Why does a lot of pilots fear flying over water?

Henning said:
The mind is an incredible thing, everything we feel, everything we think, it is all a construct of the mind. When one is facing death at nose rubbing distance, it is peaceful, even if one is thinking and working at 15 times normal speed doing what you need to make it work out, or if you detach from that particular reality as a viewer from the outside, it is completely calm and peaceful, more peaceful than you have ever been.
Click to expand...

I guess at that point, your life flashes before your very eyes!
 
Scott@KTYR said:
I was one of those guys until last week. We just returned from our trip to the Bahamas. After the first 2.5 hour flight from Ft. Pierce to Long Island BS I felt good about flying over water. Raft behind the seat, life jacket on, flying high enough to glide close to land if engine out. It is No Big Deal!!! We are already planning our next trip back.
Click to expand...


Scott,

Did you go with Air Journey? seems like a fun trip!
 
The IFR system is not designed around having multi engine per se. In fact, there are several routings that are separate for single vs. twins. As an example, if you're passing through New York City area coming from the DC area going to the BOS area, a twin will get you assigned V139 over the sound. A single will get V16 that goes right over JFK and keeps you over land all the time. These are assigned single vs. twin-engine routings.

That said, instrument flight certainly benefits from multi engines from a failure perspective since you theoretically can continue flying on airways or on other instrument procedures to a suitable point of landing if one engine quits. Possible in a single with an excellent glide ratio from a high altitude, but good luck with that in practice.

Keep in mind that GA is continuing to move more and more towards single engine aircraft than ever before. The Cessna propeller line-up is all singles. Beechcraft has the Baron, but they only sell about 40 of those a year at the moment. Piper makes twins, but none that are worth buying in my opinion, and their flagship is - yep, the Malibu/Meridian. Cirrus, Columbia/Lancair, TBM - all singles. Not many experimental twins out there. Today I found out that Cessneechcraft is coming out with a new airplane. It's a single. No ideas what else there is about it (the Cessneechcraft rep wouldn't say), but it's a single. He also didn't say whether it would be a Cessna or a Beech.
 
Henning said:
The mind is an incredible thing, everything we feel, everything we think, it is all a construct of the mind. When one is facing death at nose rubbing distance, it is peaceful, even if one is thinking and working at 15 times normal speed doing what you need to make it work out, or if you detach from that particular reality as a viewer from the outside, it is completely calm and peaceful, more peaceful than you have ever been.
Click to expand...

Where in hell did this BS come from?
 
flyingriki said:
Where in hell did this BS come from?
Click to expand...

Whitewater kayaking, got upset and held in the bottom of a hole in a rapid. Things went from terribly chaotic to very calm and quiet, and slowed down to peaceful and bliss.
 
Brian posted this on the Purple Board:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...trouble_in_the.html?google_editors_picks=trueDrowning Doesn't Look Like Drowning

In many child drownings, adults are nearby but have no idea the victim is dying. Here’s what to look for.


The new captain jumped from the deck, fully dressed, and sprinted through the water. A former lifeguard, he kept his eyes on his victim as he headed straight for the couple swimming between their anchored sportfisher and the beach. “I think he thinks you’re drowning,” the husband said to his wife. They had been splashing each other and she had screamed but now they were just standing, neck-deep on the sand bar. “We’re fine; what is he doing?” she asked, a little annoyed. “We’re fine!” the husband yelled, waving him off, but his captain kept swimming hard. ”Move!” he barked as he sprinted between the stunned owners. Directly behind them, not 10 feet away, their 9-year-old daughter was drowning. Safely above the surface in the arms of the captain, she burst into tears, “Daddy!”

How did this captain know—from 50 feet away—what the father couldn’t recognize from just 10? Drowning is not the violent, splashing call for help that most people expect. The captain was trained to recognize drowning by experts and years of experience. The father, on the other hand, had learned what drowning looks like by watching television. If you spend time on or near the water (hint: that’s all of us) then you should make sure that you and your crew know what to look for whenever people enter the water. Until she cried a tearful, “Daddy,” she hadn’t made a sound. As a former Coast Guard rescue swimmer, I wasn’t surprised at all by this story. Drowning is almost always a deceptively quiet event. The waving, splashing, and yelling that dramatic conditioning (television) prepares us to look for is rarely seen in real life.

The Instinctive Drowning Response—so named by Francesco A. Pia, Ph.D., is what people do to avoid actual or perceived suffocation in the water. And it does not look like most people expect. There is very little splashing, no waving, and no yelling or calls for help of any kind. To get an idea of just how quiet and undramatic from the surface drowning can be, consider this: It is the No. 2 cause of accidental death in children, ages 15 and under (just behind vehicle accidents)—of the approximately 750 children who will drown next year, about 375 of them will do so within 25 yards of a parent or other adult. In some of those drownings, the adult will actually watch the child do it, having no idea it is happening.* Drowning does not look like drowning—Dr. Pia, in an article in the Coast Guard’s On Scene magazine, described the Instinctive Drowning Response like this:

“Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled before speech occurs.
Drowning people’s mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people’s mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water.
Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe.
Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment.
From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people’s bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.”

This doesn’t mean that a person that is yelling for help and thrashing isn’t in real trouble—they are experiencing aquatic distress. Not always present before the Instinctive Drowning Response, aquatic distress doesn’t last long—but unlike true drowning, these victims can still assist in their own rescue. They can grab lifelines, throw rings, etc.

Look for these other signs of drowning when persons are in the water:

Head low in the water, mouth at water level
Head tilted back with mouth open
Eyes glassy and empty, unable to focus
Eyes closed
Hair over forehead or eyes
Not using legs—vertical
Hyperventilating or gasping
Trying to swim in a particular direction but not making headway
Trying to roll over on the back
Appear to be climbing an invisible ladder

So if a crew member falls overboard and everything looks OK—don’t be too sure. Sometimes the most common indication that someone is drowning is that they don’t look like they’re drowning. They may just look like they are treading water and looking up at the deck. One way to be sure? Ask them, “Are you all right?” If they can answer at all—they probably are. If they return a blank stare, you may have less than 30 seconds to get to them. And parents—children playing in the water make noise. When they get quiet, you get to them and find out why.
Click to expand...
 
bahama flier said:
At one time I did some FAA Safety Seminars about this topic, with research from the FAA, it was found that around 96% survival rate was in the water during a CONTROLLED water landing, (not a straight in crash). On land it was about 85% during a CONTROLLED landing, but of the persons surviving the controlled landing on land, 42% died from being burned to death.

I always carry the inflatable life preservers behind each seat in my aircraft and a raft, even when flying over land.

I am sure the stats have changed now but that stat was from 8 years ago, and no difference between fixed gear or retract gear, nor between single or twin. In the two hundred cases that were studied, only one airplane flipped during a water landing.

Give me water over trees anytime, just me...
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I determined through my research as well.
 
Out west, we have real forests that are miles of dense 80' pines, not the sissy-pants, panty-waist orchards back east. If you pick the trees, you'll slow to zero while you're still 50' up and then fall straight down. Water is a much better option.
 
MAKG1 said:
I wouldn't.

You can survive forced landings even on mountainsides if done correctly -- there was even a case of a student pilot doing just that a year or so ago after getting lost in the mountains and running out of performance.

If you ditch in even moderately cold water without a survival suit that you are wearing at all times, you aren't likely to survive. I find it amazing that people think they will be able to pull a raft out of cargo with an airplane upside down and sinking. Don't bother taking it unless it is ON YOU. Otherwise, it's going down with the plane. A PFD is a much better choice than a raft…but only if you're wearing it. And you need a survival suit any time useful consciousness is shorter than expected rescue time.

Ditchings in San Francisco Bay (which happen every once in a while due to the low Class B floor) are too often fatal, due to hypothermia. That's less than 5 miles wide.

That doesn't mean we don't do it. It's hard to approach any of the bayside airports without flying over the Bay from some directions. But it does mean we get nervous. Fly over the bay with as much speed and as much altitude as you can. And pick a narrow spot. I like to start crossings at Train Bridge and make for Cooley Landing at PAO, above 2000 and at best forward speed until the far shore is within gliding distance. Class B floor is 2500, and there ain't no clearances over the Bay unless you're on approach to KSFO, or very high.
Click to expand...

I've heard you shouldn't put the vest on until you've egressed the airplane because it could pin you against the roof of the plane if it ends up fully submerged. Just a thought.
 
Henning said:
The question is, how are your water survival skills?
Click to expand...

Well, like you were explaining about the Catalina crossing, if you choose a landing in the vicinity of a boat that is making the crossing you have a good chance of being picked up. Between now and September the water temperatures are mild enough that you can survive a reasonable amount of time before hypothermia sets in. I always carry a PDF if I'm making the crossing and I know the Coast Guard can have a helicopter on scene within 15 minutes. Depending on which plane I'm in the ballistic chute would be option #1 for ditching. If I'm in one of the older Pipers or Cessnas that lack this option I'd bring the airplane into ground effect, I'd apply maximum back pressure to reduce airspeed and therefore impact force. I'd already have the door(s) propped open ready to exit.

I've pulled plenty of NTSB reports where the pilots made controlled landings on Catalina and died in the post-impact fire. Unless I am certain the location is suitable for landing I would consider the water landing significantly more survivable, especially with a BRS equipped aircraft. Imagine trying a forced landing at AVX and coming up short on final? Not a lot of options except a 45 degree steep turn back around and towards the water. Now imagine you are long? You are almost certainly going to be having a bad day...
 
Last edited:
Assuming the parachute deploys correctly and the sea is calm enough I imagine it could be a rather smooth touchdown vs a 10kt vertical collision with solid earth, trees, etc... Chances of fire are obviously going to be further diminished in this scenario also.

So yes, ultimately all it comes down to is how long you have to survive in the water.
 
Last edited:
garyb said:
Out west, we have real forests that are miles of dense 80' pines, not the sissy-pants, panty-waist orchards back east. If you pick the trees, you'll slow to zero while you're still 50' up and then fall straight down. Water is a much better option.
Click to expand...

Grew up in Arizona, buddy. Also lived in Colorado. I know what a forest and mountains are. There is also no ocean right next to those 80' pines.
 
vdehart said:
I've heard you shouldn't put the vest on until you've egressed the airplane because it could pin you against the roof of the plane if it ends up fully submerged. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. You just don't want an auto-inflating vest on in a non- ejection seat aircraft. You can wear a manual inflating vest as long as you do not inflate it prior to exiting.
 
vdehart said:
Assuming the parachute deploys correctly and the sea is calm enough I imagine it could be a rather smooth touchdown vs a 10kt vertical collision with solid earth, trees, etc...
Click to expand...

If you are talking about a Cirrus chute, not necessarily. The chute is designed to work in conjunction with the landing gear to absorb the touchdown impact. You will experience a much stronger vertical force landing on water. But a water chute landing has been demonstrated to be survivable.
 
vdehart said:
Assuming the parachute deploys correctly and the sea is calm enough I imagine it could be a rather smooth touchdown vs a 10kt vertical collision with solid earth, trees, etc...
Click to expand...

If you are talking about a Cirrus chute, not necessarily. The chute is designed to work in conjunction with the landing gear to absorb the touchdown impact. You will experience a much stronger vertical force landing on water. But a water chute landing has been demonstrated to be survivable.
 
vdehart said:
I've heard you shouldn't put the vest on until you've egressed the airplane because it could pin you against the roof of the plane if it ends up fully submerged. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

We used the Life Jacket that does not inflate until you pull the cord.
 
Scott@KTYR said:
We used the Life Jacket that does not inflate until you pull the cord.
Click to expand...

Good, those are the ones you want for airplanes, especially the ones with one door. The bonus is they are a bit cheaper than the hydrostatic release ones.:D
 
bahama flier said:
At one time I did some FAA Safety Seminars about this topic, with research from the FAA, it was found that around 96% survival rate was in the water during a CONTROLLED water landing, (not a straight in crash). On land it was about 85% during a CONTROLLED landing, but of the persons surviving the controlled landing on land, 42% died from being burned to death.
Click to expand...
.42*.85 + .15 = .5

50% of those who make a forced landing die? NFW.

Perhaps 50% of those who end up having a big enough accident to end up in the NTSB data base, but not 50% of the people in every forced landing. I personally know quite a few people who have put an airplane down in a field with no damage, no injuries, no "investigation" etc. So, if you exclude all of the events that don't even get reported to the FAA and look at the statistics based on those accidents that are bad enough to cause significant damage, then , perhaps 50%. But a 50% chance of ending up dead every time the fan stops? Someone is playing real loose with the numbers.

On the other hand, I would bet that close to 100% of the ditchings result in a loss of aircraft and so most all would end up in the data base.

Apples, oranges.

Totally different denominators (a fraction of the land, nearly all of the water) gives you a total nonsense comparison.

GIGO
 
In Duluth, pilot killed in Lake Superior crash was from Germany
Forum News Service
POSTED: 06/11/2014 12:01:00 AM CDT
UPDATED: 06/12/2014 06:17:15 AM CDT

A St. Louis County medical examiner's report found that Obersteg died of injuries suffered in the crash and not as a result of a medical emergency prior to impact.

Obersteg is believed to have been the only occupant of the plane, which went down 1.2 miles off Brighton Beach on Saturday morning, according to a report from the St. Louis County Sheriff's Office. He had taken off from Duluth International Airport after arriving from Bend, Ore., and is believed to have been headed to Goose Bay, Labrador, en route to the ultimate destination of his hometown in Germany.

The cause of the crash remains undetermined, and the Federal Aviation Administration continues to investigate.

Obersteg was flying a Lancair IV, a single-engine kit-built airplane.

The plane's wreckage, which came to rest in about 137 feet of water, has yet to be recovered, but authorities are making plans to retrieve the craft.


http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_25945626/duluth-pilot-killed-lake-superior-crash-was-from
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
.42*.85 + .15 = .5

50% of those who make a forced landing die? NFW.

Perhaps 50% of those who end up having a big enough accident to end up in the NTSB data base, but not 50% of the people in every forced landing. I personally know quite a few people who have put an airplane down in a field with no damage, no injuries, no "investigation" etc. So, if you exclude all of the events that don't even get reported to the FAA and look at the statistics based on those accidents that are bad enough to cause significant damage, then , perhaps 50%. But a 50% chance of ending up dead every time the fan stops? Someone is playing real loose with the numbers.

On the other hand, I would bet that close to 100% of the ditchings result in a loss of aircraft and so most all would end up in the data base.

Apples, oranges.

Totally different denominators (a fraction of the land, nearly all of the water) gives you a total nonsense comparison.

GIGO
Click to expand...

OK, it's worse than I thought.

I just went through the NTSB data base for May 2012. I come up with 34 "controlled landings" on land due to loss of power or inflight fire or... (not including accidents at an airport due to loss of control or unable to climb or...) involving a total of 61 people.

Results:
57 survivors 4 fatal. A survival rate of 93% on land. The 4 fatal (and one survivor) were in an aircraft that had an inflight fire and cartwheeled on landing.

And these don't count the forced landings that didn't make it into the NTSB data base.

Whoever came up with those numbers for an FAA safety seminar should be slapped upside the head. More than once.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I noticed from previous forums how a lot of pilots fear flying over water. Why is that? Is it because your calculations have to be accurate? Or maybe the fear of an engine out? Inquiring minds want to know!


Thank You,
Click to expand...

Fear of drowning, death by hypothermia, and lack of alternate landing sites in the event of an emergency.
 
How about some advantages of an emergency over water.

In a single you are going into the water, period. No indecision about making an airport, road, field, whatever.

Water is flat and wide open. Look down over a large city and it is clear, water has HUGE advantages vs. some other areas we fly over.

Water is an endless runway. I watch so many guys that can't hit a runway within a 1000' one way or the other with no emergency. When there is one the chances of them putting it down perfectly in some little open spot, zero to none.

Water is a lot softer than rocks, tall dense forrest, buildings, etc. We can debate all we want about water survival, moot point in other situations where you are dead on impact.

Now that I think about it, I may have to fly over water as much as possible for safety.:)
 
One small nit, water is only softer than rock to a certain angle for all practical purposes when it comes to survivable impact. You hit it steep enough or with enough energy, it won't make a difference which you hit.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
OK, it's worse than I thought.

I just went through the NTSB data base for May 2012. I come up with 34 "controlled landings" on land due to loss of power or inflight fire or... (not including accidents at an airport due to loss of control or unable to climb or...) involving a total of 61 people.

Results:
57 survivors 4 fatal. A survival rate of 93% on land. The 4 fatal (and one survivor) were in an aircraft that had an inflight fire and cartwheeled on landing.

And these don't count the forced landings that didn't make it into the NTSB data base.

Whoever came up with those numbers for an FAA safety seminar should be slapped upside the head. More than once.
Click to expand...

They subcontracted out to the BRS and Cirrus PR departments.:yes:
 
Alexb2000 said:
How about some advantages of an emergency over water.

In a single you are going into the water, period. No indecision about making an airport, road, field, whatever.

Water is flat and wide open. Look down over a large city and it is clear, water has HUGE advantages vs. some other areas we fly over.

Water is an endless runway. I watch so many guys that can't hit a runway within a 1000' one way or the other with no emergency. When there is one the chances of them putting it down perfectly in some little open spot, zero to none.

Water is a lot softer than rocks, tall dense forrest, buildings, etc. We can debate all we want about water survival, moot point in other situations where you are dead on impact.

Now that I think about it, I may have to fly over water as much as possible for safety.:)
Click to expand...

I think the argument is if a plane lands on water there is another whole series of risks, (Sharks, Can you swim, fear of being trapped in the cockpit). IMO I believe the risks are about the same if you land on the ground. If you know you are going to fly over water and bring the necessary emergency equipment with you, your risks are diminished, (NOT eliminated but diminished).
 
There's one big thing that's different... drowning. If you happen to bump your head and are "knocked-out" for 60 seconds. On ground you'll be OK... in water you might drown or be out-of-it long enough to do none of the things you were planning on to survive.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Water is flat and wide open.
Click to expand...

There are these things called swells... they can be quite large. You may have difficulty discerning how they are running, and they can complicate a ditching...

Alexb2000 said:
Water is a lot softer than rocks, tall dense forrest, buildings, etc.
Click to expand...
Treetops can make for a soft/gradual stop.. or not..

Id rather take my chances in an off airport landing in 60 degree weather than a ditching in 60 degree water...
 
Doggtyred said:
There are these things called swells... they can be quite large. You may have difficulty discerning how they are running, and they can complicate a ditching...

Treetops can make for a soft/gradual stop.. or not..

Id rather take my chances in an off airport landing in 60 degree weather than a ditching in 60 degree water...
Click to expand...

When the swell is big enough to matter, you are either so far from shore you don't have an option but go for the water, or the wind is blowing so strong there will be no question as to which way it is running.

The real question that comes up with bigger seas is "Which direction do I ditch?", and the answer is "Parrallel on the back side of the crest."
 
So with the hypothetical discussion of 100' trees vs ditching in water, something jumped out at me. If you can glide to land or water there's usually either a beach or at least an area close to the land with shallow water. Even if that water isn't shallow, it's still close to land so you have a chance to swim out of it. So why not aim for either the beach or the edge of the water?
 
cowman said:
So with the hypothetical discussion of 100' trees vs ditching in water, something jumped out at me. If you can glide to land or water there's usually either a beach or at least an area close to the land with shallow water. Even if that water isn't shallow, it's still close to land so you have a chance to swim out of it. So why not aim for either the beach or the edge of the water?
Click to expand...

You bet I would take the beach. Except a lot of beaches have people all over them. If so I'll go far enough out not to hit anyone, but still within easy swimming range.
 
cowman said:
So with the hypothetical discussion of 100' trees vs ditching in water, something jumped out at me. If you can glide to land or water there's usually either a beach or at least an area close to the land with shallow water. Even if that water isn't shallow, it's still close to land so you have a chance to swim out of it. So why not aim for either the beach or the edge of the water?
Click to expand...
here is what many of our beaches look like. Knock yourself out (literally).

As for the water it's about 50F in the heat of the summertime, 35F this time of year. Even if you managed to stay conscious you'll just get pounded to pieces by the surf against the rocks.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • beach.jpg
    beach.jpg
    204 KB · Views: 213
cowman said:
So with the hypothetical discussion of 100' trees vs ditching in water, something jumped out at me. If you can glide to land or water there's usually either a beach or at least an area close to the land with shallow water. Even if that water isn't shallow, it's still close to land so you have a chance to swim out of it. So why not aim for either the beach or the edge of the water?
Click to expand...

If that is an option, I would take it. I am not as confident as you that it will be an option. I know a hell of a lot of coastline where it is impossible to get ashore alive.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I noticed from previous forums how a lot of pilots fear flying over water. Why is that? Is it because your calculations have to be accurate? Or maybe the fear of an engine out? Inquiring minds want to know!


Thank You,
Click to expand...

sharks:yikes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top