to claim expertise on an anonymous account.

There are *occasionally* other options. Not always, though. Over a third of homebuilt accidents involving aircraft power failure occur on the initial climb; over half occur within the pattern. Some airports are still in the country, but many of the most-active are in populated areas.

Take this photo. The Cardinal lost its engine taking off to the south at my home airport, about 30 years ago. Picked a pretty good field. Today, though, that very spot has a daycare, surrounded my strip malls, a grocery store, a Lowe's and several high-rise apartments. No good choices...and it's where I fly from, now. I've mentally designated a few places to try set down if I lose an engine, but I *don't* fly a high L/D airplane. If my engine quits, I throw out a brick and fly formation with it.

The other factor to consider is the relative fatality rate of the attempt to land on a road after an engine failure. As I posted earlier, there was one ground fatality out of 50 forced landings to a road...out of 1,800 homebuilt accidents over a ten year period. That's a rate of about 0.05% of the total accidents.

Coincidentally, in 2019, there were about 1,700 aircraft accidents of ALL types. Homebuilts comprised about 10% of the total, but if we use the full rate of 0.05% for the overall fleet, we're STILL looking at maybe one fatality due to an aircraft in a loss-of-power situation landing on a road.

In contrast, there were about 6,200 pedestrians who died after being hit by cars that year.

Seems to me that people would be better served if you spent your efforts trying to reduce the pedestrian slaughter.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Salty]

Depends on the road and traffic. Landing on a road can be an opportunity to participate in an airplane crash and an automobile crash simultaneously.

When @Salty had his engine failure, there was a road nearby but with substantial traffic, so he elected to set the plane down in an orange grove. Totaled the plane, but there were no injuries.

As we crossed the road (a few seconds after making the decision not to land on it) we saw some power lines on the near side of the road. Honestly, I think we would not have made it had I decided to head for the road. I don’t see how I would have been able to avoid the lines once I committed to turn to make the road. We were very low, so there wasn’t time to notice such things like power lines, with more altitude a better decision could be made, but barring an interstate, I would likely avoid a road unless I could verify there were no lines.